By: Dr. Adnan Bozan 

The recent abandonment of the demand for federalism by the Autonomous Administration forces and the Kurdish National Council was not merely a tactical move or a temporary concession. Rather, it was a free gift handed on a silver platter to Ahmad Al-Sharaa (Abu Muhammad Al-Jolani), the so-called transitional government in Damascus, and the forces supporting it. This emboldened them to re-establish central dominance through an exclusionary and unilateral constitution.

We have long warned that retreating from fundamental rights creates an opening for dominant powers to exclude communities lacking sufficient negotiating strength. Nevertheless, Kurdish forces—whether voluntarily or under pressure—chose to forgo the demand for federalism, leading to a diminished scope of Kurdish rights in the draft of the new constitution.

This retreat was not merely the result of internal pressure but also occurred within the framework of regional and international agreements seeking to establish a superficial stability at the expense of the fundamental rights of non-Arab communities. If the Kurds have learned anything from past experiences, it is that negotiating from a position of weakness leads only to further marginalization. Yet, their most strategic demand was abandoned without offering any alternative that guarantees even the minimum of national and cultural rights.

The irony is that this retreat did not yield any real political gains; instead, it led to the marginalization of the Kurdish role in the entire Syrian political process. Those who believed that making concessions would lead to recognition as equal partners now find themselves facing a constitution that reinstates centralization in its worst form. The bigger problem is that these forces have yet to realize that eliminating federalism necessarily means eliminating any possibility of genuine Kurdish representation in Syria’s future.

We have seen political statements and declarations that do not even mention the word “federalism,” as if it has been deliberately erased from the Kurdish political discourse. This raises the pressing question: Who is behind this retreat? And why has this naïve withdrawal resulted only in further marginalization? The belief that adapting to the prevailing international political mood will yield benefits is a grave strategic mistake. Major powers only respect those who hold strong bargaining chips, not those who offer free concessions.

When self-confidence is neglected, others will neglect you. This is the stark reality of today’s Syrian political scene, where the Kurds have transitioned from a political force with a clear project to a marginalized faction excluded from shaping the country's future. Abandoning federalism was not merely relinquishing a political demand—it was the forfeiture of a strategic vision that could have ensured Kurdish rights in a multi-ethnic state.

Now, with the imposition of this exclusionary constitution, mere rejection is not enough. We must recognize that reintroducing federalism as a political solution is the only way to break the vicious cycle of marginalization and exclusion. Any political project built on pleading for recognition from dominant forces is doomed to fail. Only strong, firmly grounded projects can impose themselves on the negotiating table. Will Kurdish forces realize this reality before it is too late?

Add comment