PARTIZAN: OUR STANCE TOWARDS THE ELECTION IN DERSIM
We publish this unofficial translation of a statement of Partizan.
Our people,
As a result of our general policy regarding the electoral process, our evaluations of the developments and the negotiations, we have concluded: we declare to our people that we will protest the election on the grounds that sufficient conditions are not met in Dersim, where we have the condition to participate in the election in favor of the DEM Party [The Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party], and that approaches that are incompatible with the interests and expectations of the people are dominant here. We do not support any candidate. We see that the reaction that our people have been showing openly for a while, sometimes expressed through action, is appropriate, and that an organization based on this reaction is a basic necessity. We consider it our duty to do justice to this reaction in our work.
THERE IS NO GROUND FOR COMMON AGREEMENT!
Communists try to use all means and opportunities to develop the revolutionary struggle. Our principles and perspective require this. Serving the revolution is possible by determining policies in line with the interests and objective tendencies of the masses. Everything that is not evaluated “for the revolution” and that does not comply with the expectations and objective interests of the people deals blows to the indispensable relationship of trust. This is much more important, especially since elections involve competing by the rules set by the bourgeois-feudal state. As a matter of fact, the latest attack on the trustees is a definitive proof of this reality. The unsuccessful policy followed against the trustees as a blow to the will of the people has created a serious trust issue. While patriotic Kurdish politics continues to be destroyed by all kinds of attacks and the rules of the State, it is a necessity to think in line with this reality. Especially if there is ideological weakness and the belief in the revolution is shaken, the electoral vote will open the door to reformism wide open.
We acted with this understanding during the election process in Dersim. First of all, we want this to be known. We were open to negotiations until the last moment, expecting joint work, and we even had to make a request in this direction. The findings and opinions we will present here are shared as a result of the somehow forced meetings we had with our friends.
Dersim was the scene of unsurprising but still interesting developments and discussions. We acted by paying attention to the approaches of our friends to clarify our policy in Dersim due to their originality and long-established relationships. In the end, what we reached was that our friends thought and acted very far away from us, and that they kept their group interests above of the public’s tendencies and expectations; therefore, the conditions for acting together with them are not met. Undoubtedly, the loss and decline of the political cause, which is particularly represented in the DEM Party, is not or will not be a positive situation when we look at it from the perspective of the public’s interests. However, in order for this cause not to regress or even develop, there must be policies, studies and staff suitable for the cause. Developments in this process have shown that we are far from these. We must say that we will not specifically pursue any work against this case, and that our priority is to organize against those who are hostile to the people. We declare that we are not involved in the election process because appropriate steps were not taken for the case and because it was viewed and acted from the perspective of narrow group interests.
Our evaluation of the developments and discussions in this process will explain the reason for the stance we have taken.
LET FRIENDS SEE IN ALLIANCE
Dersim gains special importance for every political actor, especially when it comes to local elections. For the DEM Party, it is “an important city of Kurdistan that cannot be lost”, in the terms of EMEP [Labor Party] and SMF [Socialist Assemblies Federation] etc. it is “the bastion of socialism.” For former CHP [Republican People’s Party] deputy Hüseyin Aygün and his partners, who will enter the elections as an independent candidate, “Dersim belongs to the people of Dersim, it should be saved from revolutionaries and socialists.” Since H. Aygün and his associates do not have much to consider in terms of the interests of the masses, the possibility of forming an alliance or acting together with this group has not been on our agenda from the very beginning. DEM Party, SMF and EMEP are the friends we address in discussions in this context. Their approaches and general attitudes were monitored and evaluated by us. Of course, we have certain ideas and attitudes about every institution from the very beginning. Accordingly, there are no sufficient conditions for an alliance or joint action in the right direction with both SMF and EMEP in general and especially in Dersim.
SMF and EMEP, which determine all their activities according to elections and are actually stuck in an area limited to elections, enter into a fierce fight in every local election. This fight continues from past to present, sometimes between each other and sometimes both together against DEM and its predecessors. When it comes to parliamentary elections, those who get 1-2 seats and easily form an alliance with DEM and its predecessors do not hesitate to shake their swords at each other to get Dersim Municipality. Since they act according to narrow group interests in a line that is far from principles and revolutionary values, their inconsistencies and practices have been developing against the expectations of the people for a long time, and the interests of the people are often not understood or taken into consideration. If you remember, in the parliamentary elections held in 2023, all of the parties and organizations in question established the “Labor and Freedom Alliance”. However, this alliance collapsed just before the elections. However, it was stated by all actors that this alliance would not only be an electoral alliance, but also a struggle alliance.
This issue is important because it shows that the basis of the alliances in question is far from revolutionary, democratic principles and understanding, and these alliances are insincere. The coming together of these understandings does not concern the development of the struggle and obtaining permanent results. It is disconnected from the real agenda and problems of the people. Therefore, it is far from developing a solution. It searches for solutions to problems within the system without touching the system. It should be known that the source of the problem is the system itself. A radical solution to the problems is impossible without drying up this resource. That is why, to date, these institutions have not been able to develop a consistent democratic policy in municipal elections and even in “municipalism”.
The same result exists today. These understandings, which generally hold the people responsible for every failed practice, have always lagged behind the people, and of course still do today. Our people analyze events and facts more clearly and draw conclusions. The alliance components are tied to each other with a thread. There is an alliance shaped by coercion and “necessity to win”. “Friends should see it while shopping”, our people see the content of this alliance and clearly show their reaction. Of course, it is debatable to what extent it will affect the election results. In conclusion, this reaction is appropriate and justified.
Alliance talks are always drowning in candidacy debates and turning into a fight over just this issue. Of course, every political movement can nominate candidates and present them to the alliance. If they are going to enter the elections with an alliance, this issue, namely the candidate issue, cannot be left out of discussion. However, candidates should be the last topic to be discussed in discussions; firstly, it should be understood about the reasons for coming together and what will be done for what purpose. However, this is not what we see in the alliance established in Dersim, it was acted through a bargaining method in which narrow group interests were decisive. It is clear that the revolutionary struggle will not develop and the masses will not be able to organize with these understandings. On the contrary, this situation leads to degeneration in ideology. It deepens the separation from the public.
In order to understand what we have stated above, let’s take a look at the events that took place between the institutions as far as we know about the situation that has developed so far during the local elections process.
During these elections, both SMF and DEM Party, and EMEP and DEM Party held separate meetings and could not get results from these meetings to form an alliance. From now on, DEM Party shared with the public that it would enter the elections in Dersim with its own candidates. After this statement of the DEM Party, SMF and EMEP made a statement that they had formed an alliance and called on other movements to join this alliance. After the EMEP and SMF alliance was reflected in the public, a statement was made by the DEM Party headquarters and said, “Dersim cannot exist without DEM, and DEM cannot exist without Dersim.” After this statement, mutual discussions started. In the article written by Doğan Durgun in Yeni Yaşam newspaper regarding the alliance established by EMEP and SMF, it was called “Tunçeli alliance” and accusations were made against this alliance by Sırrı Sakık. DEM Party discussed this alliance, which was established despite itself, as a reflection of the “State mentality”. These discussions continued for a few days, and then, with the statements of the party headquarters, it was said that “an alliance was reached in Dersim”. After all the discussions, the parties formed an alliance without developing any self-criticism, which was met with reaction from the people of Dersim.
SMF’s “socialist municipalism” adventure, which started in Ovacık, first abandoned Ovacık to the CHP, then came to Dersim Central Municipality, turned the city into rubble in every sense, and shook the people’s trust in the revolutionaries. Then, during this election process, it went to Kadıköy as if it was running away from the people of Dersim. Manipulation of the masses was created with populist discourses such as “socialist municipalism”, “communist president” and “cooperative socialism”. From free transportation to free water, from student scholarships to the development of village agriculture, by creating a misconception with things that were never actually done, it has shaken the public’s trust in the revolutionaries who have been struggling in these lands for half a century. The masses continue to be deceived from “Kaypakkayaism” to the struggle under the social chauvinist TKP flag. The fact that EMEP and DEM Party, which criticized this entire process before, formed an alliance as if nothing had happened, means that they are united in all these negativities.
Approving the liquidationist group who use the name “Partizan” to be included in the alliance is another indicator of lack of principle. Our friends continue to ignore the fact that this group cannot represent Partizan. Aside from the fact that the line, understanding and way of existence they defend are incompatible with Partizan’s most well-known principles and historical background, it is obvious that they have no following in Dersim. The main reason for this is the attitude of the people of Dersim regarding who and with what principles Partizan is represented. This attitude has been ignored. The problem is clearly a political one. What is the answer to the question “What is the attitude of Partizan in Dersim?” How to explain the contradiction between what the people of Dersim see and know and what the alliance offers? The answer to this question confirms our explanations on the subject and the criticisms we offer. Based on this concrete reality, we once again invite our friends to take the statement we made regarding the name “Partizan” and the attitude we expect.
The name “Partizan” represents a certain line and historical accumulation. The group included in the alliance has broken away from it. We reiterate that addressing this group under the name “Partizan” is unprincipled and incompatible with friendship. We will continue to criticize and reject this wrong attitude in every environment and platform we are in.
We call,
It is clear that this alliance of forces that have lost the trust of the people, formed without self-criticism to the people of Dersim and without being held accountable for these negativities, has no future. We did not have an understanding of being a part of alliances based solely on the possibility of winning elections. We share with the public that we have drawn a clear line between ourselves and this alliance, which neglects to take a sincere and honest stance even though a strong and necessary self-criticism is required and it is faced with an intense reaction from the people of Dersim in particular. We call on all our people to take a stand against these wrongs, apart from their election choices, and to be a part of our insistence on a revolutionary attitude and line.
