Mam Jalal: ”I have decided to stay active in politics until I reach 65, afterward, even if the whole nation begs me, I will retire”
- KurdishMedia.com
- 20/03/2009 00:00:00
Dear Mam Jalal
The day we joined Komala and PUK, and later when we became Peshmarga, we vouched to dedicate all we have, including our lives, for the service of our nation and homeland.
On this road, we have sacrificed thousands of martyrs, have seen several towns and thousands of villages destroyed. If it wasn’t for these magnificent sacrifices that we have endured, there would have been no uprising in 1991 and we wouldn’t have ended up controlling what we have now.
You, who served as General Secretary of the Union (PUK) for more than 34 years, have spent most of your political life in the Party. You have witnessed the heroic sacrifices that the martyrs gave, amongst whom many were your personal friends and comrades. You witnessed the vicious campaigns of Anfal genocide as well as the resilience of the nation in the face of it. You, with all your brilliant intellect and vast experience, still listened to us, the novice youth, when we became Peshmarga. It’s inconceivable that PUK doesn’t possess the greatest portion of your affections. It’s inconceivable that the higher national interest doesn’t rate superior to all other interest, including your own. It’s inconceivable that PUK’s problems and crises doesn’t arouse anguish and distress within you in equal measure, if not more, to the joy and satisfaction that the triumphs and achievements of the Party fills you with.
You, who deem it your prerogative to claim the glory of the triumphs and achievements of PUK, should also in, my opinion, assume the first responsibility for the crises, conflicts and defeats of the Party.
Today the Union is inflicted with a whirlwind of divisions, cacophony and fissures that threaten the Party’s unity and future.
I have no doubt that you have been aware of these problems for some time. I am also aware of the several attempts that you have made to tackle them but alas, the results suggest that the remedies weren’t adequate.
I don’t believe that there is anyone out there, whether within PUK ranks or outside it, who does not appreciate the gravity of the problems, in that I include those who believe that Kurdistan is basking in its golden age. Even they cannot deny the severity of the situation. This whirlwind has pushed the Party to the brinks of a steep abyss. An abyss that, unless the Party’s faithful members selflessly come to the rescue, will inevitably split up the Party, probably in to several fragments. If this occurs then I am doubtful that any of us could abscond their responsibility for the deterioration of the situation and allowing it to reach that dangerous outcome. The responsibility of each one of us is measured according to their role. If anyone of us is in a position that is able to place even a small hurdle to block this avalanche and chooses not to will be judged by history. You more than all, no doubt.
The Union at the current state of affairs is not uniting us, not even close to be.
All of these efforts given in the hope to reform, restructure or reunite the Party have failed to unit us, and will continue to do so. In fact it has defragmented us even more. What has been implemented so far is not elevating the Party towards progress; instead it is rolling it downwards.
You have to forgive me if I assert that, given your status and authority, you bare the first responsibility for any decline, defeat, rout or rupture, just as you are credited with the lion share of the glory for the triumphs and achievements of the Party. If by an altruistic decision of yours the Party is saved from break up and fragmentation and you decline it, you will be held responsible for the break-up.
With the breakup of the Party the basis of your power and status would decimate with it, in both Kurdistan and Iraq arenas. A fragmented party, whichever faction you end up leading, no matter how sizable it is compared to the others, would be inadequate to support the needs of your stature and standing. With a split PUK the Strategic Accord (between KDP and PUK) would adversely transform and all the political parities would change.
There are tragedies and bitter experiences associated with Party Break-up in the history of Kurdish politics. The break-up of 1964 (KDP) has left such a fissure in the crux of the Kurdish movement that until now, 45 year on, with all the laid bridges and the sealed Strategic Accords, the two sides of the divide have not came together. The Kurds have paid a very heavy price for that break-up. It would be a travesty of historic proportion to repeat any such experiment and it would not be forgiven neither by today’s generation nor tomorrows’.
I can see some individuals within the Union who perceive that their interest lies in the continued discourse and crises in the Party, just as it is customary for war merchants to thrive at times of war and conflict. I believe it is probable that there are individuals in the Party who would depict the crises as small skirmishes that could be resolved by changing few faces. There are people who, right in front of your eyes, have constructed such a thick and a high wall that separates between you and the people, between you and the faithful rank and file of the Union that it has rendered it difficult for you to hear the screams of anger being shouted on the other side of the wall.
Believe me when I tell you that the people, including the Party’s rank and file, are extremely dissatisfied.
They are dissatisfied with the performance of the government and of the Party. They are dissatisfied with the elevated palaces and the inflated wealth of the officials. They are dissatisfied with the thriving of the old Jash, the old Ba’athists, Anfal perpetrators, traitors and the corruption doers. They are dissatisfied with the lack of social justice. They are dissatisfied with the lack of transparency and the wide-spread corruption. They are dissatisfied with the rapid decline in moral and social values. They are dissatisfied with undermining the authority of law and judiciary. They are dissatisfied with strapping up their livelihood, their earning and their security to the Party machinery. They are dissatisfied with the negation of the promises that we have hailed as slogans during the days of the armed struggle. They are dissatisfied with the lack of basic services. They are dissatisfied with the imposition of few privileged people over the will of the many. They are dissatisfied with the ineptitude of the Kurdish leadership in dealing with Kurdish national issues, with the goal of reuniting Kirkuk and the rest of the excluded Kurdish areas with (the federal region of) Kurdistan. They are dissatisfied and angry with the conduct of the Party’s Leadership Committee, the Polit Bureau and the General Secretary. They are so disillusioned that you shouldn’t discount that the day may come when they pour into the streets, stoning those who they see as the responsible for their predicaments. On that day, all of the struggle and the sacrifices that we have endured in the (armed struggle in the) mountain will not be enough to shield us from their wrath.
The wisdom of a leader shines through at times of decline and retreats as much as it does in times of triumph and advance. It is reflected in the responsible and courageous decisions that he may take in the general interest, be it on their own expense, even if it means yielding their powers.
Many are those leaders who achieved greatness in power and reached even higher greatness with relinquishing it.
Winston Churchill achieved great deeds with the defeat of Fascism and dictatorship and invigorating people’s belief in democracy, hence securing his place in history. Faced with fresh challenges, he resigned his premiership on 07/04/1955 before the end of his term because he realised that should he stay in power it would be detrimental to the interest of the people and his own party. This decision secured him an even greater place in history, for I doubt that, if he stayed on he would have been remembered today with the same esteem he currently enjoys.
Nelson Mandela’s greatness stems from his long struggle and his stances. He voluntarily relinquished the presidency and the leadership of his party at the peak of his popularity and became patron of numerous charities and benevolent organisations. From then on, Mandela has been hailed as one of the most beautiful symbols in the world of politics, the world over.
A coincidence once placed me on a table in an ordinary London restaurant next to Mr. Neil Kinnock, whom I believe is a close acquaintance of yours. I seized the moment to thank him as a Kurd for his noble role in supporting my people during the exodus (1991). At the time he was the leader of the Labour Party and the leader of the opposition in the British Parliament. I suggested to him that had he stayed on as a leader he would have, no doubt, became the Prime Minister and would have been in an even better position to support us. His response filled my eyes when he said “I did the right thing when I resigned. My departure saved me great deal of headache and served the party well”. Then he smiled slyly adding “Had I not resigned, the party, probably, would have not reached power”.
The greatness of these people stems from their deeds and stances. When they left power, they did so “with only their gowns”, as the Kurdish proverb says.
Power can bestow magnanimity on its beholder up to a certain point, then after it would reverse it. Even a flower, before it withers and loses its petals, it is better for it to be placed in a beautiful jar, or for an admirer to pin it proudly on his chest.
Those leaders, who achieve greatness in power, when they relinquish it for the good of the people, reach higher statuses. Scarce, very scarce are those leaders who make the journey from the throne to the majestic dream of perpetuity.
I don’t wish to bore you with more examples, of which the history of nations is full of bright ones. Examples of leaders who do not perceive their greatness in the wealth they accumulate, the power they harness, the cronies they plant or in the subjugation of their people.
Had Ghandi concerned himself with acquiring wealth and power, his spectacles and his pair of slippers wouldn’t have fetched $1.2 million today.
The greatness of a leader is in the greatness of the decisions he makes and the stances he takes, the kind of decisions and stances that no one else is able to take; decisions that would serve as a springboard for better and greater changes; changes that could take the society forwards in the right direction.
The whirlwinds that batter the Union today are likely to push it down a treacherous and dangerous path. These whirlwinds that unhinge the Union are entwined with panoply of social and national issues that have roots deep in the wider society and would not be confined to the structure of PUK. I believe that a brave decision taken by you would seriously avert the occurrence of such calamity that is heading towards us.
With your permission, I would like to remind you of one of your own opinions;
It was an afternoon of an early February of 1981, with the snow burying our clay-walled huts to the windowsills, when we visited you, the late Azad Hewrami and I. That afternoon you talked to us about politics, abilities and human aging. You believed that, no matter how able, energetic and gifted a person is, he will only be able to competently perform up to a certain age, and then-after he will gradually start loosing his acumen. You cited the Soviet leaders and the leaders of the Communist parties as examples. You pointed out that they cling to power even when they reach old age and grow senile; and when they die, they lose the respect of not only their population but even their party’s rank and file. You said “I will never allow this to happen to me”. You said, twenty eight years ago, word for word; “I have decided to be active in politics until I reach the age of 65. Afterwards, even if the whole nation begs me to stay on, I will retire”. I remember, as if it was yesterday, you adding cheerfully “it is not a sin if we spend few years of our lives in peace and far from the headaches of politics”. What greatness it would have been had you implemented that decision on time. But it is not too late.
You, who always advocated the supremacy of the national interest over all other interests; you who always emphasised that you would do whatever it is in the national interest; you who are aware that the crises are the result of the accumulation of many problems over a long period of time, and have become the cause of animosity and discourse amongst comrades of struggle within the Union; you who realise that despite of the seriousness and the urgency of the problems that we have within the Union, they are far less serious compared to issues of national interest. The decision that you should have made before now, should be made before the whole of the Union crumbles on our head like a mountain.
With my great respect
Haval Kwestani
28/2/2009
- KurdishMedia.com
- 20/03/2009 00:00:00