The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the KCK’s head, Abdullah Öcalan, in various statements has put emphasis on Kurdish self-defense forces. Many Turkish intellectuals think that Öcalan is emphasizing the PKK’s fight against the state security forces when what Öcalan is actually referring to is self-defense forces.
Yet for those who have clearly monitored the developments of the PKK’s self-defense forces will find they are a separate branch within the KCK network and that Öcalan does not use the term self-defense for the PKK’s fight. For Öcalan there are very clear distinctions between the PKK’s fight and the self-defense forces.
By using the ANC model, Öcalan has established self-defense forces that maintain the policing service in Kurdish communities. In the South African model, when the ANC’s armed wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), stopped its violence, self-defense units filled the gap during the transition period to protect pro-ANC communities against government assaults and opposition groups attacks. The self defense units (SDUs) for the South African model was a necessity because most Africans who live in towns had already lost their faith in the police and justice system. Therefore, communities had developed their own policing system. In addition, the physical conditions in South Africa where people reside in the townships allowed such model to function.
By using South Africa as a model, Öcalan has also thought about a transition period to implement alternative forces to serve as the “police” in the Kurdish populated areas against the state police. Öcalan believes that most Kurdish people have lost their faith in the police and justice system and therefore a police and justice system of their own needs to be established. Thus, judiciary units and self-defense forces were installed in the KCK structure.
When we look at explanations of why the KCK needs to establish self-defense units, we see similarities with the reasoning that the ANC uses in explaining why it needs to establish self-defense units. “In the wake of the ugly violence against our people by security forces, vigilante groups and hit-squads it is imperative that our liberation movement takes responsibility for guiding and building people’s self-defence units. In the past our attempts to defend ourselves have been spontaneous and sometimes poorly planned, and lacking in discipline. What we need is an organised and disciplined force, guided by political leadership, which will serve both to protect the community and ensure law and order.”
The KCK’s self-defense forces and the ANC’s self-defense units are identical in terms of the organization, structure, training and recruitment. Both emphasize that the creation of a defense system for a township, shanty town, rural district or other such area should first be discussed with local committees.
When we look at the ANC’s structure, similar patters are noticeable. First, both the KCK and the ANC have created township defense forces for designated districts to try out and test in an appropriate setting. With regards to the defense forces both organizations have formed defense committees headed by a commander to maintain communications, intelligence, political instruction and ordinance/logistics (to organize weapons and materials). Both organizations have street defense systems to keep the state police out of the districts where they serve and to disconnect the community’s relations with the state forces.
The ANC’s model had some problems during the experiment, but in the end it served the interests of the political groups that want to implement their policies. Yet, for the Kurds, it is not clear whether such a model would work in the region. First, because the Kurds are not totally disconnected from the state and Turkish state apparatus -- the police forces and judiciary still function in the region. Many people, instead of asking help from the PKK, ask help from the state. Therefore, it is not so easy for the PKK to implement a model that is borrowed from South Africa.
