It is difficult to achieve the national rights and self-determination of a nation through democracy in the minds and lives of people who have been shaped and educated under the influence and education of dictators and theocratic/religious authorities for decades. To prove the truth of this thesis, it is necessary to point out an essential feature of the concept of democracy.
The democracy, the voice of the people and the moral outcome of a society where democracy has been practiced for decades are very different from those of a society that has not seen the color of democracy. Therefore, when the use of democracy is positive, people vote on an issue with consciousness, honesty and realism.
As sociologists say, democracy can be resolved even in a family when family members are aware of their problems and conflicts.
Voters over the age of fifteen may have a negative impact on the outcome of the process if the source of their voice is not logical or conscious and the issue they are voting on is unknown or not understood in a modern way.
If we want to talk about the formation of the government in East Kurdistan after the fall of the Islamic regime of Iran, this factor, which is individual and collective consciousness, must be measured and not restricted to the pyramid based on belief in voting and democracy.
Obviously, the thinking of individuals under the influence of naked democracy and without consciousness of national interest, national security and nationalist/national thought can be dangerous for a nation.
At the same time, the assimilated and brainwashed Kurds of East Kurdistan and Iran can be dangerous in relation to the Kurdish right to self-determination. But will the political leadership of East Kurdistan society negotiate with the centrists on the basis of democracy or will it make the “right to self-determination” as a red line the dominant discourse of its country?
Historically, contemporary philosophers and scientists have criticized and commented on democracy, although they have not rejected it. These include the famous Greek scientist Socrates and the wise leader of Kurdistan Dr. Abdul Rahman Qasemloo, both of whom died for their beliefs and comments on democracy despite their deep and different views on it.
Socrates, the famous Greek scientist who was indifferent to democracy, was tried for misleading the youth of ancient Greece and killed by several unconscious voices.
Socrates believed that voting should come from consciousness, not ability, that is, the positive effect of voting should be in terms of the voter's consciousness and expertise, and that if the voter was the only criterion for voting age, the process would have negative consequences. According to Socrates' definition of voting, which is part of democracy, an electoral process can be dictatorial and unfair.
د. Abdulrahman Qasemloo says in an interview: Democracy cannot solve the Kurdish issue alone. Although Dr. Qasemloo had a deep belief in democracy, but his knowledge and view of democracy may be similar to that of Socrates.
Rojhelat News is not responsible for the content of this article.
