Original text: Published in December 29, 2013
Since for a
while, “self-management” became a term which began to be used by BDP more
often. (BDP is the pro-Kurdish party which is represented in Turkish Assembly)
It seems the term is more often used since the local elections come closer and
closer which will be held in March 30, 2014. On December 27, Selahattin
Demirtaş, the co-chairman of BDP, while announcing the candidates for provinces
and sub-provinces, have declared that they will establish a new social system
by launching “self-management”. (1)
The usage
of the term “self-management” by Kurdish politicians is not a recent fact. In
the beginning of 2013, Şerafettin Elçi have mentioned that Kurds should obtain
“self-management” in their region(s). (2) Before Elçi, Kemal Burkay have
expressed that, self-management is even demanded by those Kurds who vote for
governing AKP party. In this sense, he argued that self-management is claimed
by every actor in Kurdish national movement. (3) In July 2013, following what
happened in Rojava (Kurdish declaration of autonomy in Northern Syria); the
term self-management is more often uttered by Kurdish national movement. In her
article titled “Democratic Self-Management Revolution in Western Kurdistan”,
dated July 27, 2013, in daily newspaper Özgür Gündem, Aysel Tuğluk wrote:
“Between the dates July 19-22, Kurds in Western Kurdistan, in the cities of Kobani,
Afrin, Dîrka Hamko and Amude have declared that they started to put
self-management into practice!”
It seems
that, following the meeting where the BDP’s candidates for the next local
elections are declared, the term “self-management” will more often be referred.
We have to
say that the definition of the term is a bit ambiguous. We can even say that
there is even not a definition of the concept made by BDP. In Qijike Reş, an
anarchist/Kurdish periodical, in the article titled “Isolatedness,
Self-management and Direct Democracy”; a definition of self-management is done:
“Self-management describes the ideal to have an autonomous, independent
functionality and management in a defined territory ruled by the people who
live on that territory. BDP’s request for self-management can be referred
within this scope.” (4)
Self-management is a concept, which is usually not a popular subject for
theoretical discussions, but preferred to be widely used by various political
agents. For example, it has been stated in the ÖDP’s (Party for Freedom and
Solidarity) party codes that ÖDP takes action for a self-managemantarian
socialism.
The concept was quite popular in 1970’s. During the most brilliant
period of the Yugoslav experience, the concept was very much welcome by those
leftists who were not very happy with concept of communism, who felt horrified
when they heard the term “Leninist party”. Just a few years before the collapse
of Yugoslav model, Uğur Mumcu, a recognized left-wing Turkish journalist who
was assassinated by Islamic terrorists in 1989, praised Titoism: “Being against
Leninism, or being against Soviet Marxism does not mean to be an ‘anti-Marxist’.
Neither Titoism, nor European communism did not cut the ties with Marxist
ideology.” (Cumhuriyet, October 18, 1984) Indeed, today it is very well known
that, how the leading figures of Yugoslav Communists League like Milosevic had
cut their ties with Marxism in those years.
If “nationalism” is the knife which cut that tie, it is known that it
was self-management who tempered and strengthened that knife.
For now, it is unclear how BDP defines the concept of self-management.
Probably, the basis of the concept will be clearer during the process of local
elections.
However, a few words have to be said on Yugoslav case as one of the prominent
examples of self-management about how self-management was reflected on
political practices in Yugoslavia and how the concept was defined and
practiced.
Self-management have had different practices but mostly recognized with
anarchist movement. Just after the World War II, Yugoslavia have had lost the
technical support from USSR as a result of increasing tension between two
countries since Yugoslavia had relatively better relations with West. Back
then, Yugoslavia was an agrarian country and foreign technical aid was needed
to establish an infrastructure required for an economical push.
The self-management model, which was drawn by Milovan Djilas, a leading
figure of League of Communist of Yugoslavia was accepted as the model for
economic development in Yugoslavia. From then on, directors of those production
corporations which were organized according to Soviet model would be elected by
the workers of those corporations. On the other side, the system where workers
had direct impact on the administration brought many problems as well.
At first, although the system has foreseen direct participation of the
workers, there had always been a problem about internalizing the “working
class”. Moreover, the issue was more problematic in the rural corporations
while even the feudal social and economic relations were not yet to be
dissolved. Those workers, who were elected to be directors of the corporations,
were rather unsuccessful, or they were transformed into technocrats, or
technocrats out of the corporations, who preferably had management education in
the western countries, were assigned as directors of the corporations. In fact,
League of Communists of Yugoslavia was not that much interested in
organizational issues of the corporations if they could reach production goals.
A striking example can be given from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Fikret
Abdic, who became the director of the “Agrokomerc” state farm in 1970’s in
Velika Kladuşa, a city close to Bihaç in Western Bosnia, was successful to
transform the state farm into one of the most successful combined food corporations not only in
Bosnia, but also in Yugoslavia. Fikret Abdic, who became like an autonomous
lord had so much power that he declared the “Autonomous Republic of Western
Bosnia” during the Bosnian War in 1990’s. The paramilitary forces under his
command are recognized by the massacres they organized.
During the following years, similar directors appeared in all over
Yugoslavia. Most of those directors were rather in the top cadres of the
nationalist parties or financially supported the nationalist leaders. Many of
the leading businessmen of today’s ex-Yugoslav republics were elected by
workers to be directors within “self-management” system in Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia. Today, the reality stands in front of us that they were
surely not on the side of Marxist economics.
Furthermore, it is also widely known that those “self-managed”
corporations were oasis for corruption.
The problem was even bigger in the national scale. Some corporations
enjoying the sectoral advantages were operating with high profit rates, whereas
the income of low profit corporations
was relatively declining in the meantime. For example, GDP per capita in
Slovenia, where the corporations operating for market and foreign trade were
increasing. On the other side agricultural corporations were leading economy in
Macedonia and the GDP per capita was relatively decreasing since the self-management
model was insufficient in agricultural production. Similarly, in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, who was enjoying the resources like iron, coal and hydro and
thermo electric power; heavy industry and mining were the leading sectors.
However, since the production was not directly made for market or for foreign
trade, the GDP per capita was decreasing relatively as well.
Thanks to the financial credits, due to Yugoslavia’s opposition to
Soviet Union, the gap between republics were until some degree diminished. However,
soon in mid-1980’s, with glasnost and perestroika, USSR began to give signals
to collaborate with western liberalism. In this context, there was no more need
for Yugoslavia. In the meantime it was also time for Yugoslavia to pay back the
credits.
As the beginning of 1980’s were the most bright period of Yugoslavia,
the end of 1980’s were that much dark with three digit inflation rates, high
degree of corruption, increasing unemployment and poverty in general. As a
result, the enrichened republics began to complain that they would not like to
carry the burden of their poorer brothers and sisters. The aggressive
nationalist paradigm of Serbian nationalism was a good reason for Slovenia and
Croatia, the two richest republics to declare independence from Yugoslavia.
It is very much clear how self-management, so-called a system which had
an image that working class has direct participation in management, in a country
like Yugoslavia which had a more lovely image then that of Soviet Union have resulted.
Now, it is a question, how will BDP define and practice self-management,
which they began to refer more frequently before the local elections.
(1) Özgür Gündem, December 27, 2013 (Main
caption)
(3) http://www.dengeagiri.com/haber/2698/burkay-kurtlerin-hepsi-anadilde-egitim-ve-ozyonetim-ister.html
