Bêwelatî û Bêdewletî: Derfet û Astengî

Bêwelatî û Bêdewletî: Derfet û Astengî

BARZOO ELIASSI – JI ÎNG.: FEXRÎYA ADSAY

Têgeha diasporayê, bi riwangeyeke berfireh hatîye têgînkirin û xwedî lê hatîye derketin. Di nav peywenda globalizasyonê de, diaspora wek rêxistîbûneke civakî ya neteweborî (Wahlbeck 1999) û civateke neteweborî (Sökefeld 2006) ku bi têkilîyeke trajîk a welatê “jêderk”, welatê lêjîyanê û koma etnîk a li welatên cûda belav bûyê tê naskirin, hatîye pênasekirin (Cohen 2008). Li têgeha diasporayê tê îtirazkirin ku ji sînoran bêpar e û semantîka xwe, hêza xwe ya têgînî û analîtîk winda dike ji ber ku gelek azmûn û nasnameyên koçberîyê bêyî ji hev bên cudakirin, wek diasporîk tên binavkirin (Brubaker 2005). Werbner (2015:51) di bersiveke rexneyî ya bo Brubaker dibêje, diaspora sînorên wê hene lê ew ‘li gor rewşê, bi awayekî dialektîk û di nav pratîkê de, bi rîya performans û seferberîya perîyodîk tê pênasekirin û binxêzkirin. Yên din jî têgeha diasporayê rexne dikin ji ber gewherîkirin û madeyîkirina komek nasname û di xebatên derbarê koçberîyê de nepeydakirina alternatîfekê bo têgehên girêkî, wek nijad û etnîsîte (Anthias 1998; Soysal 2002). Radhakrishnan (2003) angaşt dike nasname di nav peywendên taybet ên dîrokî û sîyasî de çêdibin û hemû mefhûmên gewherxwaz yên nasnameyan bi awayekî stratejîk bo bidestxistina hedefên taybet tên bikaranîn. Hêjayî gotinê ye ku çêbûna diasporayê di eslê xwe de di nav qadeke neyênî ya rabêjî de, bi hilweşîna welêt û belavbûna civata cihûyan tê karakterîzekirin (Kenny 2013; Cohen 1998). Lê nayê wê wateyê ku divê em diasporayê wek teşebis an wek azmûnekê bibînin lê wek kategorîyeke pratîkê ya bi liv divê em fam bikin.

Diaspora, bi wateyeke zelal jîyanek wê ya derveyî dîrok, temsilîyet û kiryarîya mirovî (bnr. Brubaker 2005) tuneye lê di nav dînamîzma zehmetîyên dîrokî, şertên sîyasî, qeyran, berjewendî û pêşekîyan de saz dibe. Her wiha, ev grîng e ku mirov bipirse ka çawa, çima, ji alîyê kê ve û bo kîjan armancên sîyasî ev nasnameyên gewherxwaz ji alîyê aktorên cuda tê bikaranîn (Sökefeld 2005: 266). Ji ber ku têgeha diasporayê bi fikrên derbarê welêt, aîdîyet û bêcîhbûnê re eleqedar e, grîng e ku mirov ew peywendên sîyasî ku tê de azmûn hatine jîyîn û rabêjên komên cuda yên koçber tê de cî digre, li ber çav bê girtin. Wek ku Sökefeld (2005) jî dest nîşan dike, mefhûma diasporayê eleqeya wê bi terka warên taybet û jîyîna li dereke din re heye. Li gor vê, mefhûma diasporayê, derbarê azmûnên koçberîyê bêcîhbûn, bîyanîbûn, bêkokbûn û jinûvebicîhbûnê de ku ‘sê rehendên tevger, pêgiredanî, veger’ê bi hev ve girêdide, riwangeyeke grîng dabîn dike ji me re (Kenny 2013:105). Ev gotar wê di vê peywendê de, bi lêhûrbûnekê li ser diasporayên bêdewlet, di peywendên diasporîk de li ser vegotinên derheqê welêt û aîdîyeta nifşên cuda yên koçberan, bisekine. Dibe ku axaftina li ser diasporayên bêdewlet barekirineke bêhewce xuya bike ku dema diasporayên resen ên wek cihûyan peyda bûn di peywendeke dîrokî de ku netewe-dewlet û nasnameyên bêdewlet tunebûn. Lê, ji ber standardên sîyasî yên fikrên neteweperwer û pergala netewe-dewletan di cîhana me ya hemdem de, ji alîyê analîtîk ve wê alîkar be bo dîtina cudatîya navbera diasporayên bêdewlet û bi dewlet de (Sheffer 2003) ji ber ku bi awayekî asîmetrîk di cîhanekê de hatine bicîkirin ku ew aîdîyeta neteweyî xurt dike û gelên bêdewlet wek der-civakîyên sîyasî û bêwelat ji ber çavan winda dike (Eliassi 2016).

Armanca vê nivîsê1 ew e ku ji alîyê teorîk û empîrîk ve ronî bike digel ku piranîya koçberan piştî koçberîya mecbûrî bi meseleyên welat û aîdîyetê re têkilîyek wan a tevlihev heye, wek statuyek lêbarkirî û azmûneke jîyandî bêdewletbûn, rehendekê li hesta bîyanîbûn, tenêbûn û adinbûna sîyasî zêde dike. Her wiha, li cîhaneke bêîstikrar di nav diasporayên bêdewlet de, derfet û zehmetîyên lêgerîna welatek û aîdîyeta sîyasî nîqaş dikim. Ez ê li ser azmûnên koçberên Kurd û Filistînî yên li Swêd û Îngilîstanê bisekinim û dest nîşan bikim ka vegotin û azmûnên derbarê welat, bêdewletbûn û aîdîyetê him di asta takekesî û him di asta kolektîf de çawa di nifş û peywendên neteweyî yên cuda de şekil digrin.

Sîyaseta welêt û aîdîyetê li diasporayê

Babetên welat û aîdîyetê, bi saya azmûnên koçberî û bêcîhbûnê yên yekser an neyekser bala akademîk a gelek nivîskaran kişandîye (George 1996; Butter 2015). Ji bo xebatên di warê diasporayê de, bivênevê lazim e mirov di peywenda jihevbelavbûn, jinûvebicîbûn û bêrîya welêt de bi têgeha welat re eleqedar bibe. Mişextî û diaspora gelek caran wek warên afirînerîyê tên dîtin lê di heman demê de ew dikare bibe cîyekî ku bi nijadperestî, dîskrimînasyon û têkilîyên komî yên hilweşîner tê pênasekirin jî (bnr. Cohen 1998). Wek mînak, azmûnên dîskrimînasyona etnîk û dînî, dikare di nav komên diasporîk de nasnameyên reaksîyoner biafirîne û bibe sedema lêgerîna awayên alternatîf ên jîyanê û warên aîdîyetê (Eliassi 2013). Welat, wek fikir an warekî, bo sazkirina aîdîyet û ewlehîyê çarçoveyeke navendî ye lê ew amrazeke xurt a îdeolojîk e jî bo afirandina rabêjên vederkirinê li hember gelên ku wek endamê ‘koma navik’ a neteweyê pêk tîne, nayên dîtin. Bi gelemperî, welat wek warê jêderk û koka yekî/ê tê pejirandin. Lêbelê, welat û aîdîyet divê di terazîyên pirrehendî û piralî de bên têgînkirin. Welat (home), dikare cîyên wek mal, tax, bajar, herêm, netewe-dewlet, kîşwer, rûzemînê di xwe de bihewîne û aîdîyet jî dikare têkeve şêwazeke pirrehendî ku yek dikare aîdîyeta bo nasnameyên girêdayî cîyekî hest bike. Hesta aîdîyeta bi cîyekî ve, dewletekê ve an bi komekê ve, binê nasnameya hevpar û piştevanîya civakî tijî dike. Guibernau (2013), aîdîyetê wek jehrkujeke sereke dibîne li hemberî azmûnên bîyanîbûn û tenêbûnê di nav peywenda tatêla bûnewerî û bêhêzbûna sîyasî de. Anthias (2006) destnîşan dike, di cîhana me ya global de mirov xwe bêîstikrar dibînin û hewl didin serî bi azmûnên nedîyarî, bêtêkilîtî û nexuyayîtîyê re derxin lewma warekî civakî yê taybet ku ‘em’ wek kom, malbat û netewe aîd bin lazim e. A din, mirov gelek caran haya wan jê heye ku gelek cî, war, herêm û nasname hene ku ew naxwazin aîd bin an nayên xwestin ew aîdî wan bin. Antonsich (2010: 644) jî bi heman awayî ku ilham ji Nira Yuva-Davis (2006) girtîye, çarçoveyeke analîtîk dabîn dike ku aîdîyet dikare wek ‘hesteke şexsî, mahrem a ‘li mal/welêt’bûnê ya li cîyekî (aîdîyeta bi cîyekî ve) û kanîyek rabêjî ku awayên hewandin/vederkirina civakî-mekanî (sîyaseta aîdîyetê) saz dike, îdia dike, rewa dike an dij derdikeve bê analîzkirin.

Di vê çarçoveya analîtîk de ku li jor ji alîyê Antonsich ve hatîye dabînkirin, tişta zêdetir berbiçav, lêhûrbûna li ser teritorîyalîya (bi axê ve girêdayî) aîdîyetê ye ji ber ku hest, pratîk û rabêjên aîdîyetê piranî di peywendên erdnigarî de tên bicîkirin (Antonsich 2010: 647). Ev peywendkirina ku Antonsich bi cî dike, di muzakereyên rojane yên li ser aîdîyeta mekanî de bêtir şênber dibe û li hember rabêjên derbarê feragat an bandorên lawazkirinê yên globalîzasyonê li ser netewe-dewlet û nasnameyên teritoryal (bi axê ve girêdayî) de disekine. Di jîyana xwe ya rojane de em pir kêm kes dikarin ji vê pirsê birevin: ‘tu ji ku derê yî?’ Digel ku ev pirs wek masûm an nîşaneya miraqa bo dîroka şexsî ya hin kesan xuya bike jî, ev gelek caran ji alîyê koçberên ne-spî ve wek kirineke adinkirinê tê şîrovekirin an famkirin, ku paşxaneya koçberîyê dibe pêşxane (Eliassi 2016). Endambûna bo koma navikê, aîdîyeta ku hewce nake pirs bê pirsîn (Skey 2011) û şertên aîdîyetê û belavkirina mafan û berpirsyarîyan dike. Ev raber dike ku aîdîyet tiştekî vegêrî (relational) ye û nikare bê daxistin asta şexsî ji ber ku ew gelek caran sînorên ku ‘me’ ‘wan’, îmtîyaz û diskrimînasyon, hewandin û adinbûnê pênase dike, eleqedar dike. Ev sînor ne tenê di navbera endamên netewe-dewletên cuda de tê sazkirin lê di nav çarçoveya teritoryal a heman netewe-dewletê de jî tê sazkirin ku xwedî hîyerarşîyeke etno-neteweyî ya aîdîyet û neaîdîyetê ye. Rabêjên neteweyî sînoran datîne ku kî aîd e kî ne aîd e û hin pêkhateyan veder dikin ji parvekirin û daxwazkirina wekhevîyê di heman mekana civakî de (bnr. Sharma 2014). Wek encam, koma serdest xwe hakim û xwedîyê neteweyê dibîne û wisa tevdigere û di navbera salahîyet û aîdîyetê de girêyeke xurt diafirîne (Hage 2000). Her çiqas welatîbûn çarçoveyeke fermî ya aîdbûna netewe-dewletekê be jî, di jîyana rojane û rasthatinan de ye ku mirov dikarin welatîbûna xwe tercumeyî mafan bike û fam bikin ka aîd in an na (Eliassi 2016).

Lewma, dema literatur dibêje aîdîyet navenda rihetî, refah û ewlehîya me ye (Anthias 2006; hooks 2009; Guibernau 2013), ew bi qasî afirandina awayên sêwirandin û sazkirina welêt/mal û aîdbûna ku awayên nû yên vederkirinê naafirîne grîng e (Duyvendak 2011). A yekem, welat/mal ne her dem cîyekî germ/rihet e ku mirov lê dimîne ji ber ku li her civak an koman de ew dikare cîyekî ku şideta zayendî, îstismara cinsî û îstismara zarokan lê hebe. A din, ji bo diasporayên bêwelat welat/mal gelek caran cîyên xeter in ku bi şideta kujer û wêranîya ji ber mîlîtarîzasyon û qaideyên sîyasî yên otorîter tê pênasekirin, ku ji bo Kurd, Filistînî, asûrî/suryanî û tamîlîyan wisa ye. A duyem, bêcîbûn û azmûnên adinbûnê arezûya bo welêt/malê ku kirdeyê diasporîk di hesreta hewandina civakî û hesta limalbûnê de ye, xurt dike. Salman Ruşdî, dengekî temsîl dike ku li hember fikara diasporîk bo welêt/malê pir rexneyî ye. Ruşdî îdia dike ku bêrîkirina welêt dikare bibe pêvajoyeke xeter û patolojîk a fetîşkirin û pawankirinê ku rê li ber redkirina kirde û komên cuda veke û ji afirandina têkilîyeke civakî bi kes û civakên derdora xwe re bibe asteng (Butter 2015:355). Wek encam, dema welat bibe fetîş, ew tevkarîya bîyanîbûnê dike û rê li ber pêvajoya çêkirina mal/welatekî li dem û mekana niha de, digre. Nivîskarê Swêdî-Kurd Mustafa Can (2006) di pirtûkeke derbarê dîya xwe û mirina wê ya piştî bêcîbûnê de behsa vê babetê dike. Can ku di şeş salîya xwe de hatîye Swêdê, qal dike malbata wî ji gundekî mehrûm î Kurdistana bakur çawa koç kirîye û meseleya welêt çawa dev ji wan bernedaye û jîyana dê û bavê wî û têkilîya wan a bi zarok û nevîyên wan re herimandîye. Paragrafa jêrîn a ji pirtûka Can (2006:247), dema çûye li gund e, derbarê (bê)îmkanîya welêt û aîdîyetê di peywendeke diasporîk de, divê li ber çav bê girtin:

Piştî sê hefteyên li gund, ez bêrîya terza jîyana rojavayî dikim ji ber ku ez 30 salî li wir jîyame. Ez sî salî rojavayî me û şeş salan rojhilatî. Sî salên têrbûn û azadîya derbirînê, şeş salên birçîbûn û bêazadîya derbirînê. Ligel vê, ez hê jî xwe ji rojavayî bêtir rojhilatî dibînim, ne grîng e çend sal e li Swêdê dijîm, di nav geremola entegrasyonê de ez çiqasî û çiqas zû werîsê xwe dirêsim. Ez xwe her li ku bibînim, xwe ji Swêdî bêtir Kurd, ji rojavayî bêtir rojhilatî hest dikim.

Na, dizanim ev hevkêşe guhê mirov xweş nayê. Ez nikarim vê hevkêşeyê safî bikim. Belkî naxwazim wê safî bikim.

Erê! ez Swêdî me.
Na! ez Kurd im.
Erê! dixwazim li vir bijîm.
Na! naxwazim li vir bijîm.
Erê! dikarim li vir bijîm.
Na! nikarim li vir bijîm.
Erê, na, erê, na, erê, na, erê, na…

Welat dûr e, dûrî welat e. Li Swêdê, dibêjim mal/welat li gund e. Û li gund, dibêjim welat/mal swêd e. Nikarim cîyê van du welatan biguherînim. Dixwazim ewlehîya civakî, civaka azad û vekirî ya Swêdê bibim gund, an xelkê gund, nerîtên wan, bêhnên wan bibim Swêdê.

Ev nakokî di nava min de ne û peqikên wan bi xwe re digerînim. ‘Erê’ û ‘na’, ‘welat’ û ‘dûrî’ çakûçan lê dixin di nav serê min de, û hesta min a sucdarîyê zêde dikin ku vê derê wek mal/welatê xwe hilnabijêrim.

Can bi awayekî zindî di nav malbatekê de vegotinên nifşên cuda yên derbarê welêt de pênase dike. Dema bavê wî ji nevîyên xwe dipirse gelo wext nehatîye vegerên malê/welêt, ew bersiv didin, ‘Mal/welatê gund?’ Mal/welatê çi? Em li Swêdê çêbûnê û mezin bûne –jixwe em li mal/welatê xwe ne (Can 2006: 234).

Dê û bavê Can, wek cîyê lê mezin bûne pir zêde girêdayî gundê xwe ne lê Can qebûl dike ku ew û keçên xwe li gundê xwe difikirin, bêrîya wî dikin lê nevî şev û roj li cîran û merivên li gund nafikirin, bêrikirina deng, bêhn, ta’m, demsalên dirêj û germ ên li welêt nayê bîra wan. Ev tengijîn û tevlîhevî di nifşê ewil ê diasporayê de ku di nav valahîyeke civakî û çandî de dijîn û li welatekî xerîb dibin bîyanîyekî bênav, rewşeke zehmet diafirîne. Çûnûhatina bavê Can a bi rêkûpêk bo gundê xwe dibe rêyek bo vegera welêt ku li wir xelk wî fam dikin û jê re hurmet dikin, navekî wî heye û pê re miameleya ‘qafreş’ (‘svartskalle’), ku ew li Swêdê marûz dimînin, nakin. Vegera welêt, her wiha, bo demeke kurt dibe stratejîya reva ji adinbûn, bêwelatî û bêrîya welêt. Li gor bavê Can, ew û zarokên xwe çiqas zêde li diasporayê bimînin, wê ewqas kêm girêdayî çanda Kurd bin. Kabûsa bavê wî ew roja ku nevîyen wî navên swêdê li wan bibe ku ew wek qutbûna eleqeya dawî ya malbata wî bi gund re dibîne. Bi teşwîkkirina serdanên bi rêkûpêk bo gundê xwe, ew stratejîya lihemberderketina pêvajoya bişaftinê ku nifşên nû dadiqurtîne û wan ji nasnameya wan a çandî ya ‘resen’ qut dike. ‘Windakirin’a çandekê wek ku yek cîyekî di asta çandî de biterikîne tê dîtin û xewna pêşerojê ya bo vegera gund xira dike.

Li diasporayê nifşên ciwantir ên koçberên Kurd û bi taybetî jinên ciwan di dijderketina alîyên çanda civaka Kurd de ku bavsalarîyê, kodên civakî yên hişk û zordestîya zayendî binxêz dike, hêzeke veguherîner pêk tînin. Jinên Kurd ên li diasporayê, ji bo ku welatekî ewletir û hewîner biafirînin, di têkoşîna bo demokrasî, wekhevîya zayendî û serdestîya hikukê li Rojhilata Navîn li pêş cî digrin (Eliassi 2016). Azmûnên vegerê jî her dem bi bextewerî encam nade lê dikare bi ‘rûbirûbûnên bi sazîyên civakî û çandî yên li warê jêderk bê daxkirin; ev sazî, tevî qaideyên reftarî û pratîkên civaka welêt (ku ji bo nifşê duyem dibe civaka mazûban), ji projeya vegera bo welêt re dibe asteng, dibe sedema hêvîşikestinê û hêrsbûna kesê vegerîyaye’ (King û Christou 2010: 112). Ji bo koçberê Kurd, ji ber rewşa sîyasî ya Kurda ku nasnameya Kurd bi awayekî sîstematîk ji alîyê dewleta Tirk tê tepisandin, vegera bo welêt têra xwe babeteke tevlîhev e. Dewleta Tirk, wek şertê aîdîyet û bidestxistina mafan, bişaftina wan wek şert datîne. Ev tê wê wateyê ku Kurd di navbera pêvajoya bişaftina li diasporayê û ya li welatê jêderk de diçin tên. Wek ‘welat’, gelek Kurdên koçber, digel hestên wan î têkel ên li hember Swêd û Îngilîstanê, haya wan ji pergala demokratîk, ewlehîya civakî û serdestîya hikukê ya niha li Swêd û Îngilîstanê tecrube dikin, heye û ev nikare bi şertên sîyasî yên xeter ên civaka Kurd a di bin sîya tepisandina sîyasî û milîtarizasyona li herêmên Kurdan re bê guhertin. Ji ber ku vegera welêt dibe peywireke taloqkirî, jîyana li diasporayê bo nifşê yekem nîvco dimîne (bnr. Maxey 2006). Bi giştî, nifşên ciwantir ê diasporayên Kurd, Kurdistanê wek qonaxa dawîn nabînin ku di encamê de bikaribin xwe lê rihet bikin û tatêla xwe ya bûnewarî ku wek encama dinavberbûn û ne-aîdbûnê tecrube dikin, betal bikin (Eliassi 2013; bnr. King û Christou 2010: 210).

Bêwelatbûn û bêdewletbûna sîyasî

Malešević (2013:156-157) dema bi rexneyî qala nasnameya neteweyî û netewe-dewletê dike, binxêz dike, em gelek caran mecbûr tên hiştin ku xwe bi têgehên neteweyî bidin naskirin û ger di bersiva pirsa “tu ji kuderê yî?” de tu bêjî neteweyek te tuneye, ‘wê bersiva we wek bersiveke cidî neyê dîtin. Hûn ê wek henekvan, utopîstekî saf an pirsgirêk bê dîtin.’ Elbet, ev ji bo komên ku nebûne xwedî dewlet an naxwazin têkevin bin bana gerdûnîtîya netewe-dewleta ew lê dijîn. Di vê peywendê de bêdewletî, di cîhaneke netewe-dewletan de statuyek li xisarê ye (Said 1999; Eliassi 2016). Em li gotinên penaberekî Filistînî yê 63 salî li Swêdê derbarê bêdewletîyê de binêrin:

Ne ti tiştek î, tu sifir î. Gelekî dewleta wî tunebe ne tiştek e. Ne ti tişt. Em rojane hewl didin li ser pîyan bimînin ji ber ku dewleteke me tuneye. Ev bobelatek e ku dewletek me tuneye. Her kes te dixe girtigehê, dikuje û kes guh nade te. Dema filistînîyek tê kuştin, kes lê napirse ji ber ku dewleteke wî ku bikaribe wî biparêze, tuneye. Piranîya gelan dewletek wan heye ku wan biparêze. Lê wek filistinîyekî, kî yê guh bide te? Israîl? Sêwîyek ji yekî bêdewlet çêtir e ji ber ku ger dewletek te tunebe, tu tuneyî. Sêwîyek, dibe ku merivên wî/wê hebin lê binêre lê ê me ev jî tuneye û kes hembêza xwe ji me re venake. Mirovekî bê welat ne ti tişt e. Welatê te yek ji tiştên zêdetirîn mahrem e ku di jîyana xwe de li ser dipeyivî. Ger tu bêdewlet bî, wek ku kes ji te nepirse ka tu nexweş î, tî yî, birçî yî. Lê dema dewleta te hebe, tu aîdî dewletekê yî ku li te bipirsî. Li Israîlê binêrî, ji bo welatîyêkî xwe dikare şer derxîne, bi sedan Filistînî tê kuştin, kes guh nadê. Tu dizanî ku tu zeyif î. Li Swêdê ez ne ti kes im lê li Filistînê kokên min hene û dema xelk di ber gora min re derbas bibe, ew dizanin ez malbateke Filistînî ya xwedî kok im, ne kesekî bêkok im ku ti kes nas nake. Malbata min a Filistînê malbateke mezin e. Goşt û xwîna me parçeyek ji axa Filistînê ye. Bêdewletî, goreke bê navnîşan e. Tu winda bûyî.

Her wiha, di peywenda koçberîyê de bêdewletbûn rehendekê li bîyanîbûn, tenêbûn û adinbûna sîyasî zêde dike. Ev çarçovekirina bêdewletbûnê ya li jor herî baş, wek bersivek bo çespandina sîyasî û bêhêzbûnê ku Filistînî di peywenda dagirkerîya Israîlê de wek gelekî bêdewlet marûz dimîne lê di peywendên Ewropaya Rojava de ligel azmûnên wan î vederkirina etnîk û adinbûnê de dikare bê famkirin. Dema filistinîyê jor qedrê pasaporta Swêdî dizane û ji bo mervantîya dewleta Swêdî bo penaberên Filistînî minetar e jî, ji ber paşxaneya wî ya koçberîyê ya bêrûmet, ew ikna nabe ku Swêd welatê wî ye. Gelek caran ji wî re hatîye gotin ku ew ne Swêdî ye, dikare wir biterikîne û koçberan Swêd herimandine. Her çiqas zehmetîyên sîyasî û astengîyên zagonî vegera Filistînê dixe bîra filistinîyan, dema derfeta vegerê çêdibe jî, tirseke berbelav a rûbirûbûna realîteyên Filistinê jî heye. Jineke filistinî ya 30 salî vê rewşê raber dike:

Hevalên min î Swêdî û Filistînî ji min re dibêjin, digel ku ez qet li Filistinê nejîyame, pir xweş qala wê derê dikim. Ji min re gotin: ‘Em pêşnîyaz dikin tu qet neçe Filistînê ji ber ku piştî çûyinê tu yê têk biçî.’ Ji wan re dibêjim, hûn min ditirsînin û çima wisa dibêjin. Dibêjin: ‘Tu çawa herî wir, tu yê bibînî bê çiqas gemarî ye, tu yê gendelîyê bibînî, tu yê parçebûna filistinîyan bibînî, tu yê hemû tiştên nexweş ku tu naxwazî li Filistinê hebin, bibînî. Ev hêvîşikestineke mezin çêdike û ev tecrube dîtina yekê ya derbarê Filistînê de hildiweşîne. Ez hê jî di ser gotinên dapîr û bapîrên xwe re li Filistinê diramim û dijîm ku civatek heye, her kes guhê wan li hevdu ne, jina filistinî ya extîyar ku Za’atarê çêdike, zilamê extîyar ku ji dara zeytûnê zeytûnan diçine û wan dike zeyt. Di serê min de îmajeke Filistinê ya pir romantîk heye. Nizanim ev îmaj rast e an na lê ev e ku Filistinê di serê min de zindî dihêle.

Dema gelek koçber derbarê tiştên li dû xwe hiştine û tiştên bêrîya wan dikin dipeyivin, jibîrkirin û bibîranîn (Ahmed 1999) vegotinên wan î ser jîyanê karakterîze dike. Digel ku Filistîn ji alîyê gelek Filistinîyan ve wek ‘welatê rasteqîn’ tê dîtin, ne dîyar e ku bi realîteya welatê bavûkalên xwe re aşîna ne an na, ji ber veguherînên sîyasî yê civaka Filistinîyan di peywenda dagirkerîya Israîl û rikberîya navxweyî ya partîyên sîyasî yên filistinî, Fetih û Hamas. Nifşê berê derheqê Filistînê de vegotinên romantîzekirî veguheztine nifşên nû yên koçberên Filistînî ku dikare wek amrazeke motîvekirinê bo şîyarkirina enerjîya nifşên nû kar bike da ku dev ji fikra Filistînê bernedin û li hember dagirkerîya Israîlê têkoşîn bidin. Koçberên Filistînî hay jê hene ku Filistîneke ‘berîya Israîlê’, ya rast, ne gengaz e. Dîsa jî, koçberên Filistinî di wê bawerîyê de ne ku Filistîn di projeya jîyana şexsî û hevpar a Filistinîyan de lazim e cî bigre da ku rê li ber windakirina axa welatê wan î neteweyî bê girtin. Ev dawa xwetîya (benlik) Filistinîyan û demajoya ispatkirina nasnameya Filistînî di peywenda diasporîk de divê di nav peywenda inkarkirina israîlê û kêmdîtina hebûn û nasnameya Filistînî de bê bicîkirin.

Encam: Di cîhaneke mal/welatên neteweyî de daxwaza mal/welatekî

Bo koçberan gelek caran zehmet e bi temamî xwe li mal/welatê xwe, li ‘vir/mal’ in an ‘li wir/dûr’ hîs bikin. Di vegotinên diasporîk de mal/welat û dûrî gelek car cî diguherin ji ber ku ne du beşên pir ji hev cuda ne. Ji ber vê, Ahmed (1999) îdia dike ‘balkêş e, “mal/welat”ê rasteqîn ew mekan e ku yek xwe teheyul dike ku ji wir hatîye, û ew mekanê ku xwe lê him rihet him resen dibîne yê zêdetirîn ne aşîna ye: ew der e ku yek lê mêvan e, xwe dispêrê mazubanîya êndin. Ev mal/welat, ku, talîya talî, dibe Mal/Welat tam jî bi saya têkçûna hafizayê’ (Ahmed 1999:330, kirp li deqa resen de). Li alîyekî koçberên ne-spî di hesreta welatê xwe de ne, li alîyê din jî ‘niştecîyên spî’ yên Ewropara Rojava dikevin nav nostaljîya ku welatê wan berîya hatina êndin çawa bû.

Pirsgirêka welêt li Ewropaya hemdem dibe amraza navendî ya hewandin û vederkirinê (exclusion) (bnr. Duyvendak 2011). Bîyanîkirina Ewropayê taybetîyek navendî ya koçberîyê ye. Her çiqas grîng e mirov xwe li welatê xwe û aîd hîs bike jî, ewqas xeter e ku mirov vê bike fetîş û bibe objeyeke sembolîk a vederkirinê, ku mirovên hatine redkirin ku wek pêkhateyên rewa ya ‘civakên me’ nayê dîtin. Diaporayên bêdewlet gelek caran xwe ji welatekî bêpar dibînin an dibêjin welatê wan ji wan ‘hatîye dizîn’ an hatîye stendin ji alîyê komên din. Ev, lêgerîna mal/welatekî sîyasî mecbûr dike di projeyên nasnameyên hevpar ên gelek endamên diasporayên bêdewlet. Li gor Cocks (2006), gelekî bêdewlet ku ji alîyê desthilatdarîya serwer hatîye birîndarkirin û tepisandin, gelek caran ontolojîyek neteweyî hildiberîne bi saya têkoşîna desthilatdarîyek serwer, ku tê ferzkirin wê azadîya sîyasî bîne. Heta dema desthilatdarîya serwer bi dest dixin jî, garantîya sîyasî tuneye ku dînamîka pirranîyê/kêmarîyê an ya çespîner/çespandî bi ser keve. Dema di netewe-dewletê de komek dibe pirranî, meyleke dîrokî heye ku komek nû bibe bîyanîyên etnîk û wek potansîyel ji alîyê sîyasî ve bibe kêmareke tehdîtkirî û çespandî. Ev netewe-dewletê jixweber dike rêxistineke civakî ya kêşeyî (Cocks 2006). Cock (2006) ji azmûnên Israîlî-Filistînî digihêne îzaheteke mecbûrî ku lêgerîna bo serwerîya neteweyî ya kêmaran çawa tê famkirin ji alîyê pirranîya ku pozisyona kêmar terikandîye û bûye serwer. Kêmar, ji bo ji bindestîyê xilas bibe:

zemîna sazûmanî ya rewşa xwe himbêz dike wek jehrkuja wê, wê vediguherîne dike piranîya neteweyê serwer, ji alîyekî ve bedelên statuya kêmarîyê tîne asta gelheyek hê bêtir hasas. Berteka ya duyem a li dij vê guhertinê -hêrs, xeyd, dijayetîya bişidet- ku dikare bê pêşbînîkirin, ji alîyê yê berê wek delîla berdewamîya ew halê kêmarîyê ya dihat tehdîdkirin, tê şîrovekirin. Şîroveyek wisa rê li ber pirranîya nû vedike ku bo seximkirina serdestîya xwe ya serwer bêtir cehd bike, ku ev jî berteka li dij wê zêdetir dike, û dibe versîyoneke nû ya rewşa xeter ku serdestîyê digêhîne armancê (Cocks 2006: 28).

Cocks vê retorîka hilweşîner bi kar tîne da ku awayên rêxistinên civakî yên ji netewe-dewlet û rejimên otorîter bêtir hewîner biafirîne, di mînaka Rojhilata Navîn de jî gelek caran ev retorîk ji bo rêlibergirtina muxalefeta gelên bêdewlet ku ji bo wekhevîya beşdarîya di jîyana sîyasî, civakî û aborî têkoşîn didin, tê bikaranîn (Eliassi 2016). Wek mînak, avabûna Israîlê dawî li diasporaya cihû neanî digel ku armanca talî ya wê dewletê dawîlêanîna diasporaya cihû û avakirina welatekî ewle bû bo gelê cihû. Bi vê eleqedar, Radhakrishnan (2012:40-41) dibêje, di mînaka filistinîyan de ku ji dewleteke serwer bêpar in, zehmet e mirov qedrê sirgunîyê zêde bike dema ‘sirgun nexweşîyek pir sîyasî be ku ji damezrandina dewleta Israîl a 1948a û vir de hatibe serê wan’. Ji ber ku Filistînî mecbûr hatin hiştin ku derkevin, ew jî ‘li serwerîya neteweyî wek bersiveke bêwelatîya xwe ya sîyasî dinerin.

Bêdewletî, wek şêwazeke bêwelatîya sîyasî xwe dispêre vegotineke aîdîyeta axekê. Bi gelemperî, diasporayên Filistînî û Kurd bêdewletîyê bi awayên cuda dibînin. Diasporaya Kurd xwe wek bêdewlet pênase dike ku ji alîyê civata navneteweyî ji nasnameyên îranî, iraqî, sûrîyeyî û Tirk cuda wek neteweyek otonom bê naskirin, diasporaya filistinî bêdewletbûnê wek sifetek xeter dibîne ji ber ku ew tunebûna wan û nexuyabûna wan a li ser axa filistîna dagirkirî rewa dike û wan ji dawkirina axa Filistînê wek welatê wan î neteweyî bêpar dihêle. Endamên diasporayên Kurd û Filistînî ji diasporayên bidewlet cuda, derheqê cudatîyên xwe yî ji komên koçber ên ku ‘xwedî dewlet bûn’ dikin. Difikirin, ne xwedî welatên ewle yên neteweyî ne ku rojekê bikaribin lê vegerin û ji çespandina etnîk azade bi nasnameyên xwe bijîn. Bi vê re eleqedar, koçberên Kurd û Filistînî, li Ewropaya Rojavayî xurtbûna tevgerên rastgir ên populist bo ewlehîya xwe ya civakî û mafê xwe yî welatîyê ya li Swêd û Brîtanyayê wek tehdîd dibînin. Difikirin ka biçin ku derê ger ev tevger bi ser kevin, ev demokrasîyên liberal têk biçin û biryar bidin wan ji Swêd û Brîtanyayê biqewirînin.

Li Rojhilata Navîn, Filistînî azmûnên wan î tahlîyekirinê gelek in lê ne tenê ji Israîlê ji welatên Ereb jî. Azmûnên adinbûnê li Rojhilata Navîn û Ewropaya Rojava xurt dike daxwaza wan a bo serwerîyeke neteweyî, ku bi awayekî îronîk sedema mexdûrîyet û sirgunîya wan e. Li gor Cocks (2006), nasnameyên hevpar gelek caran wek encama etnoneteweperwerîyê xurt dibin. Mesele ev e, ew şêwazên sîyasî yên nû yên pluralîstîk ku tê de têkilîyên newekhev ên di navbera serwer û ne-serwer tên hilberandin, çawa bên afirandin? Bêyî mazûrdîtina tepisandina sîyasî ya komên ne-serwer, nasnameya neteweyî û lêgerîna welatekî neteweyî li ber azadbûna pêkhateyên ne-serwer astengîyeke mezin çêdike. Her çiqas pir zehmet xuya bike û dikare wek utopîk bê dîtin jî, lazim e şêwazeke sîyasî ku wekhevî û heterojenîyê xwedî bike da ku pêkhate û nasnameyên cuda bikaribin bi hev re bêyî hîyerarjî bijîn, bê afirandin. Diasporayên him xwedî dewlet him ên bêdewlet, rola wan grîng e, bo gelekî dorpêçkirî, di ‘afirandina welatekî sîyasî yê ji alîyê mirovatîyê xurt û berfirehtir’(Cocks 2006:38) ji sînorên fetisîner ku di cîhana me de parçebûyîna sîyasî ya wêranker û piştevanîya civakî têk dibe.

1 Ev xebat parçeyek e ji projeya lêkolînê “Li YE’yê (jinûve) têgînkirina ’diasporayên bêdewlet’” e û beşek ji Oxford Diasporas Programme, University of Oxford (Leverhulme Trust Grant Number F/08/000/H).

ÇAVKANÎ

Ahmed, S. (1999) ‘Home and away: Narratives of migration and estrangement’, International Journal of Cultural Studies, 2 (3), 329-347, doi: 10.1177/136787799900200303

Anthias, F. (2006) ‘Belongings in a globalising and unequal world: Rethinking translocations’, in N. Yuval-Davis and K. Kannabiran and U. Vieten (eds) The situated politics of belonging. London: Sage, 17-31.

Anthias, F. (1998) ‘Evaluating diaspora: Beyond ethnicity’, Sociology, 32 (3): 557-80.

Antonsich, M. (2010) ‘Search for Belonging – An Analytical Framework’, Geography Compass 4 (6), 644-659, doi: 10.1111/j.1749-8198.2009.00317.x

Brubaker, R. (2005) ‘The “Diaspora” Diaspora’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28 (1), 1-19, doi: 10.1080/0141987042000289997

Butter, S. (2014) ‘No place like home? Conceptualizations of “home” in Salman Rushdie’s “At the auction of the Ruby Slippers” and Roshi Fernando’s Homesick’, in F. Kläger & K. Stierstorfer (eds) Diasporic constructions of home and belonging. Berlin: De Gruyter, 349-365.

Can, M. (2006) Tätt intill dagarna. Berättelsen om min mor. Stockholm: Nordstedts.

Cocks, J. (2006) ‘Jewish nationalism and the question of Palestine’, Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies, 8 (1), 24-39, doi: 10.1080/13698010500514954

Cohen, R. (2008) Global Diasporas: An Introduction, 2d ed., New York: Routledge.

Duvyendak, J. W. (2011) The Politics of home: Belonging and Nostalgia in Europe and the United States. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Eliassi, B. (2013) Contesting Kurdish Identities in Sweden: Quest for belonging among Middle Eastern Youth, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Eliassi, B. (2016) ‘Statelessness in a world of the nation-states: The cases of Kurdish diasporas in Sweden and the UK’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42 (9), 1403-1419, doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2016.1162091

George, R. M. (1999) The Politics of Home. Postcolonial relocations and twentieth-century fiction, London: University of California Press.

Guibernau, M. (2013) Belonging: Solidarity and Division in Modern societies, Cambridge: Polity. Hage, G. (2000) White nation: Fantasies of white supremacy in a multicultural society, New York, NY: Routledge.

Hooks, b. (2009) Belonging. A culture of place. New York, NY: Routledge.

Kenny, K. (2013) Diaspora: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

King, R. and A. Christou (2010). ‘Cultural geographies of diasporic migration: Perspectives from the study of second-generation “returnees” to Greece’, Population, Space and Place, 16, 103-119, doi: 10.1002/psp.543

Malešević, S. (2013) Nation-States and Nationalisms, Cambridge: Polity.

Maxey, R. (2006) ‘“Life in the diaspora is often held in a strange suspension”: First generation self-fashioning in Hanif Kureishi’s narratives of home and return’, The Journal of Commonwealth Litterature, 41 (5), 5-25.

Radhakrishnan, R. (2003) Theory in an Uneven World, Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Radhakrishnan, R. (2012) A Said Dictionary, New Delhi: Wiley-Blackwell.

Said, E. (1999) After the last sky: Palestinian Lives, New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Sharma, N. (2015) ‘Belonging’, in B. Andersson & M. Keith (eds) Migration: A compass anthology. Oxford: Compass, 166-167.

Sheffer, G. (2003) Diasporas Politics: At Home Abroad, New York: Cambridge University Press. Skey, M. (2011) National belonging and everyday life. The significance of nationhood in an uncertain world, New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Soysal, Y. (2002) ‘Citizenship and identity: Living in diaspora in post-war Europe?’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 23 (1), 1-15.

Sökefeld, M. (2006) ‘Mobilizing in transnational space: a social movement approach to the formation of diaspora’, Global Networks, 6 (3): 265-284, doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0374.2006.00144.x

Yuval-Davis, N. (2006) ‘Belonging and the politics of belonging’, Patterns of Prejudice 40 (3), 197- 214, doi: 10.1080/00313220600769331

Wahlbeck, Ö. (1999) Kurdish Diasporas. A Comparative Study of Kurdish Refugee Communities, London: Macmillan.

Werbner, P. (2015) ‘The boundaries of diaspora: A critical response to Brubaker’, in in F. Kläger & K. Stierstorfer (eds) Diasporic constructions of home and belonging. Berlin: De Gruyter, 35-51.

Bêwelatî û Bêdewletî: Derfet û Astengî

Vejandina Zimanê Îbranî

Nûrealîzma Îtalî, Yilmaz Guney û Hêvî

Tehlîlek di Peywenda Teorîya Monomîtê de li ser Çîroka “Meymûn Xanim û Mîrze Memûd”

Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

Bêwelatî û Bêdewletî: Derfet û Astengî

Related Posts

Vejandina Zimanê Îbranî

Nûrealîzma Îtalî, Yilmaz Guney û Hêvî

Tehlîlek di Peywenda Teorîya Monomîtê de li ser Çîroka “Meymûn Xanim û Mîrze Memûd”

Leave A Reply Cancel Reply