Vegotinên Bêdewletbûnê û Aidiyeta Siyasî Di Nav Diyasporayên Kurd Ên li Swêdê û Qraliyeta Yekbûyî (UK-QY)

Vegotinên Bêdewletbûnê û Aidiyeta Siyasî Di Nav Diyasporayên Kurd Ên li Swêdê û Qraliyeta Yekbûyî (UK-QY)

BARZOO ELIASSI – JI ÎNGILÎZÎ: FEXRIYA ADSAY

Puxte: Ev gotar, di nav cîhaneke de ku ji netew-dewlet û welatîbûnên newekhev pêk tê li ser diyardeya bêdewletbûn û aidiyeta siyasî disekine. Bi vî awayî ew ê di nav hizra civakî û siyasî ya hevdem de li sazûmaniya teorîk û têgehên bêdewletbûnê binere û di nav çarçoveya zagonî-siyasî ya netew-dewletan de û di pêvajo û pratîkên navneteweyî de bandora wan a bo têgehên nasnameya parvekirî û mafên welatîbûnê diyar bike. Di warê akademiyê de bidewletbûn piranî bi “tunebûn”a welatîbûn re eleqedar tê nirxandin û herwiha bidestxistina welatîbûnê wek çareseriyek bo bêdewletbûnê tê pêşkeşkirin. Her çiqas di cîhana hemdem de mafên welatîbûn û endamtiya dewleteke, di warê navneteweyî de, naskirî di mijara mafên mirovî yên kirdeyên siyasî de navendî be jî, şert û merc û tecrubeyên bêdewletbûnê bi riya bidestxistina welatîbûna fermî ji holê ranabe wek ku li her çar dorê cîhanê têkoşînên heyî yên komên bêdewlet ên siyasî, zagonî û leşkerî nîşanî me dide. Ji vê yekê, lêkolandina vê girîng e ka bê aidiyeta siyasî ya ku projeyên siyasî û çalakiya kolektîf ya gelên bêdewlet xurt dike çawa tê sazkirin û di navbera wan de wêrara hişmendiya neteweyî çawa tê ragihandin û şikl tê dayin. Aidiyeta siyasî ji bo pergala siyasî bidomîne an veguherîne armancên kolektîf diafirîne. Ev xebat lêkolînên bêdewletbûn û welatîbûnê yên teorîk û di nav kurdan de lêkolînên empîrîk ên qadê yên derbarê azmûnên subjektîf ên bêdewletbûnê bi ser hev vedike. Ev proje ji bo bikaribe analîz bike ka di tunebûna netewe-dewletê de hişmendiya neteweyî çawa çêdibe, wê vegotinên koçberên kurd ên li Swêd û QYê bi kar bîne lê li derveyî welatên “resen” li ser rola netewe-dewletê ya şiklgirtina rabêjên derbarê bêdewletbûn û aidiyeta siyasî de jî wê bisekine.

Peyvên sereke: Kurd, welatîbûn, netewe-dewlet, aidiyet, neteweperwerî, diyasporaya bêdewlet, mafê çarenûsê yê neteweyî.

Destpêk: Tu mirovên li dora me dibînî? Ew hemû maleke (dewlet) wan heye lê maleke min tuneye. Ez li welatê xwe penaber im ji ber ku li Kurdistanê xelkên din min û gelê min îdare dikin (zilamekî 42 salî ji başûrê Kurdistanê-QY)

Ev nivîs di nav cîhaneke ji netewe-dewletan pêk tê li bêdewletbûn û aidiyeta siyasî dikole. Nivîs ji bo ku di nav peywenda neteweyên bêdewlet de tevkariya nîqaşên derbarê bêdewletbûn, welatîbûn û aidiyeta siyasî bike tê amadekirin.

Bi riya hevpeyvîn û lêpirsînan, ev xebat azmûn û dengên diyasporayên li Swêd û QY bi kar tîne ku binere ka çawa hişmendiya neteweyî di tunebûna netewe-dewletekê de çêdibe û li derveyî ‘welat’ên resen rola fikra netewe-dewletekê di şêwazgirtina rabêjên derbarê bêdewletbûn, aidiyeta siyasî û nasnameya neteweyî çi ye. Ev nivîs, li ser nîqaşên berfirehtir ên derbarê bêdewletbûnê de ku heta niha piranî li ser bidestxistina netewetî/welatîbûnê wek çareseriya hesasiyeta siyasi, zagonî û hebûnî ya takên bêdewlet hûr bûne jî disekine. Ligel ku bidestxistina welatîbûnê girîng e, ji bo famkirina jiyana rojane ya mirovên ku di nav cîhana netewe-dewletan de xwe wek bêdewlet dibînin sînorên wê hene. Ji ber vê, girîng e ku mirov di navbera bêdewletbûna ku tak xwe tê de dibînin -kategoriyeke zagonî ku gazî parastina navneteweyî dike- û bêdewletbûna ku referansa wê neteweyên bêdewlet in wek kurd û filistîniyan, ji hev veqetîne. Daneyên nivîsê li ser vegotinên takan ava dibe lê lêpirsîn bi eslê xwe de wek endamên neteweyeke bêdewlet di derbarê azmûnên kolektîf ên kurdên li diyasporayê ye. Pirsên ku bên pirsîn ev in: Ji bo endamên diyasporaya kurd a li Swêd û QY bêdewletbûnê tê çi wateyê? Bêdewletbûn bandoreke çawa li ser aîdiyeta siyasî dike? Kengî di jiyana wan de bêdewletbûn bû tiştekî girîng? Dema li xwe û ciyê xwe yî li dinyayê dinerin, bêdewletbûn bandoreke çawa li kurdên asayî dike? Li vê dinyayê bêdewletbûn çawa li dengê mirov û hebûna wî/wê bandor dike? Bi vî awayî ev nivîs azmûnên diyasporîk û endamên diyasporaya kurd ên li Swêd û QY di jiyana xwe de pirsên bêdewletbûn û ‘bidewletbûn’ê çawa fam dikin; daxwaz û mafê xwe-îdarekirinê û mafê çarenûsa neteweyî ji aliyê diyasporayên kurd bi awayekî rabêjî çawa tê meşrûkirin, ev tên ronîkirin.

Piştî hilweşîna Împreretoriya Osmanî ya pirneteweyî di Şerê Cîhanê I (ŞCI) de kurd, filistînî û ermen li gor Çardeh Qayideyên Woodrow Wilson di sala 1918an de li bendî mafê çarenûsa neteweyî bûn, wisa soz hatibû dayin. Lê piştî ŞCI dema ji aliyê hêzên mezin li Rojhilata Navîn sînor hatin danîn, ev hemû hatin înkarkirin. Ji kurd û filistîniyan cuda, ermenan piştî hilweşîna Yekitiya Sowyetan a di 1991ê de (Khalidi, 2010) serxwebûna xwe bi dest xistin. Li Rojhilata Navîn rewşa siyasî ya kurd û filistîniyan ev karakterîze dike ku ‘ew li welatên binîqaş ku bi yên gelên din re dikeve nav hev dijîn, û axa ku ew dawa wê dikin tixûbên wan xumamî û ne zelal in’ (Khalidi, 2010: 11). Kurd vêga di bin darê Îran, Iraq, Sûrî û Tirkiyeyê de dijîn. Ev her çar dewlet ji bo ji heq ew tiştê ku dibêjin ‘pirsgirêka kurd’ derkevin stratejiyên cuda bi kar anîne. Ev stratejî ji pişaftin, înkar, komkujî, bêcîkirin û rûxandina gundên kurdan pêk hatine. Li gor Valî (1998), parvekirina Kurdistanê bûye sedema parçebûna nasname û siyasetên kurdan. Li Iraq, Îran, Sûrî û Tirkiyeyê bi riya bikaranîna siyaseta tundî û çespandina ciyawaziyên etnîk û neteweyî nasnameyên neteweyî û yekreng ên serdest hatin ferzkirin. Ji ber ku nasnameyên serdest ên Iraq, Îran, Sûrî û Tirkiyeyê pêşekî dida nasnameya komên etnîk ên serdest (tirk, ereb û faris), vê di nav kurdan de rê li ber nasnameyeke siyasî ya bertekî vekir ku ‘li van dewletan hê jî eniya mixalefeta li hemberî nasnameyên serdest pêk tîne’ (Vali, 1998:88). Adinkirina kurdan a siyasî, çandî û aborî dikare berxwedêriya çêbûna nasnameya kurd a li van dewletên ku ew lê dijîn û di nav endamên diyasporaya kurd ku koçber an penaberî welatên Rojava bûne jî (Eliassi, 2013) rave bike.

Awayên diyasporayê û dewlet

Her çiqas diyasporaya kurd a li Ewropaya Rojava ne xwedî dîrokeke dûrûdirêj e, dîsa jî bala lêkolînerên di warê diyaspora û koçberiyê de kişandine ku ev bi nispî girêdayî serkeftina mobilîzasyona wan a netewebuher a siyasî û çandî ye (Eliassi, 2013; Alinia û Eliassi, 2014; Khayati û Dahlstedt, 2014). Ji 1970an vir ve, wek encama mehrûmiyeta siyasî û aborî ya li Rojhilata Navîn, bi sed hezaran kurd li dû mafên aborî û siyasî û ewlehiyê terka welatê xwe kirin û koçberî Ewropaya Rojava bûn. Beşeke mezin ji xebatên derbarê diyasporayên kurd ên li QY (Wahlbeck, 1999; Demir, 2012) û li Swêdê (Eliassi, 2013; Alinia û Eliassi, 2014; Khayati û Dahlstedt, 2014) li ser pozisyona kurdan a binyadî û rojane ya li van welatan û pêwendiyên wan ên bi welatên ‘resen’ disekinin. Şerê diyasporaya kurd a bi van dewletên li Rojhilata Navîn re ‘him xurt him berxwedêr e û carna radîkal e’ (Demir, 2012:816). Ev piranî bi cot-hişmendiya gelek kurdên ku li Rojhilata Navîn û Ewropaya Rojava newekheviyên binyadî azmûn kirine eleqedar e, ku di nav peywenda înkarkirin û tunebûna temsiliyeta siyasî û biçûkdîtina çandî de hesta wan îaîdiyetê û çêbûna nasnameyê tevlihev dike.

Diyasporaya kurd wek diyasporayeke bêdewlet (Sheffer, 2003) ku li dijî polîtîkayên vederîner (exclusionary) ên Îran, Surî, Tirkiye û heta demeke nêz Iraqê derdikevin, hatiye tarîfkirin. Dibe ku binavkirin an balkişandina ser diyasporaya kurd wek diyasporayeke bêdewlet wek totolojî[1] (barekirineke bêwate) xuya bike, ji ber ku diyasporayên ‘resen’ ên wek cihû û ermen jî ên bêdewlet in (Cohen, 2008; Kenny, 2013). Mînak, îlankirina Serxwebûna Îsraîlê, wek ku Îsrail bi hezaran sal berê jî wek dewlet hebe û bi çêbûna Îsrailê ya sala 1948an de wan ev ji nû ve vejandibin hate pêşkeşkirin (Kenny, 2013), ku ev bixwe bidewletbûna cihûyan wek diyardeyeke dîrokbûher îdia dike. Ji ber zêdebûna diyasporayên jihevcuda, bi awayekî teorîk, divê cûdatiyên semantîk û analîtîk (Brubaker, 2005) ên ji ber peywend û guzergaha wan î neteweyî (otorîter an demokratîk) û pozisyona wan a komî (piranî an ‘kêmar’kirî) ya berî û piştî koçberiyê (Eliassi, 2013), bên tespîtkirin. Ger ev nê kirin, tê îdiakirin ku diyaspora wek têgeh û kategoriya pratîkê wê wateya xwe winda bike (Brubaker 2005). Digel ku gelek diyasporayên xwedî-dewlet, wek diyasporaya tirk, meyl dikin bi çavê dewletê binerin û bi riya ferzkirina ‘sazî, pratîkên siyasî û dîroka fermî ya dewleta tirk’ (Şenay, 2013:377), axê û hukimdariya dewletê diparêzin, diyasporaya kurd bêtir biazwer in û piranî ji dewletê cuda difikirin û hewl didin biruxînin, nasnameya dewletan û welatîbûna wan ji nû ve tarîf bikin (Eliassi, 2013; 2014; Şenay 2013).

Cohen (1996) dest nîşan dike ku hin diyaspora hene ku ji ber azmûnên wan î kolektîf ên êşkêş û koçberiya bizorê dikare wek diyasporayên qurban bên binavkirin. Ev azmûn jî rave dike ku ji aliyê dewletên li Rojhilata Navîn çima lavahiyên qurbanbûyinê alikariya pêşbaziya binavkirina wan a bo têkoşîn û gazinên kurdan wek ‘îredentîzm’, ‘terorîzm’ an ‘cûdaxwazî’ dike. Her çiqas diyasporayên bidewlet û bêdewlet di nav neteweperweriya mesafe-dirêj (Anderson, 1992; Skrbiš, 1999; Glick Schiller, 2005) cî digrin jî, pêwendiyên siyasî yên têra xwe asîmetrîk hene ku di nav cîhana netewe-dewletan de di navbera diyasporayên bidewlet û bêdewlet de jî hene. Ji diyasporayên bêdewlet cuda, ên bi dewlet dikarin meşrûiyeta navneteweyî bidest bixin û li derveyî welatê ‘resen’ dikarin avantaja nasnameya temsilkar a naskirî ya dewletekê bi kar bînin (Eliassi, 2013). A din, giraniya diyasporayên bêdewlet ji ber çewisandina etnîk û olî ya li welatên ‘resen’polîtîze bûne, endamên diyasporayên bidewlet jî meyla wan bi ser raperîn û berhengariyên (challenge) li welatên wan e û bi berpirsyariya siyasî û çandî ya netewebuher hewl didin bi riya xurtkirina hêza wê rê li ber bigre ku desthilatdariya wê ya hatiye tehdîtkirin hilneweşe. Li aliyekî din, têgehên cuda hene derbarê azadiya siyasî û derfetên ku polîtîkayên pirçandî yên Rojava pêşkeşî diyasporayên bêdewlet û ên bidewlet dikin. Mînak, digel ku diyasporaya kurd a li Swêdê pirçandîtiyê wek tenzîmeke siyasî ku bi saya wê ew dikarin nasandina etnîk û çandî ku li welatên wan hatiye înkarkirin bidest bixin (Eliassi, 2013), diyasporaya tirk meyla wan ew e ku pirçandîtiyê di nav nasnameyên etnîk û olî yên ne-serdest de ku li diyasporayê eyn mekanên polîtîk parve dikin wek hêzeke tahrîkkirina cudaxwaziyê bibînin. Her wiha, diyasporaya bidewlet wek balyozên dewletê tên dîtin (Şenay, 2013) û bêtir ji ber tirsa parçebûna siyasî û windakirina imtiyazên etnîk, olî û zimanî ku koma etnîk a serdest jê îstifade dike, hewl didin berdewamiya nasnameya dewletê tesdîq bikin. Ev nayê wateya ku endamên diyasporayên bidewlet zorê nadin rejimên otorîter ên li welatên xwe yên ‘resen’ lê dema mijar nasnameya dewletê an nasnameya desthilat be, mesele aloz û tevlîhev dibe. Wek ku Mügge (2012) derbarê Tirkiye û Surînamê de destnîşan dike, li van welatan îdeolojiyên netewebûnê pir zêde bandor li ser nasnameyên netewebuher ên koçberên wan dike. Berevajiya dewleta Surînameyê ku di nav çeşitdariyê de yekitiyê dibîne, a tirkan îdeolojiyeke neteweperweriya etnîk temsîl dike û di nav diyasporaya xwe de ji dêvla bêaxkirina tixûbên neteweyî û nasnameya neteweyî ve vê zexmtir dike. Ev îdeolojî di nav peywendên diyasporîk û ên li welêt de li awayê têkildarbûna diyasporayên wan a bi nasnameyên ne-serdest re jî bandor dikin. Her wiha, Kastoryano (2004) îdia dike ku digel ku diyasporayên bêdewlet (wek kurd û filistînî) bi berxwedana neteweperweriya dewletê ku wan binpê dike mijûl in, diyasporayên bidewlet neteweperweriya welatên xwe berfirehtir dikin û neteweperweriyeke netewebuher ava dikin.

Divê bê destnîşankirin ku hemû endamên diyasporaya bêdewlet derbarê geşedanên siyasî yên li welatên wan ne xwedî heman endîşeyên siyasî ne. Di nav peywenda kurdan de, ji 2005an vir ve, Herêma Kurdistanê ya Iraqê desthilatdariyeke xurt û di nav çarçoveya makezagonî ya Iraqa federal de ku lê nasnameya neteweyî ya kurd wêrar dibe otonomî bi dest xist (Aziz, 2011). Herêma Kurdistanê wek ‘dewleteke di nav dewletê de’ (Bengio, 2012) û wek ‘nîv-dewleta kurd’ (Natali, 2010) tê tarîfkirin. Wek bitûneke siyasî ya otonom, wek kaniya ilhamê tê dîtin ji ber erka wê ya ‘wek referanseke siyasî, axî û sembolîk’ (Tejel, 2009:138) ji bo kurdên li Rojhilata Navîn. Piştî bilindbûna siyasî ya Herêma Kurdistanê, giraniya siyasî ya diyasporayên kurd ên li welatên Rojavayî ne tenê desthilatdariya Iraqê hedef girt lê bi eyn awayî kêmasiya pergala hukukî, newekheviyên zayendî û çînî, gendelî û kirinên siyasî yên nedemokratîk jî kirin hedef (Eliassi, 2013). Li diyasporayê hin kurd jî hene Herêma Kurdistanê wek derfeteke aborî dibînin û siyasetmedar û partiyên li ser kar wek temsîlkarên berjewendiyên gerdûnî yên siyasî yên kurdan diparêzin, ne tenê yên kurdên vê herêmê an bijareyên desthilatdar. Endamên diyasporaya kurd statuyên zagonî yên cuda werdigirin; ev jî bandor li ser çêbûna nasnameya wan a derbarê welatê lê dijîn û welatê wan î ‘resen’ jî bandor dike.

Herwiha, diyaspora piştî geşedanên siyasî, aborî û civakî yên li welatê ‘resen’ dikare şêwaz bigre. Nasname û îdiayên diyasporîk pêwendiya wan hene bi berberî, erênîkirin û muzakerekirina pergala siyasi ya hatiye qebûlkirin û pêwendiyên hewandin û vederkirina li welatên wan ku girêdayî endamtiya komî ye ku aktorên civakî pê hatinê dorpêçkirin. Ji ber vê, di peywenda diyasporîk de ji bo di tunebûna netewe-dewletekê de peydabûna hişmendiya neteweyî û di şêwazgirtina rabejên derbarê neteweperwerî û nasnameya neteweyî de rola netewe-dewletparêziyê bê famkirin, hûrbûna li ser têgînkirina diyasporîk a bêdewletbûnê girîng e (bnr. Khalidi, 2010: xi). Piştî vê, ez ê çarçoveya têgînî ya bêdewletbûn û welatîbûnê pêşkeş bikim û metodolojiya vê xebatê nîqaş bikim. Nîqaşa tegînî wê him di asta takekesî û him bi çarçoveyên welatîbûn û serweriyê re eleqedar di asta kolektîf de wê bi bêdewletbûnê re di nav pêwendiyeke nêz de be. Bi saya vegotinên endamên diyasporayên kurd ên li Swêd û QY, ez ê dîtinên bêdewletbûnê berfirehtir bikim. Herî dawî, ez ê encamên derbarê ka çawa bêdewletbûn dikeve nav çarçoveyê û wek neyênîkirina welatîbûna fermî fama lîberal a derbarê bêdewletbûnê pirsyarî bikim.

Di cîhana netewe-dewletan de bêdewletbûn û welatîbûn

Tê gotin ku ‘ji ber sedemên derveyî dewletê û sedemên ji wê bêdewletbûn fenomeneke global e’ (Blitz û Lynch, 2009:95). Li dinyayê, li dor 12-15 milyon insan bêdewlet in, ev hejmar gelek mirovên dibe ku welatîbûna wan a fermî heye lê nikarin ji mafê welatîbûnê îstifade bikin li derveyî xwe dihêle (Redclift, 2013; Staples, 2012). Têgeha bêdewletbûnê bi giranî ji wê fikra ku ‘bêmafbûnê’ û ‘şikestinbar’iyê destnîşan dike tê (Staples 2012), ji ber ku ew wek ‘amrazeke sar a vederkirinê’ temsîl bike tê hisabkirin (Redclift, 2013:2). Piranî, têgeha bêdewletbûnê di nav qadeke rabêjî ya neyêniyê de tê bicîkirin. Mînak, bêdewletbûn wek ‘bi tevahî vederkirina ji nav mirovatiyê’ (Arendt, 2004:297), ‘valahiyeke zagonî ya kafkaesk’ (UNHCR nql. Hayden, 2008:249), ‘mirina civakî’ (Castles, 2005:216), ‘tam tarîfa cehnimeya modern’ (Ignatieff, 2009:7), ‘jiyana rût’ (Agamben, 1998) û ‘rewşa xetereya bêdawî’ (Walzer, 1981:32) tê qebûlkirin. Dema bêdewletbûn ji aliyê akademisyen, polîtîkaçêker û rêxistinên navneteweyî tê nîqaşkirin, piranî wek kêmasiyeke welatîbûnê ku tê ferzkirin destûr dide tak û koman ku ji hewandin, azadî, maf û parastinê îstifade bikin, tê nirxandin. Bêdewletbûn ji aliyê Hannah Arendtê (2004) wek windabûna welatîbûnê an windabûna xwedî-mafbûna baş hatiye tarîfkirin (bnr. Somers, 2008; Shachar, 2014 jî). Wek encam, bi nerîneke ku zagon an mafan esas digre, çareseriya bêdewletbûnê di bidestxistina netewetiyekê de ye ku gelek caran bi mefhûma welatîbûnê re cî diguhere (Blitz û Lynch, 2009; van Waas, 2008; Manly û van Waas, 2014). Li gor Konvasyona Cenewreyê-1954, kesekî bêdewlet wek ‘kesekî ku ji aliyê tu dewletan wek welatiyekî di bin hukmê hukuka wê de nayê qebûlkirin’, hatiye tarîfkirin. Ev nerîna derbarê bêdewletbûnê koka wê di tarîfa siyasî/sazimanî tê ku çareya bêdewletbûnê di bexşkirina netewetiyekê de dibîne. Lê ev mirov zêde ecêbmayî nahêle ji ber ku ‘xebata li ser bêdewletbûnê dibe xebateke li ser hukuka netewetiyê’ (Manly û van Waas, 2014:5). Staples (2012) îdia dike ku divê em ji referekirina ‘netewetî’ û ‘welatîbûn’ê dûr bisekinin lê ji vê bêtir divê em bi riya têgeha ‘endamtî’yê li pêwendiyên hewandin û vederkirinê bipirsin. Redclift (2013) destnîşan dike ku anomaliya zagonî ku bêdewletbûn temsîl dike, xuya ye wek azmûneke hatiye jiyandin û wek meseleyeke nasnameyî ji bo famkirina tevliheviya bêdewletbûnê têr nake (bnr. Manly û van Waas, 2014). Ev tevlihevî jê re nerîneke interdisîplîner pêwîst e ku mefhûma bêdewletbûnê tenê nake mijara netewetî/welatîbûnê lê wê ber bi lêpirsîna di vederkirina koman de ku wek neqebûlbar, nesadiq an tehdîdeke siyasî tên dîtin serwerî û rola desthilatdariya dewletê dibe (Gibney, 2011). Conklin (2014) dibêje bêdewletbûn muamaya civata navneteweyî ku digel vederkirina de jure (qanûnî) ya bi dehan milyonan û mirovên bi fiilî bêdewlet’ qala ‘mafên mîrovan ên gerdûnî û standardên legal ên zagonên mirovî’ dike, temsîl dike (2014:302). Şexs an kom hene ku bi awayekî zagonî welatîyeke fermî (de jure) bi dest dixin, lê dîsa jî de facto bêdewletbûnê azmûn dikin. Ev nakokî wateyên dijhev û pirjimar dide welatîbûnê. Ew dikare wek amrazeke hewandinê ku bi saya wê endamtiya siyasî tê sazkirin kar bike (Somers, 2008), lê ew dikare wek maskeya bo tesdîqkirin û xurtkirina berjewendiyên siyasî, çandî û aborî yên komeke diyar kar bike (Bosniak, 2006; Bilsky, 2008). Welatîbûn her wiha dibe şênberbûyina fazîletên ku komên zal telkîn dikin û ev nerîneke taybet e ku ‘xwe wek nerîneke gerdûnî saz dike’ (Isin, 2002:21). Ev rave dike ka çima dîroka welatîbûnê dîroka zalbûna komên taybet in ku ‘nasnameya xwe wek welatî pêşkeş dikin û biyanî, ên ji derve û ên ne welatî jî wek ew ên jê tên nefretkirin ku ji taybetiyên ji bo welatîbûnê wek elzem hatiye tespîtkirin mehrûm in (2002, 22). Di nav peywendeke navneteweyî de, Castles (2005) ji bo famkirina bê ka di dinyaya netewe-dewletan de welatîbûn çawa tê dîzaynkirin mînakeke qanîker destnîşan dike. Ew îdia dike ku netewe-dewlet û welatîbûn normên global in û di nav netewe-dewletan de hiyerarşiyeke berbiçav heye. Di vê hiyerarşiyê de, Emerîka dewleta yekem e, dewletên endamen Yekitiya Ewropayê di pey wê re ne û paşre Japonya, Keneda, Zelandaya Nû û Awistralya û dewletên veguhêzbûyî wek Rusyayê tên. Li jêrî van dewletan, dewletên welatên kêm ‘pêşdeçûyî’ yên Başûr û li herî jêra vê hiyerarşiya sistema netewe-dewletan de, gelên bêdewlet wek kurd, tamilî û filistînî hene. Mirovên bi endamtiyên siyasî yên cuda bi awayekî newekhev di hiyerarşiya maf û azadiyê de, ku pasaportên cuda hêz û nirxên cuda temsîl dikin, cî digrin (Castles, 2005). Ev newekheviyên binyadî tenê di navbera netewe-dewletan de nayê pratîkkirin lê di nav tixûbên neteweyî de jî hene. Bi heman awayî, Bosniak (2006) di retorîk û pratîkê de gerdûnîbûn û bisînorbûna welatîbûnê bi hev re dike pêşbaziyê. Ew îdia dike ku welatîbûna bendewara (bounded) netewetiyê gelek caran li derve hişk li hundir jî nerm tê qebûlkirin, ji ber ku welatîbûn lê bendê ye ku di nav tixûbên neteweyî de bi awayekî gerdûnî bê xebitandin û li hemberî kesên ku li qeraxên civatê hatine bicîkirin vederkirêneriya wê destnîşan bike. Li gor Bosniak, ev fama welatîbûnê têra xwe bi pirsgirêk e ji ber ku ber destbestkirinên vederkirêner ên ‘welatîbûn’ê her dem ne di nav çarçoveya terîtoryal a dewletê de ye lê gelek caran dikevin nav tixûbên teritoriya neteweyekê jî. Dema ev çêdibe, qaideyên welatîbûna gerdûnî û welatîbûna bendewar heman axê (hundirîn) parve dikin’ (2006:99). Ev rexneya li jor nîşaneya rewşeke ku cudatiyên newekhev tenê di navbera netewe-dewletan de nayê praktîzekirin lê di nav eyn tixûbên neteweyî jî tên praktîzekirin. Qismeke pirsgirêkê ev e ku hiyerarşiya welatîbûnê rehên wê di îdeolojiya welatîbûna mafê jidayikbûnê (birthright) de ne ku di asta globalî de tevkariya belavbûna newekhev a dengê polîtîk, dewlemendî, çûnûhatin û derfetan dike. Welatîbûna jidayikbûnê, li gor Shachar (2009), dişibe sistemeke feodal ku mueyîdeyên milkê mîratê ku parvekirina welatîbûna mafê-jidayikbûnê ‘cudatiyên navbera qadên karbidestiyan û ên navbera mîratên zêde newekhev jî dirust dike, tesdîq dike û meşrû dike’ (2009:4). Ev îma dike ku tenê kûrbûna ser statuya fermî ya şexsekî an komekê dikare ‘newekheviyên derfetên jiyana rasteqîn ku di civatên siyasî yên spesîfîk de bi welatîbûnê ve zeliqî ne’ nede xuyakirin (2009:9 dûpatkirin di deqa resen de). Her çiqas Shachar (2009, 2014) bo kes an komên bêdewlet bidestxistina welatîbûnê teqdîr dike jî, dîsa jî sînorên wekheviya fermî ya statuyan nabîne ji ber ku xitabî newekheviyên welatîbûna mafê-jidayikbûnê nake an lê nanêre. Hin lêkolînerên din pêşniyaz dikin ku divê em dewletên bê netewe (Stevens, 2010) an welatiyên bê netewe biafirînin (Isin, 2012) da ku em çareyek ji encamên vederkirêner ên welatîbûna mafê-jidayikbûnê -ku dibêjin ‘neteweyê dewlet dagir kiriye’- (Arendt, 2004:275) bibînin û ev me ber bi mefhûma serweriyê ve dibe.

Serwerî û wek kirdeyeke polîtîk bêdewlet

Têgeha serweriyê tê wateya desthilatdariyeke siyasî ya bala ku tixûbên dewletê û pêvajoyên wê yên hewandin û vederkirinê dirust dike (Vali 1998). Di pey globalîzmê re hat gotin ku dewlet wê têk biçe û bimre. Wek Cohen (2001) jî destnîşan dike, globalîzasyon nayê wateya têbuhirandin û nehewcebûna dewlet û serweriyê ji ber ku dewlet û bi taybetî dewletên xurt ên Rojavayî, di kedîkirin û şêwazgirtina aboriya cîhana global de aktorên sereke ne. Elbet ev nayê wê wateyê ku tiştek neguheriye lê guherîn ji mirina dewletan bêtir derbarê şêwazên wan ên nû de ye. Dewlet hê jî li ser tixûbên axa xwe xwedî desthilat in û ji bo berjewendiyên xwe yên di asta global de biparêzin serweriya xwe nerm dikin. A din, ew kes jî hene ku nîqaşa bangawaziya Leviathan dikin û dewletê wek ‘amraza sereke ya azadiya mirovî, a aştî û ewlehiya civakî dibînin, û bi awayekî paradoksî ji bo ew kesên êrişî wê dikin jî penagehan peyda dikin’ (du Gay, 2012: 397).

Meseleya serweriyê xwedî girîngiyeke navendî ye bo rewşa siyasî ya mirovên (gelên) bêdewlet ji ber ku dewleta serwer xwedî hêz e ku bi vederkirinê re bihewîne an bi hewandinê re vederbike (Agamben, 1998; Vali, 1998). Ev rave dike ka çima bêdewletbûn û welatîbûna serwer dikevin nav hevdu û bi awayekî pir asîmetrîk hev-sazker in. Mirov dikare bêje xwedîbûna welatîbûn an pasaporteke serwer, ger çendên din ji aliyê meşruiyet û zagonî ve wek pasaport an welatibûna bêqîmet nehata dîtin, wê wek îmtiyazekê nehata dîtin[2]. Ev cot dijberîya welatî û bêdewletiyê hêza vederkirina serwer, ku ew ê bêdewlet dike nav nasnameyeke kirêt an nehewce, destnîşan dike. Di dîrokê de dewletan ji bo cezakirina mirovên hemberî pergala civakî û siyasî wek tehdît hatine qebûlkirin, wek çeka bijare derxistina ji welatîbûnê bikaranîne (Arendt, 2004; Hayden, 2008; Gibney, 2011). Ev tê wê wateyê ku ‘rabitaya hêza serwer û bêdewletbûnê dikare wek sistemeke xeter a apartheida global ku jêrçîneke dewamî ya mirovên nehewce/zêde ava dike, bê karakterîzekirin’ (Hayden, 2008:262-3). Ev apartheida sazimanî ya sistema navneteweyî dinyayê dike du beş, gelên bidewlet û ên bêdewlet (Hayden, 2008; Eliassi, 2013). Wek encam, ew ê gelek şaş be ku bêdewletbûn ‘digel hewldanên mezin ên dewletan bo astengkirina wê ew wek fenomeneke istisnayî an bêhemdî bê dîtin, lê ew rewşeke sîstematîk a “normalîzekirî” ye ku ji aliyê pergaleke navneteweyî, wek kakila siyasetên dewlethez bi alikariya hêza vederkirêner hatiye hilberandin (Hayden, 2008:250).

Ji ber ku dinya bi awayekî normatîv bûye ruhseta netewe-dewletan, kesên bêdewlet di temsilkirina nasnameya xwe de xwedî astengên binyadî ne, ji ber ku temsiliyeta nasnameya siyasî (neteweyî) ya modern bi nasnameya dewletê re yek e. Lê, di nîqaşên nav akademiyê yên derbarê bêdewletbûnê de sînorkirineke mezin heye ji ber ku çareseriya vê rewşa kirêt gelek caran di nav çarçoveyeke teng de dadixe asta bidestxistina welatîbûn/netewetiyeke fermî. Elbet hebûna welatîbûneke fermî ji tunebûna wê çêtir e, lê lazim e em têgeha welatîbûnê berfirehtir bikin ku nasnameya etnîk a zal ji navendê derxin bi riya jinûvetarîfkirin û jinûve-vegotinkirina nasnameya serwer ku hemû cudatiyan bi awayekî nehiyerarşîk di nav xwe de bihewîne. Hêjayî qalkirinê ye ku di salên 1960an de hejmareke zêde ya kurdên li Sûrî (300,000) û salên 1980an de li Iraqê (ji 100,000 zêdetir mirov) bi îdiaya ku eslê wan ne ji van welatên nû-ava ne ji welatibûnê hatin derxistin. Ger bêdewletbûn bi tunebûna welatîbûna fermî bê bisînorkirin, piraniya kurdan welatiyên Tirkiye, Îran, Iraq û Sûrî ye ne û nakevin nav statuya bêdewletan.

Xebatên cuda destnîşan dikin ku mirov hene bêyî ku ciyê aîdî wê ne biterikînin bi awayekî daxilî bêdewlet in, wek li Rojhilata Navîn kurd (Vali, 1998), welatiyên ereb ên Israilê (Molavi, 2013) û piştî trajediya Bahoza Katrînayê efrikiyên emerikî yên li New Orleansê (Somers, 2008). Ji vî alî ve, Molavi (2013) heta welatiyên ereb ên Israîlê wek ‘welatiyên bêdewlet’ tarîf bike diçe -linikhevbûneke dijber a welatîbûn û bêdewletbûnê, ji ber ku têgeha welatîbûnê têgeheke dewlet-navendî ye (Eliassi, 2014). Molavi (2013) îdia dike ku hemû filistîniyên li dinyayê bêdewlet in lê ew bêdewletbûnê bi awayekî cuda azmûn dikin. Welatiyên ereb bêdewletbûnê wek têgeh û nav ji filistiniyên li ser Axa Filistîna Dagirkirî û li kampên penaberan dijîn cudatir azmûn dikin. Filistîniyên li ser Axa Filistîna Dagirkirî bi riya vederkirineke hewîner tên vederkirin, welatiyên ereb ên Israilê bi hewandineke vederkirêner tên hewandin, ku tê wê wateyê dewleta Israilê nasname, pêdivî, maf an daxwazên wan wek gelekî otonom temsîl nake. Dewleta Israîlê di tarîfa xwe de tenê kesên cihû û berjewendiyên wan temsîl dike. Awayê ku rejima Israîlê hatiye pê diyarkirin ‘bidestxistina mafê welatîbûnê û temsîlê yên filistînî-ereban bisînor dike û di nav dewletê de statuya wan wek welatiyê wê dewletê red dike, vê civatê dike welatiyên bêdewlet’ (Molavi, 2003:183- 184, dûpatkirin di deqa resen de). Li gor vê, çarçoveya têgehî ya welatîbûna Israilê dibe stratejiyeke jinûvehilberandina bêdewletbûnê di nav welatiyên filistînî-ereb ên Israilê de. Bêdewletbûna welatiyên ereb di nav dewleta Israilê de û ji aliyê wê ‘di asta îdeolojîk, hebûnî, sazîmanî û siyasî de bi tunebûna temsiliyetê tê karakterîzekirin (Molavi, 2013:185), digel ku ew welatiyên Israîlê ne.

Bi vê eleqedar, yek ji sedemên mezin ên li paş pêwistiya acil a berfirehkirina têgeha bêdewletbûnê ya ji tenê bidestxistina welatîbûnê ber bi hewandina maf û mijarên din ew e ku ku nasnameyên ne serwer bikaribin geş bibin û bi ‘dîroka xwe ya bi bindestî, mehrûmbûna ji statuyeke wekhev a bi nasnameyên din re’ nerizin, ji holê ranebin (Radhakrishnan, 2003:19). Di xebateke xwe asovekir de, Arendt (2004) bêdewletbûnê bi windabûna mala polîtîk, parastina îdarî û mafên siyasî dike yek. Somers (2008) vê tarîfê firehtir dike, ji welatîbûnê tenê wek mafên medenî, zagonî û civakî behs nake lê mafê sereke yê qebûlkirin, hewandin û endamtiya di nav civata siyasî û sivîl’ jî behs dike (Somers, 2008:25). Dema Somers (2008) ji afirandina endamtiyeke bêtir hewîner çarçoveyeke girîng pêşkeş dike, nerina wê ya li welatîbûn û bêdewletbûnê bi xwe di nav civakên pirneteweyî û pirçandî de bi jinavendxistin an bê-etnîkkirina nasnameya serwer mijûl nabe, lê çarçoveya ber bi firehkirinê ve dibe. Berevajiya Somers, Vali (1998), meseleya bêdewletbûnê dibe asteke din a tegehî da ku li Rojhilata Navîn li rewşa siyasi û vederkirina kurdan binere. Li gor Vali, gelek caran serwerî ji bo tarîfkirina nasname û meşruiyeta desthilatdariya siyasî serî lê tê dayin, dema li derveyî kontrola devletê be jî. A din, welatîbûna serwer gelek caran nasnameya koma etnîk a zal jî dide ser xwe û ‘di nav çarçoveye zagonî ya serweriyê de dibe mekana sereke a erkên pêkhêner ên dewletê û her wiha amûrên sereke yên vederkirina nasnameyên siyasî û çandî yên ne-serwer ji pêvajoya siyasî (1998:86). Bi gotineke din, li welatên pirneteweyî, ku li qadeke çal û mitik de ku nifûzî vê pêwendiya newekhev dike qaideyên lîstikê diyar dikin, heta ku nasnameya siyasî/etnîk a zal wek nasnameya hakim a tahakukirî bê qebûlkirin, nasnameyên ne-serwer nikarin hêviya wekheviyê bikin, ku ew bi awayekî aştîxwaz di nav çarçoveya makezagonî ya dewletê de dawa mafên xwe bikin jî. Ger nasnameyên ne-serwer li ber roniya tunebûna meşruiyeta gelperwer-demokratîk an serweriya gel bi zorê têkevin nav hevkêşeyeke neteweyî jî, newekheviyên siyasî, çandî û aborî wê berdewam bin ji ber ku ew ê nikaribin biguherînin wê normatîvîteya nasnameya siyasî ya serwer ku li ser hemû binyadên civakî ku pêşekî didin nasnameyeke diyar lê îdiaya gerdûnîbûnê dike zal e (Radhakrishnan, 2003; Eliassi, 2013). Gerdûnîbûn, ku wek mînak li her dewleta ku kurd lê dijîn nasnameyên faris, tirk an ereb îdia dikin, ‘bi riya amûrên xwaro maro yên veberanîna (investment) ser partikularîteyeke diyar tenê mewcûdiyeteke deynkirî bidest dixe’ (Laclau, 2005:648). Ger em bêjin ewçax bêdewletbûn him adin him berhema netewe-dewletê ye, Vali (1998) pêvajoyên ku encama adiniya kesên bêdewlet dide tarîf dike:

Di rabêja siyasî ya modernîteyê de bêdewletbûn wek meseleyeke mirovayetiyê, ku merhamet, dilşewitandin, birçîtî, tunebûn û bêxanîbûnê tîne bîra mirov, tê dîtin. Ev ji ber vê ye ku dema bêdewletbûn wek rewşeke siyasî û kesê bêdewlet jî “wek kirdeya siyasî” tê hesibandin, tavilê meseleya dijwar a mafan, ku di nav rabêja siyasî ya modernîteyê de di esasê xwe de bi saziya netewe-dewletê û serweriya neteweyî ve girêdayî ye, tîne rojevê (Vali, 1998:85).

Her çiqas bêdewletbûn berhemeke modernîte û netewe-dewletê be jî, gelên bêdewlet wek nasnameyeke modern a siyasî ku gelek caran bi nasnameya neteweyî re tê yeksankirin, nayên qebûlkirin. Ev tenê ne kêmasiyeke binyadî ye lê meseleyeke ku di jiyana rojane de dev ji mirovên bêdewlet bernade, û mirovên bêdewlet nabin perçeyek ji nasnameya serwer ku ew bi zorê hatine daxilkirin (Eliassi, 2013; 2014). Pirsgirêka şexsekî bêdewlet nikare tenê di asta meseleyeke mirovî de bê dîtin, ji ber ku ew berhema vederkirina siyasî ye ku nasnameya serwer tevkariya wê kiriye. Ligel vê, mirovên bêdewlet ne qasî ku Arendt (2004) û Agamben (1998) hewl didin me bidin bawerkirin ne bêhêz in, ji ber ku ên bêdewlet dikarin li ber xwe bidin û heta dikarin zalbûna pergala rûniştî ku nasnameya serwer damezrandibû, hilweşînin. Li gor Rancière (2004), him Arendt him Agamben dema cemserîtiya (polarity) Mafên Mirovan (bêdewlet) û welatiyan (bidewlet) diafirînin ku ‘îhtimal e Xwedê ancex me jê xilas bike’ (Rancière, 2004:302), meyla wan heye ku dafikeke ontolojîk ku dişibe ‘qedera ontolojîk’ biafirînin (Rancière, 2004:301). Li gor Rancière, çalakiya siyasetê di derbarê neliheviyê de ye ku ên bêdewlet du dinyayan dixînin nav yek û eyn dinyayê’ (2004:304). Her wiha siyaseta binavkirinê di peywenda neliheviyê de girîng dibe. Li Îran, Iraq, Sûrî û Tirkiyeyê hêzên serwer, wek mînak, destûr nadin ku kurd dawê li pozisyona bêdewletbûnê bikin ji ber ku gava ku kurd dawe li bêdewletbûnê bikin, ew di nav rediyeya daxilkirina nav gerdûnîbûna wan de xwe wek siyasî û tehdîdek li dijî nasnameyên dewleta serwer ispat dikin:

Navên polîtîk navên bi îhtilaf in, navên ku firehî û fama wan nediyar in û ji ber vê sedemê lazim e bên ceribandin an piştrastkirin. Kirdeyên polîtîk rewşên piştrastkirinê diafirînin. Hêza navên polîtîk, firehiya wan û fama wan diceribînin. Kirdeyên polîtîk tenê bi mafan re hevrû nabin lê rewşên ku tê de mafên wan tê înkar kirin jî hevrû dibin. Ji wan rewşên ku mafên wan maqûl tê dîtin an kengî nayê dîtin, haydar in. Ew wan pêvajo an pêwendiyên ku dikarin bi hewandin an vederkirinê re rû bi rû bimînin, nas dikin (Rancière 2004, 304).

Kurd ji mêj ve li hemberî dewletên li Rojhilat ku ew lê dijîn li ber xwe dane û hê jî didin, ku ev nîşan dide ku gelekî bêdewlet wek komeke xwedî hişmendiya polîtîk û hêzekê ne ku divê hesabê wan bê kirin. Ev nayê wê wateyê ku berxwedan him ji aliyê rabêjî him ji aliyê siyasî ve sînorên wê tuneye ji ber ku hêza serwer gelek caran dikare daxwaz an dengê gelên bêdewlet wek ‘qerapere’, ‘terorîzm’ û ‘cudaxwazî’ red bikin bi sedem ku ew îstikrara siyasî ya neteweyî û pergala herêmî/navneteweyî aciz dikin. Gelên bêdewlet jî û ên bidewlet jî kirdeyên polîtîk in û ev divê wek kolektîvîteyên teqez nên dîtîn lê wek ‘navên li pirsgirêk an îhtilafekê hatine kirin’ bê famkirin (Rancière, 2004:303). Ev eşkere ye ku ên bidewlet bi riya vederkirina binyadî ya ew ên zêde û kirêt tên qebûlkirin, yanê ên bêdewlet, dikarin hebûna xwe nîşan bidin (bnr. Molavi, 2013:36). Lewma tixûbê navbera bêdewlet û bidewletan dibe ciyê siyaset û pêşbaziyê. Ew ev tixûb e ku kurdên bêdewlet ji mêj ve dixwazin hilweşînin an ji nû ve tarîf bikin da ku dawa welatîbûna xweser bikin lê mafên xwe yî çarenûsiya neteweyî an şêwazên din ên xwe-îdarekirinê wek federalîzm û otonomiyê jî biparêzin. Li ser vegotinên 34 kesên ji diyasporayên kurd ên li du welatên ewropî, ez ê analîz bikim ka diyasporayên kurd riyên ku tê de seferber dibin û/an li ber xwe didin çawa dibînin, û di dawiyê de di peywenda bêdewletbûnê de mefhûmên aîdiyeta hevpar çawa problematîze dikin. Bêjedarên min 18 heb jê swêdî ne (neh jin û neh mer), ên brîtanî 16 kes in (deh mêr û şeş jin). Lêkolîn kurdên ji her parçeyên Kurdistanê yên li Îran, Iraq, Turkiye û Sûrî di xwe de dihewîne. Min hevpeyvînên xwe li gor tercîhên bêjedaran bi zaravayên soranî û kurmancî, îngilîzî û swêdî kirin. Hevpeyvîn kesên ji paşxaneyên cuda yên siyasî, çînî û perwerdehî û ji rabirdûyên cuda yên koçberiyê, mînak koçberên qaçax, penaber, ên bi riya zewacê hatine, ên bo yekkirina malbatê û wek penaberên qotayê hatine, di nav xwe de dihewînin. Di nav 18 kurdên ku li Swêdê (Göteborg, Kalmar, Lund, Malmö, Uppsala, Stockholm) bi wan re peyivîm şanzdeh ji wan welatîbûn wergirtibûn, du kesên din jî destûra wan a îkameta dewamî hebû. 16 kurdên li Îngîltereyê jî (London, Manchester û Oxford), deh ji wan welatiyên Brîtanyayê bûn, sê jê welatiyên Yekitiya Ewropayê (YA- du ji wan ji Hollanda û yek ji Belçîkayê bû), du kes destûra wan rûniştinê hebû û yek jî koçberê qaçax bû. Hevpeyvîn piranî bi kurdên koçber ên ‘asayî’ re hatin kirin lê pênc kurdên koçber (sê li Îngîltere, du li Swêdê) ku xwe wek çalakgerê siyasî didan naskirin jî hebûn. Sedema hilbijartina kurdên ‘asayî’ ev e ku ger kesên berdevk û bijare li ser navê diyasporayê bipeyivin, bi riya vegotinên cewherxwaz û mezin ên derbarê diyasporayê de ku ew îdia dikin, dikarin temsiliyeta meşrû ya komê yekdestî bikin (Ragazzi, 2012). Tevî vê, min xwest vê valahiyê tijî bikim û dengê kurdên him ‘asayî’ him ên ‘berdevk’ bihewînim da ku derbarê mijarên bêdewletbûn û nasnameya kurd a neteweyî de aliyên hevpar û cudatiyên potansiyel nîşan bidim.

Ji ber ku kurd ji aliyê dîrokî û siyasî ve li Rohjilata Navîn aîdî komeke zal in, dengên wan î marjinalîzekirî dikare bibe diyalogeke hilberîner ka bê pêwendiyên hewandin û vederkirinê li dinyayeke netewe-dewletan de bi taybetî li Rojhilata Navîn çawa tên sazkirin. Hûrbûna li ser dengên mirovên ‘asayî’ jî dikare gengaz bike ku ‘ji nerîneke hişk wêdetir û ber bi cudatiyeke dualî ya di navbera civak û şexsan de biçe, û wek mekaneke civakî ya veguherîna hiyerarşiyên civakî pratîkên rojane yên şexsan analîz bike. Bijartinên ku di jiyane rojane de tên kirin siyaseta tiştên biçûk pêk tîne’ (Lamont û Mizrachi, 2012:367). A din, deng û gotinên komên marjînalî- zekirî him dikare li hember tixûbên komê ku ji aliyê dewletê wek pergala meşrû ya tiştan hatiye tesdîqkirin, rabe him dikare wan zeximtir jî bike. Analîza van dengan, ji bo em fam bikin ka bê di warê rabêjên dewletê yên derbarê nasnameya neteweyî û pirçandîtiyê de tixûbên komê çawa tên çêkirin û xirakirin (bnr. Lamont û Mizrachi, 2012) jî girîng e. Ji bo azmûnên bêdewletiyê û sazkirina aîdiyeta siyasî bê lêkolandin û analîzkirin, lêkolîneke vebêjî hate pejirandin (Reissman, 2008; Hammack, 2011; Andrews, Squire û Tamboukou, 2013). Vebêj girîng in ji ber ku ew awayên ku em xwe û yên din tarîf dikin (Anthias, 2002; Yuval-Davis, 2011); ‘di nav tevliheviya xwe ya civakî û siyasî de jiyana xwe çawa şîrove dikin’ nîşanî me didin. Vebêj di nav xwe de pêvajoyên şîroveyî jî dihewîne ‘û kapasîteya wê ya şêwandinê wê amade dike da ku bûyerên rabirdû, niha û dahatûyê bi hev re bike yek û nasnameyên takî û kolektîf dirust bike’ (Polletta, 1998:139). Li gor Hammack, girîng e ku mirov wateyên ku şexs didin azmûnên xwe yî hatine jiyandin wek ‘tenê şexsî an idiosyncratic biçûk bike lê divê xwezaya wan a polîtîk bê dîtin, ji ber ku her tim gelek tişt îma dikin ji bo şêwandina qismî ya kategoriyên civakî, û ji ber vê, bo reqabeta civakî’ (Hammack, 2011:213, dûpatkirin di deqa resen de). Ligel van, vebêjên takî ‘zanîna ku dikare statukoya newekhevî, paşkoyîtiya çandî an siyasî, an awayên din ên bêdadiyê tehdîd bike hilberîne (Hammack, 2011:213). Berpirsiyariya vebêjî dikare di nav civaka berfireh de rê li ber nûvehilberandina bêdadî û pergalên siyasî, çandî, aborî û zayendî yên hiyerarşîk jî veke. Vebêjên takî gelek caran tevî nasnameyên kolektîf girêdayî serpêhatiyên şexsî ne ji ber ku mirov gelek caran xwe di ser nasnameyên lêbarkirî û xwe-tarifkirî yên tecrubî yên wek zayendî, etnîk, neteweyî an çînî tarîf dikin.

Wek statuyeke birîndar, bêdewletbûn

Hemû nasname di nav hevbandorî û diyalektîka tarîfkirin û kategorîkirinên hundirîn û derveyî tên sazkirin (Jenkins, 1996). Digel ku dema derbarê nasnameyên wan pirs ji wan tê kirin, gelek koçber bi pirsgirêka xwe-tarîfkirinê re rû bi rû dibin, rewşa bêdewletan bêtir aloz e. Lara[3] ku jineke ciwan e ji başûrê Kurdistanê, li Hollandayê mezin bûye û ji bo xwendinê çûye Îngiltereyê, wek miroveke bêdewlet, pirsgirêka xwe-tarîfkirinê û xwe-pêşkeşkirinê ku di jiyana xwe ya rojana de dijî, nîşan dike:

Em kurd nikarin jiyaneke rihet bijîn ji ber ku nasnameya me her dem xalpirsek e. Dema dewletek te tunebe, nasnameya te û bersivên derbarê nasnameya we jî ji meşruiyetê bêpar e. Ji ber ku tu nikarî bi hêsanî deverekê nîşan bide û bêje ez ji vir im, ev tişten me hene. Tu ne xwedî bersiveke rêkûpêk e ji ber ku realiteya te ji binyadeke zelal bêpar e. Dema tu dibînî her kes aleke wan a naskirî heye, tu xwe de kêmasiyekê dibînî. Dema pêwîst e tu li ser formekî navê welatê xwe yê ku tu ji dayik bûyî an welatê tu jê hatiyî binivîsînî jî tu hîs dikî nasnameyek te biqisûr heye. Gelek caran ez dinivîsînim ku ji Hollandayê me lê dema ciyê jidayikbûnê tê pirsîn, ez mecbûr dimînim Iraq dinivîsînim û ez qet xwe wek Iraqiyekê nabînim /…/ Bêdewletbûn tê wateya gelek pirsan û derbarê nasnameya te de bersivên hêsan tunene. Yanê ger tenê carekê ji te tê pirsîn tu ji kuderê yî, ew ê nebûya pirsgirêk lê ev pirsek e ku niha û di dahatûyê de divê ez gelek caran bi wê re rû bi rû bibim. Wek miroveke bêdewlet, bi vê pirsa dijwar re tu xwe tenê dibînî (jineke 24 salî, ji başûrê Kurdistanê, QY).

Her wiha, ên bêdewlet hewce ye xwe zêde zêde îzeh bike da ku bigêne qonaxekê ku nasnameya wê/wî ku gelek caran nasnameyeke neteweyî an nasnameyeke dewletî ye, bikaribe bê famkirin. Ev nasnameya ‘tê famkirin’ ev kes û komên ku gihiştine welatibûnê û ew yekdestî kirine dike xwedî îmtiyaz ji ber ku nasnameya wan hatiye xarickirin û bêterefiyeke gerdûnî bidest xistiye. Tenê ne ew e ku kesên bêdewlet in ku nikarin bersiveke zelal bidin, gelek caran mecbûr dimînin xwe dikin nav nasnameyeke neteweyî an dewletî, vê nekin jî, an dil nakin xwe tarîf bikin. Ji ber pirba- rekirina pirsa ‘tu ji kuderê yî?’ bêjedar nikarin bi dirêjahî têkevin nav tevliheviya xwe-tarîfkirinê û xwe wek ji Îran, Iraq, Tirkî û Sûrî didin naskirin. Wek ku Lara jî li jor digot, nasnameya ên bêdewlet di dinyaya netewe-dewletan de ji meşrûiyetê bêpar e û nikare zû bi zû derveyî welatîbûn an aîdiyeta netewe-dewletekê bimînin. Tevî vê, kesên bêdewlet di jiyana rojane de bi zehmetiya xwe-tarîfkirinê re rû bi rû dimînin lê di meseleyên burokratîk û sazîmanî jî de ku mirov li gor welatê jidayikbûnê tên tarîfkirin û kes lê nanere ka ev bi dilê wan e an na. Em di dinyayekê de dijîn ku xwedîbûn an aîdiyeta neteweyekê pergaleke rûniştiye û wek pir xwezayî be tê pejirandin. Ger wek bersiva bo pirsa ‘tu ji kuderê yî?’ hûn bêjin ‘neteweya min tuneye’ wê kes guh nede bersiva we û cidî nabînin. Hûn ê wek henekoyî, utopyaxwazekî naîf an acizker bê dîtin (Malešević, 2013:156-157). Çend bejêdaran binxêz kirin ku pirsa derbarê nasnameya mirovekî de wek heqaret an êşdar dibînin. Lana, jineke 24 salî ji Rojhilata Kurdistanê, dibêje li Swêdê her cara ku pirsa derbarê nasnameya wê jê tê pirsîn, wek ku ‘ew dadgehek e ku divê ew masûmiyeta xwe li wir îspat bike’ û her wiha bêdewletbûnê wek ‘sûcekî navlênabe’ binav dike. Kardo binxêz dike ku bêdewletbûn tê wateya xuyanebûna global û dema mirovên bêdewlet rastî tundiya polîtîk tên ev nayê dîtin:

Bêdewletbûn ji kurdan re dibe asteng ku nasname, çand û dîroka xwe biparêzin. Wek şexsekî bêdewlet tu nayê temsîlkirin. Dinya te nabîne. Dema tu rastî karesateke çandî an mirovî tê kes te naparêze. Wexta kurd li Helebceyê ji aliyê dewleta Iraqê hate bomberankirin, kê dikaribû te biparêzî? Hê jî gelek mirov hene ku nizanin di salên 1980yî de bi sedhezaran kurd ji aliyê dewleta Iraqê bi seferberiyen qirkirinê hatine kuştin. Ez pirtûkên Xebatên Aştî û Pevçûnê û pirtûkên derbarê qirkirinê ku 800 rûpel in dixwînim, navê kurdan tenê du caran derbas dibe. Wek mirovekî bêdewlet tu li tu derê tuneye. Hebûna te tenê xalpirsek e. Dema ez li ser bêdewletbûnê difikirim, ez li ser mirovekî ku ji civata navneteweyî hatiye avêtin difikirim. Tu bêhemdî an bihemdî hatiye jibîrkirin, wek neteweyek hebûna te hatiye înkarkirin. (mirovekî 31 salî, ji rojhilata Kurdistanê, Swêd).

Kardo dema mirovên bêdewlet wek ji civata navneteweyî hatibin qewirandin tarîf kir, wî bêdewletbûn di wateya Arenthî (2004:297) de têginkir. Ev jî destnîşan dike ku guhdana nerînê mirovên ku xwe wek bêdewlet tarîf dikin û hesibandina wan a wek qadeke oryantasyona epîstemîk û cîgirtina civakî ku dikare fameke kûr dabîn bike bo têgihiştina awayê dirustbûna dinyayê û saziyên civakî çawa epîstemolojiya komên zal û bihêz ku gihiştine asta dewletbûnê xwedî îmtiyaz dike. Bêdewletbûn, ji ber vê, ne tenê pirsgirêka ne-hebûn an astengkirina hebûnê ye, ew marûzmayina tundiya siyasî û fizikî ya dewleta serwer e jî. A din, dewleta serwer mafên bêdewletan û daxwaza wan î bo nasnameya siyasî ku ji nasnameya serwer cuda ye înkar dikin û kesên bêdewlet wek ‘mirovên xwe’ tarîf dike da ku otorite û şideta xwe ya siyasî li ser navê dewletê meşrû bike. Wek encam, dewlet ji bo ku mirovên li dijî nasnameya dewletê û yekitiya wê ya axê û siyasî wek tehdîd tên dîtin bi awayekî bêemsal ceza bikin rewşên bêemsal bi kar tînin (Agamben 1998). Wek mînak, di salên 1980yan de ji bo seferberiyên komkujiyê yên li dijî kurdan, gelek caran hat gotin ku Sedam Husên ‘xelkê xwe’ dikuje û bi vî awayî kurd kirin bin berpirsiyariya wî û mafên wan ku daxwaza wek gelekî xweser înkar kirin. Dema hebûna siyasî bi hebûna neteweyî û nasnameyên serwer re heman tişt be, mirovê bêdewlet wek der-civakî û wanekekî xirabiyê tê dîtin.

Pir-wateyên welatîbûnê

Rojîn ku xwe wek çalakgereke siyasî tarîf dike û him welatiya Tirkiye û Swêdê ye dibêje gelên bêdewlet bêyî ku nasname, çand û zimanê wan bê naskirin an meşrû bê dîtin di bin siya gelên din de dijîn:

Ez li Swêdê jî li Tirkiyeyê jî welatiyeke ji çîna duyem im. Li Swêdê wek koçber û li Tirkiyeyê wek kurd. /…/ ger dewleta te hebe, ewçax azadiya te heye û hewce nake barê hebûn an ne-hebûna xwe bide ser xwe. Dewleteke kurd wê azadiya kurdbûnê bide min. Wê çaxê kes nikare te dax bike. Dema dewleta te bi xwe hebe, tu nişanî kesên din dide ku tu, zimanê te, çanda te heye. Ya na, tu yê di bin siya gelên din de bijî û li bende be ku tu bê dîtin lê tu kes ne te dibîne ne jî dibihîze ji ber ku tu nikarî hebûna xwe piştrast bikî. Dema dewleta te bi xwe hebe, wek gelekî mafên te, ala te, zagonên te û zimanê te heye (jineke 39 salî, ji bakûrê Kurdistanê, Swêd).

Bêjedar li jor destnîşan dike ku azmûnên wê yên vederkirinê yên li Tirkiye û Swêdê hesta wê ya bêdewletbûnê xurt dike. Ew di nav peywenda du welatîbûnên cuda yên hiyerarşîk de pozisyona jêrîn azmûn dike; li Tirkiyê wek kurd û li Swêdê wek koçber. Wek encam, ev mînakek baş e ku çareseriya bo bêdewletbûnê ji mirov an komekê ne peydakirina welatîbûna fermî ye û bi taybetî ger ew welatîbûn zalbûna komeke diyar ku etnîsîteya xwe bi riya tahakuma siyasî û îdeolojîk kiribe a dewletê, veşêre. Ji bo piraniya bêjedaran, welatîbûna swêdî û brîtanî ji wan re azadî, ewlehî û mafê çûnûhatinê dabîn dikir. Baş jê haydar in ku ev welatîbûn û pasaport li dinyayê rêz ji wan re tê girtin. Dema dihat pirsîn ka welatîbûna brîtanî tê çi wateyê, yek ji bêjedaran qedrê wê wisa tarîf kir:

Ez xwe wek brîtanî nabînim, ji ber ku ez kurd im. Welatîbûnek nasnameya min naguhere. Lê ez pasaporta brîtanî ji bo seyahatê bi kar tînim. Pasaporta brîtanî jiyana te hêsantir dike. Tu li gor dilê xwe dikarî bixebitî. Dilê te kuderê bixwaze, tu dikarî biçî. Ez xwe bi kesên ku li vir dijîn lê destûra wan a mayinê tuneye didim ber hev. Nikarin xaniyekî jî kirê bikin. Xwediyê xênî dixwaze tu nasnameya xwe piştrast bikî. Xelk ji bo kirê odeyekê jî nadinê. Piraniya wan bi pereyekî pir hindik dixebitin. Rojê 12 seatan bi 35 poundî dixebitin. Dema kaxizên te yî zagonî û destûra te ya mayinê hebe, xelk bi te re çêtir tevdigere (Mêrekî 26 salî, ji başûrê Kurdistanê, QY).

Welatîbûn û statuyên legal pir-wateyî ne. Welatîbûn ne şerd e ku wateya aîdbûna nasnamayê bide. Ew rewşa welatî ya di asta global de qedrê pasaportê diyar dike. Hêz û qedrê ku pasaport nîşan dide dikare di dinyaya welatîbûna hiyerarşîk û netewe-dewletên newekhev de azadiya we ya çûnûhatinê bisînor bike an nehêle (bnr. Castles, 2005). Welatiyên Swêd û QY dikarin bêyî wîze ji 170 welatî bêtir bigerin, lê ji bo yên din, welatîbûn ji azadiyê bêtir dibe bar an daxek (Eliassi, 2014). Şexsên bêdewlet ku koçî welatên ewropî yên bihêz kirine û bûne welatiyên wan, welatîbûna ewropayê dibe ku hesta aîdiyetê nede wan lê welatîbûneke pragmatîk ji wan re dabîn dike lê azadiya çûnûhatinê û ewlehiya ku kesên bêdewlet jê mehrûm in dide wan (Mavroudi, 2007). Pasaportên brîtanî û swêdî ji yên iraqî û sûrî gelekî biqîmetir in, ji ber ku wek netewe-dewlet ne di pozisyonên wekhev de ne. Her weha, bêjedar dema xwe bi koçberên qaçax ên ‘tê mêtin’ û ‘bêrûmet’ berawird dikin, di warê mafan de û hurmeta nav civakê de ji qedrê welatîbûn û statuya zagonî haydar in. Ev xuya dike her çiqas ji bêdewletbûnê re ne çare be jî, bidestxistina welatîbûnê têra xwe girîng e.

Bêdewletbûn wek nexwedîbûn û nexuyakirina siyasî

Bêdewletbûn ne tenê pirsgirêkeke nexwedîbûna çand an zimanekî qebûlkirî ye lê ew nexwedîbûna çandî ye jî ku tenê dewletbûn dikare bibe çareseriya wê:

Dema dewletek te bi xwe tunebe, tu dîrok û çanda xwe winda dike. Ên din dikarin dîroka te ji te bistînin û bikin a xwe. Wek mînak, nahêlin ku tu îdia bike ku govendek heye, ew a kurdan e. Hûn dibin wek gelekî hatiye dizîn. Lê ger dewletek te hebe, dewlet dibe wek pirtûkxaneyekê ku tu dikarî tiştên aîdî neteweya xwe li wir biparêze. Di vê pirtûkxaneyê de, tu dizanî nasnameya te çi ye û mafên te çi ne (mêrekî 45 salî, ji rojavayê Kurdistanê-QY).

Her wiha tê qebûlkirin ku dewlet çarçoveya sazîmanî ye ku komek bikaribe tê de geş bibe û nasnameya xwe ya çandî biparêze. Ev rave dike ka çima netewe-dewlet wek mala polîtîk tê dîtin. Gelên bêdewlet di dîrokê de ciyê wan tê înkarkirin û tevkariya wan a bo mirovayetiyê nayê dîtin an tê bêqîmetkirin ku li jor hin bêjedaran anîn ziman. Îdeolojiyên fermî yên Îran, Iraq, Sûrî û Tirkiyeyê kurd kirine nav nasnameyên xwe û ew ji ax û erdnigariya wan ku bikaribin bêjin ev der welatê wan î dîrokî ye, bêpar hiştine. Dema nasnameyên ku pozisyona wan bi awayekî binyadî newekhev bin, di îdiakirina hebûn û tunebûnê de, serdestî û marjînalkirinê de, qebûlkirin û neqebûlkirinê de binavkirin amrazeke navendî ye. Ji ber ku gelên bêdewlet tê ferzkirin ku bênav in, nikarin li ser navê nasnameya xwe dawa mafên xwe bikin û her wiha di civakê de ji hebûna normatîf û madî jî bêpar in.

Dema li ser raperînên siyasî yên li Sûrî dipeyivîn, ji Sûrî penabereke kurd qala zehmetiya îqnakirina koçberên ereb ku li Sûrî di bin rejima Beşar el Esed de kurd û ereb wek hev nayên çewsandin, kir. Gotinên wî hêza rabêjî ya mirovê bêdewlet bo herêmîkirina gerdûnê (Vali, 1998; Isin, 2002; Bosniak 2006; Bilsky, 2008) û bo xuyakirina taybetiya wê ya biîmtiyaz nîşan dike:

Ez bi ereban re nîqaş dikim ku rewşa me ya di bin rejima Esad de ne yek e. Ez ji wan re dibêjim, li Sûrî hûn bi erebî perwerde dibin, telewizyonên we, muzîka we, filimên we, çanda we bi erebî ye, hûn li vî welatî bi kuderê ve biçin hûn dikarin zimanê xwe bipeyivin lê li Sûrî kurd ne tu tiştek e. Em çawa dikarin li Sûrî qala wekheviya navbera ereb û kurdan bikin? Naxwazin fam bikin ka wekhevî çi ye. Ji bo wekhevî bûyîna wek wan, erebbûn e. Wekhevî divê bê wateya mafên wekhev di her qada civakê de (mêrekî 33 salî, ji rojavayê Kurdistanê, Swêd).

Bi gotineke din, bidestxistina wekheviyê bi riya qebûlkirina eynîbûnê ye ku Komara Sûriya Ereb ku lê cudatiyên kurdan li dijî yekitiya wê wek gefeke derveyî tê dîtin, ferz dike. Ger kurd bi awayekî alenî cudatiyên xwe nînin ziman û serdestiya nasnameya ereb a Sûrî bipejirînin, ancex dikarin xwe wek unsûrek meşrû ya civaka Sûrî bidin qebûlkirin.

Nerînên çep û neteweyî di derbarê fikra dewletbûna kurdan de

Her çiqas dewletbûna kurdan ji aliyê piraniya bêjedaran dihate armanckirin jî, hin helwestên antî-dewletî ku li dinyayê hemberî hegemoniya dewletê derdiketin, hebûn. Ev nerîn bêtir ji aliyê kesên çepgir û femînîst dihate bilêvkirin. Divê ev bê binxêzkirin ku çepgrirî û neteweperwerî ne hewce ye li dijî hev bin lê sedema binxêzkirina min a van dengan ev e ku li parçeyên cuda yên Kurdistanê tevgerên kurd ên neteweperwer di navbera neteweperweriya liberal, neteweperwerî, dewletbûn, federalîzm û xweseriya demokratîk tên û diçin. Hana, jineke kurd a 29 salî ji rojavayê Kurdistanê, niha li Londonê dijî, di pozisyoneke wisa de ye. Ji bo Hana, bêyî hewcedariya afirandina dewleteke nû, têkoşîna wê ji bo sosyalîzm, femînîzm û mafên neteweyî ye:

Em kurd hewcedariya me bi bêtir tixûban tuneye. Tixûb tê wateya sîstemek û hefsekê. Em kurd xwe tixûbên me hene Tirkiye, Iraq, Îran û Sûrî. Em wek kurd mafên xwe dixwazin. Kurd li Sûrî xweseriya demokratîk dixwazin. Ez dixwazim dewleteke kurd hebe lê niha ji bo min ev ne pêşekî ye. Armanca min ew e ku bêyî tirsa rejima ereb kengî bixwazim bikaribim zimanê xwe bipeyivim û dibistanên kurdî hebin (jineke 29 salî, rojavayê Kurdistanê, QY).

Ev gotinên li jor retorîka herî dawî ya Partiya Karkerên Kurdistanê (PKK) ku ji neteweperweriyê ber bi xweseriya demokratîk ve diçe û feminîzm, sosyalîzm, piratiya etnîk û olî diparêze, destnîşan dike. Yekitiya Parastina Gel (PYD), xwişk-partiya PKK a li heremên kurd ên li Sûrî, li wê derê herêmeke xweser ava kirin bi navê Rojava ku nêzî pozisyona siyasî ye ku Hana li jor qal dike. Sakîne jî wek wê, rexne li fikra netewe-dewletê dikir û fikra dewletbûnê bi vî awayî xira dike:

Hebûna netewe-dewletekê him girîng e him ne girîng e. Ji bo wek gel an neteweyekê hebûna xwe biparêzî, divê tu xwedî netewe-dewlet bî. Fikra netewe-dewletê tavilê êriş- kirina nasnameya kurd îcab dike ji ber ku ew kurdan ji nav tarîfa xwe derdixe. Tunebûna netewe-dewleteke kurd bi awayekî otomatîk wek ne-hebûna kurdan tê tarîfkirin. Ji bo tu li vê dinyayê hebî, divê netewe-dewleta te hebe. Kurd dixwazin wek gelekî bên naskirin, ne wek dewletekê. Lê fikra netewe-dewletê fenomeneke modern a ji sedsala 18. û vir de ye û dîrokek wê ya dirêj tuneye ku ev jî tê wê wateyê mirov divê ne mecbûrî netewe-dewletekê an aîdî dewletekê be (jineke 28 salî, ji bakurê Kurdistanê, Swêd).

Retorîka Sakîne ya binyadruxîner nîşan dide ku em dîlên pergala dinyaya netewe-dewletan e lê di heman demê de xwedî-dewletbûnê an aîdbûna netewe-dewletekê red dike. Ev nerîn di nav piraniya kurdên çepgir de berbelav e ji ber ku serê wan tevlihev e ka çawa fikrên çepgir bi mafên neteweyî, dewletbûna kurdan û mafê çarenûsê re bînin ba hev. Lê dîsa, çepgir bi xwe jî nikarin li dinyayê hegemoniya dewlet û tixûban red bikin. Ev di gotinên Nazdarê de jî, ku xwe wek ‘çalakgera elewiya kurd û feminîst’ tarîf dike û li Londonê dijî, xuya dike:

Dizanim ku em kurd dewletek me û welatekî me tuneye. Eşkere ye ku ev me diêşîne ji ber ku em di dinyayekê de dijîn ku tixûb, ax, dewlet û hikumet lê hene. Ger li dinyayê ev hemû tişt li tunebûna, her kes wê jiyaneke azad bijiya. Ez vê dibêjim ji ber ku ez kurdeke bêdewlet im. Bawer nakim miroveke xwedî dewlet tişten ez dibêjim bibêje. Tirk, îngilîz an yekî frensî wan nabêje ji ber ku a wan heye û dixwazin vê biparêzin. Lê wek miroveke bêdewlet, ger tixûb û ax tunebûya dinya wê mukemel bûya. Lê ji ber ku em di dinyayeke wisa dijîn, dizanim wê tu car neguhere (jineke kurd a 32 salî, ji bakurê Kurdistanê, QY).

Hêza siyasî û îdeolojîk ya netewe-dewletê gihiştiye asteke ewqas gerdûnî ku wek parçeyek jêneveger a jiyana mirovatiyê tê dîtin. Rewşa Nazdarê jî nîşanî me dide pergala dinyayê bi kêrî gelên bêdewlet nayê ger gelên bêdewlet dev ji fikra dewletbûnê berdin û dinyayeke bêdewlet texeyul bikin jî. Ev nîşan dide pirsgirêk ew e ku dema retorîka binyadrûxîner çawa dipijiqe ser çavê gelên bêdewlet dema dawa dewletbûnê dikin:

Em li vê dinyayê di nav pergalekê de dijîn ku her kes dewleta wan heye. Hin eşîrên xwedi dewlet hene. Sudana Başûr serbixwe bû. Mafê min jî heye ku dewleta min hebe. Ev biryara min e ku xwedî dewlet bim û naxwazim dengê kesên ji min re dibêjin ez neteweperest im ji ber ku dewleta xwe dixwazim, bê min. Ev dinya ji xwe neteweperwer e îjar çima ez ê ne neteweperwer bim? Neteweyên Yekbûyî jî qebûl dike ku her netewe mafê wan î çarenûsa xwe ya neteweyî tayîn bike, heye. Em tiştekî nû naxwazin, em tiştê ku hemû dinya xwediyê wê ye, wê pir baş nas dikin, dixwazin. Heta ku kurd dewleta wan tunebe, wê her dem di nav belayê de bin (mêrekî 46 salî, ji rojavayê Kurdistanê, QY).

Rûwangeya li jor xwe dispêre hesabkirina siyasî ya pergala dinyayê ku ji aliyê neteweperwerî û netewe-dewletan tê îdarekirin. Di vê nerînê de, afirandina dewleteke kurd li Rojhilata Navîn ji bo ji çewisandina etnîk bireve wek çareserî tê dîtin. Meşruiyeta etnîk-polîtîk a kurdan bo daxwazkirina dewletbûyinê jî zêde dike ji ber ku endamên gelê xwedîdewlet dikarin di heman demê de him ji neteweperweriyê îstifade bikin û him jî bi retorîka binyadrûxîner re eleqedar bibin (Radhakrishnan, 1996:165) dema peyv tê ser daxwazên komên bêdewlet. Heman bêjedarê li jor îdia dikir ku dema dewleteke wî jî çêbû, wê çaxê ew ê bikaribe bi ereb, tirk û farisan re rûne û ji bo Rojhilata Navîn dahatûyeke nû diyar bike, bi hev re tixûbên di navbera neteweyan rakin û Rojhilata Navîneke nû ya wek Yekitiya Ewropayê biafirînin. Ji ber vê digot, vêga pêşekiya wî li Rojhilata Navîn mafên neteweyî yên kurdên çewisandî ye û ji bo bigihêne van jî dewlet şert e.

Nîqaş

Vê gotarê da xuya kir ku bêdewletbûn ne tenê di nav qadeke rabêjî ya neyênî de bi awayekî têgînî tê bicîkirin lê ew azmûnên jiyankirî yên piraniya kurdên bêjedar in ku him di jiyana xwe ya sazîmanî de him a rojane de jiyane. Encamên vê xebatê fikra ku dibêje nasnameyên girêdayî axê an ciyekî di sazkirina aîdiyet û nasnameyên takî û kolektîf de girîngiya wan tuneye, lawaz dike. Digel potansiyela rûwangeyên pişt-neteweyî û kozmopolîtan bo îptalkirina mekanizmayên welatîbûna neteweyî û netewe-dewletê, li Ewropaya Rojava û DY meyl ew e ku serweriya dewletê xurttir bibe (Joppke, 1998; Brubaker, 2004; James, 2014). Shachar (2014:117) binxêz dike ‘wek gotegotên derbarê mirina Mark Twain de, pêşbîniyên mode yên derbarê jiholêrabûna tixûbên welatan û tixûbên endamtiyê pir zêde hatin mezinkirin’. Dibe ku nasnameyên diyasporîk bi ciyan re xwedî pir-têkiliyên xumamî bin, lê ew di navbera ax/cî û çêbûna nasnameyê de qelşekê venake, awayên tarîfkirinê aloztir dike. Her wiha, aliyê ku têgeha bêdewletbûnê ber ve diçe vegotineke aîdiyeta girêdayî axê (Mcnevin, 2007; Redclift, 2013), ku welatîbûn dikare tê de bê sazkirin, pêşkeş dike. Xebatên vê dawiyê nîşan dane ku digel rabêjên postmodern ên derbarê bandorên tuneker an lawazker ên globalizasyonê yên li ser netewe-dewlet û nasnameyên girêdayî axê, erdnigarî hê jî nasnameyên neteweyî dişêwîne û derbarê mekanên siyasî, wek netewe-dewlet, mirov xwedî girêdaniyên hestî û siyasî ne (Kaplan û Herb, 2011; Rembold û Carrier, 2011). Bi heman awayî, dema em bi çavên mirovên asayî binerin, di demokrasiyên lîberal de nasnameyên neteweyî û şanazî lawaz nabin, hêza wan a polîtîk bêtir xurt dibe (Antonsich, 2009). Ev hemû meyl dikarin ji bo gelên bêdewlet ku hebûna wan a siyasî û çandî ne tenê di jiyana rojane de di nav hukuk û adaleta navneteweyî de jî tên lêpirsîn û pirsyarkirin, aciziyeke polîtîk biafirîne. Tunebûna nasnameyeke neteweyî gelek caran wek tunebûna maleke polîtîk a meşrû ku bi netewe-dewletê tê sembolîzekirin, tê hesibandin. Wek ku Radhakrishnan (2012) destnîşan dike, gel an mirovekî bêyî aîdiyeta neteweyî di dinyaya netewe-dewletan de nikare bibe gel an mirovek ji ber ku ‘tam jî li dinyayê fikra malê an limalbûnê bêyî zirxa netewe-dewletê bi temamî dibe tiştekî bêbingeh an xeyalî’ (2012:66). Lewma gelên bêdewlet dîlên pergala dinyaya neteweyî ne ku nikarin bi hêsanî jê derkevin an wek bêjedarekê gotibû: ‘dinya neteweperwer e’. Ev jî vê tîne bîra mirov ku teoriyek ku hewl dide li realiteya gelekî bêdewlet fam bike lazim e du peywirên girîng bide ser milê xwe: ‘ya bi vî halî bibe dîlê vê dinyayê, an bi awayekî naîf û saf bibe dîlê nerînên ku dibêjin “dinya divê bi awayekî din be’” (Radhakrishnan 2003, vi). Ji ber ku dinya ji ber zalbûna siyasî û ideolojîk a modela netewe-dewletê bi awayekî normatîf wek ku ji netewe-dewletan îbaret be tê qebûlkirin, ‘hema hema ne gengaz e ku li derveyî vê orgnizasyona muqtedîr çalakiyek siyasî ya serkeftî û berfireh bê kirin (Malešević, 2013:193). Em li ‘dinyayekê dijîn ku di nav peywenda welatîbûnên hiyerarşîk û pergaleke newekhev a netewe-dewletan de netewetî bûye yekeya normatîf a kolektîvîteyê’ (Castles, 2005) (û) ‘ji aliyê siyasetên neteweperweriyê hatiye dorpêçkirin’ (Radhakrishnan, 2006:103-4). Ji bilî vê, kevneşopa welatîbûna lîberal digel ku pir bi qîmet e ji gazinên polîtîk ên kesên bêdewlet re, wek kurd, bi temamî nikare bibe çare. Girîng e ku statuyeke wekhev a legal hebe lê mînak tenê statuya legal li Îran, Iraq, Sûrî û Tirkiyê kurd wek parçeyek meşrû ya van civakan ku maf gelek caran ji aliyê dewletan ve ji bo pê muxalefeta siyasî ya kurdan biçewsînin wek xêrxwaziya siyasî tê dîtin, têr nake ku mafên xwe yên civakî, çandî û siyasî bi kar bînin. Ji mêj ve kurd bi giştî ne ku tenê bi binyadî û sazîmanî marûzî diskrîmînasyonê mane lê ji ‘azmûnên intersubjektîv[4] ku xwebawerî û jixwerazîbûnê jî bêpar mane ku ev pewîst in bo mirovek hîs bike ku otorîteyek wî/wê heye, dikare wek endameke kamil a civateke siyasî bipeyive (Balaton-Chrimes, 2014:25 dupatkirin di deqa resen de). Tam ew welatîbûna serwer ku li Rojhilata Navîn hatin dayin bo kurdan bûye stratejiyeke siyasî da ku wan di bin gerdûnîbûnên partîkularîze de ku kêrî berjewendiyên siyasî, aborî û çandî yên kurdan nayê, bisenifînin.

Wê demê ger bêdewletbûn ne tenê neyênîkirina welatîbûn/neteweperweriyê be, çi ye? Bêdewletbûn, di cîhana netewe-dewletan de pirsgirêkeke tarîfî dihewîne; di vê cîhanê de mirovekî bêdewlet lazim e ji mirovên xwedîdewlet bêtir xwe îzeh bike. Digel ku neteweyên ciyêxwegirtî xwebawerî dide endamên xwe ku dikarin xwe tarîf bikin û xwe wek gelekî berdewam texeyul bikin (bnr. Billig, 1995:8), gelên bêdewlet him ji vê xwebaweriyê bepar in him di pergala siyasî ya navneteweyî ku di bin nifûza netewetî, dewletparêzî û serweriyê de ye ‘adini’ya wan a siyasî wek zêdebûneke neyênî bi bîra wan tê xistin. Li aliyê din, neteweyên ciyêxwegirtî gelek caran bêyî ku xwe tarîf bikin an bêyî ku wek neteweperwer bên binavkirin dikarin netewetiya xwe bijîn; neteweperwerî wek îdeolojiyeke xeter malê gelên bêdewlet ku dawa netewetî û dewletê ku neteweyên din bi awayekî îronîk ew kirine bin yekdestiya xwe, tê dîtin. Gelek caran tê gotin ku dîrok dîroka serfirazan e û ev di meseleya gelekî bêdewlet de jî rast e ku di pirtûkê dîrokê de ew wek gelên ‘munasib’ cî nagrin. Dema mirovekî bêdewlet di jiyana xwe ya rojane de rastî pirsa ‘tu ji kuderê yî?’ tê, ew bi riya nexşeyan ku gelek car wek şayeseya bêteref a nasnameyên girêdayî axê tên qebûlkirin, nikare hebûna xwe piştrast bike. Dîsa jî, mirovekî bêdewlet li ser nexşeyê dikare ciyekî nîşan bide lê wê nikaribe sînorên wê nîşan bide ji ber ku ew cî ji aliyê NY wek dewlet nehatiye naskirin. Lewma, bêdewletbûn û bêcîbûn ne heman tişt in.

Tevî van, mirovê bêdewlet lazim e wek mamoste an dîroknasekî tevbigere da ku bide ser şopa dîroka gelê xwe û bikole ka çawa hatine vê derê. Ji ber ku mirovê bêdewlet ji maleke polîtîk a diyar an ewle bêpar e, ew ji mafê xwe tarîfkirinê jî bêpar e. Gelên bêdewlet tenê wek nasnameyek nehewce nayên dîtin lê nasname, çand, xwarin, dîrok û hebûna wan ji wan tê stendin, tên tepeserkirin û ji aliyê hêza serwer ku mafê xwe-xuyanîkirin, xwe nasandin an xwe temsîlkirinê yê gelê bêdewletînkar dike, tê bêdengkirin.

Lewma, di vê peywendê de em dikarin fam bikin ka çima neteweyeke ku her tişte wê jê hatiye stendin, gef lê hatiye xwarin û hatiye astengkirin dewletbûnê wek amrazeke girîng dibîne û hemû bala xwe dide ser wê. Ji ber ku haya wan jê heye ku neteweyeke xwedî dewlet dikare di nav sînoren axa xwe de bi hêsanî dengên ku hebûna wê ya muesses red dikin, qut bike, krîmînalîze bike an red bike, hin caran li derveyî sînorên xwe jî dikare van bike. Ji ber vê ne metelhişt e ku neteweyeke hatiye astengkirin û bêdewlet dikare ‘hemû tezahurên dijberiyê ku bandor li nasnameyên wan î “talî” dike wek elametên înkarkirina neteweya xwe şîrove bikin (Bowman, 1994:144).

[1] Ez spasiya Profesor Rajogopalan Radhakrishan dikim ku di axaftina me ya bi riya e-nameyê de derbarê welatîbûna serwer de ez ronî kirim. 9ê Gulana 2014an.

[2] I would like to thank Professor Rajogopalan Radhakrishnan for clarifying this argument about the sovereign citizenship during our personal e-mail correspondence on 9th May 2014.

[3] Hemû bêjedar, ji ber sedemên ewlehiyê navekî mustear li wan hatiye kirin.

[4] Intersubjectîv: di navbera heyberên xwedî hişmendî (wer.)

ÇAVKANÎ

Agamben, Giorgio. 1998. Homo Sacer. Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Alinia, Minoo û Barzoo Eliassi. 2014. “Temporal And Generational Impact On Identity, Home(- Land) And Politics Of Belonging Among The Kurdish Diaspora.” Nordic Journal of Migration Research. 4(2): 73–81.

Anderson, Benedict. 1992. Long-Distance Nationalism: World Capitalism and the Rise of Identity Politics. Amsterdam: Centre for Asian Studies.

Andrews, Molly, Corine Squire û Maria Tamboukou, eds. 2013. Doing Narrative Research. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Antonsich, Marco. 2009. “National identities in the age of globalisation: The case of Western Europe.” National Identities, 11(3): 281-299.

Anthias, Floya. 2002. “Where do I belong? Narrating Collective Identity and Translocational Positionality.” Ethnicities 2(4): 491-514.

Arendt, Hannah. 2004. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Schocken Books. Aziz, Mahir. 2011. The Kurds of Iraq. Ethnonationalism and national identity in Iraqi.Kurdistan. London: I.B. Tauris.

Balaton-Chrimes, Samantha. 2014. “Statelessness, identity cards and citizenship as status in the case of the Nubians of Kenya.” Citizenship Studies 18(1): 15-28.

Bengio, Ofra. 2012. The Kurds of Iraq: Building a State within a State. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

Billig, Michael. 1995. Banal Nationalism. Los Angeles: Sage.

Bilsky, Leora. 2008. “Citizenship as Mask: Between the Imposter and the Refugee. Constellations 15(1): 72-97.

Blitz, Brad, and Maureen Lynch. 2009. Statelessness and the Benefits of Citizenship. Geneva: Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights.

Bosniak, Linda. 2006. The Citizen and the Alien. Dilemma of Contemporary Citizenship. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Bowman, Glenn. 1994. “’A country of Words’: Conceiving the Palestinian nation.” In The Making of Political Identities, ed. Ernesto Laclau, 138-170. London: Verso. Brubaker, Rogers. 2004. “In the name of the nation: Reflections on nationalism and patriotism.” Citizenship Studies 8(2): 115-127.

Brubaker, Rogers. 2005. “The ‘diaspora’ diaspora.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 28(1): 1-19. Calhoun, Craig. 2007. Nations Matter: Culture, history, and the cosmopolitan dream. London: Routledge.

Castles, Stephen. 2005. “Nation and Empire: Hierarchies of Citizenship in the New Global Order. International Politics 42: 203-224.

Cohen, Robin. 1996. “Diasporas and the Nation-State: From Victims to Challengers.” International Affairs 72(3): 507-520.

Cohen, Robin. 1998. Global Diasporas. An Introduction. London: Routledge.

Cohen, Edward S. 2001. “Globalization and the Boundaries of the State. A Framework for Analyzing the Changing Practice of Sovereignty.” Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Adminstration, and Institutions, 14(1): 75-97.

Conklin, William E. 2014. Statelessness. The Enigma of the International Community. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Demir, Ipek. 2012. “Battling with Memleket in London: The Kurdish diaspora’s engagement with Turkey.” Ethnic and Migration Studies 38(5): 815-831.

Denise, Natali. 2010. The Kurdish Quasi-State: Development and Dependency in post-Gulf war Iraq. New York: Syracuse University Press.

Du Gay, Paul. 2012. “Leviathan Calling. Some notes on sociological anti-statism and its consequences.” Journal of Sociology, 48(4): 397–409

Eliassi, Barzoo. 2013. Contesting Kurdish Identities in Sweden: Quest for Belonging among Middle Eastern Youth. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Eliassi, Barzoo. 2014. “Nationalism, cosmopolitanism and statelessness: An interview wit Craig Calhoun.” Kurdish Studies, 2(1): 61-74.

Gibney, Matthew. 2011. “The rights on non-citizens to membership.” In Statelessness in the European Citizenship. Displaced, undocumented, unwanted, eds. Caroline Sawyer and Brad K. Blitz, 41-68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Glick Schiller, Nina. 2005. “Long-Distance Nationalism.” In Encyclopedia of Diasporas. Imömigrant and Refugee Cultures around the World, eds. Melvin Ember, Carol R. Ember and Ian Skoggard, 570-580. New York: Kluwer/Plenum.

Hammack, Phillip L. 2011. “Narrative and the Politics of Meaning.” Narrative Inquiry 21(2): 311-318.

Hayden, Patrick. 2005. “From Exclusion to Containment: Arendt, Sovereign Power, and Statelessness.” Societies Without Borders 3(2): 248-269.

Ignatieff, Michael. 2009. True Patriot Love. Four Generations in Search of Canada. Viking Canada

Isin, Engin F. 2002. “Ways of being political.” Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory 3(1): 7-28.

Isin, Engin F. 2010. “Citizens without Nations.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 30(3): 450-467.

James, Paul. 2014. “Faces of globalization and the borders of states: from asylum seekers to citizens.” Citizenship Studies 18(2): 208-223.

Jenkins, Richard. 1996. Social Identity. New York: Routledge.

Joppke, Christian. 1998. “Why Liberal States Accept Unwanted Immigration.” World Politics, 50(2): 266-293.

Kaplan, David, H. and Guntram, Herb. 2011. “How geography shapes National Identities.” National Identities, 13(4): 349-360.

Kastoryano, Riva. 2004. “Transnational Nationalism: Redefining Nation and Territory.” In

Identities, Affiliations, and Allegiances, eds. Seyla Benhabib, Ian Shapiro and Danilo Petranović, 159-178. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Khalidi, Rashid. 2010. Palestinian Identity. The Construction of Modern National Consciousness. New York: Columbia University Press.

Khayati, Khalid û Magnus Dahlstedt. 2014. “Diaspora Formation Among Kurds In Sweden Transborder citizenship and politics of belonging.” Nordic Journal of Migration Research 4(2): 57-64.

Kenny, Kevin. 2013. Diaspora. A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Laclau, Ernesto. 2006. “Why Constructing a People is the Main Task of Radical Politics.” Critical Inquiry 32(4): 646-680.

Lamont, Michèle û Nissim Mizrachi. 2012. “Ordinary people doing extraordinary things: responses to stigmatization in comparative perspective.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 35 (3): 365-381.

Malešević, Sinisa. 2013. Nation-states and Nationalisms. Cambridge: Polity.

Manly, Mark û Laura van Waas. 2014. “The State of Statelessness Research: A Human Rights Imperative.” Tilburg Law Review 19(1-2) 3-10.

Mavroudi, Elizabeth. 2008. “Palestinians and pragmatic citizenship: negotiating relationships between citizenship and national identity in diaspora.” Geoforum, 39(1): 307-318.

Molavi, Shourideh C. 2013. Stateless Citizenship: The Palestinian-Arab Citizens of Israel. Leiden: Brill.

McNevin, Anne. 2007. “Irregular migrants, neoliberal geographies and spatial frontiers of ‘the political’.” Review of International Studies, 33(4): 655-674.

Mügge, Liza. 2012. “Ideologies of nationhood in sending-state transnationalism: Comparing Surinam and Turkey.” Ethnicities 13(3): 338-358.

Polletta, Francesca. 1998. “’It was like a Fever…’ Narrative and Identity in Social Protest. Social Problems 45(2): 137-159.

Radhakrishnan, Rajogopalan. 1996. Diasporic Mediations. Between Home and Location. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Radhakrishnan, Rajogopalan. 2003. Theory in an Uneven World. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Radhakrishnan, Rajogopalan. 2006. “When Is Democracy Political?” boundary 33(3): 103-122.

Radhakrishnan, Rajogopalan. 2012. A Said Dictionary. Wiley-Blackwell: New Delhi. Ragazzi, Francesco. 2012. “Diaspora: The Politics of Its Meanings.” International Political Sociology 6(1): 107-111.

Rancière, Jacques. 2004. “Who Is the Subject of the Rights of Man?” South Atlantic Quarterly 103(2-3): 297-310.

Redclift, Victoria. 2013. Statelessness and Citizenship. Camps and the Creation of Political Space. London: Routledge.

Reissman, Catherine Kohler. 2008. Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Rembold, Elfie and Peter Carrier. 2011. “Space and identity: Constructions of national identities in an age of globalisation.” National Identities, 13(4): 361-377.

Shachar, Ayelet. 2009. The Birthright Lottery. Citizenship and Global Inequality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Shachar, Ayelet. 2014. “Introduction: Citizenship and the ‘Right to Have Rights’.” Citizenship Studies 18(2): 114-124.

Şenay, Banu. 2013.”Seeing for the state: Kemalist long-distance nationalism in Australia.” Nations and Nationalism 19(2): 376-394.

Sheffer, Gabriel. 2003. Diaspora Politics. At Home Abroad. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Skrbiš, Zlatko. 1999. Long-Distance Nationalism: Diasporas, Homelands and Identities. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Somers, Margaret R. 2008. Genealogies of Citizenship. Markets, Statelessness, and the Right to Have Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Staples, Kelly. 2012. Retheorising Statelessnesss: A Background Theory of Membership in World Politics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Stevens, Jacqueline. 2010. States without Nations. Citizenship for Mortals. New York: Columbia University Press.

Tejel, Jordi. 2009. Syria’s Kurds: History, Politics and Society. London: Routledge.

Vali, Abbas. 1998. “The Kurds and their ‘Others’: Fragmented identity and fragmented politics.” Comparative studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East VIII(2): 82-95. Antwerp: Intersentia.

Wahlbeck, Östen. 1999. Kurdish Diasporas. A Comparative Study of Kurdish Refugee Communities. London: Macmillan.

Walzer, Michael. 1981. Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Yuval-Davis, Nira. 2011. The Politics of Belonging. Intersectional Contestations. Los Angeles: Sage.

Vegotinên Bêdewletbûnê û Aidiyeta Siyasî Di Nav Diyasporayên Kurd Ên li Swêdê û Qraliyeta Yekbûyî (UK-QY)

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

Vegotinên Bêdewletbûnê û Aidiyeta Siyasî Di Nav Diyasporayên Kurd Ên li Swêdê û Qraliyeta Yekbûyî (UK-QY)

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