From the Legitimacy of War to the Legitimacy of the Constitution: A Philosophical and Political Critique of Rohlat Afrin’s Discourse

Abas Abdul-Razzaq

By: Abbas Abdul-Razzaq
Translated By: Sharo Abbas

The speech delivered by Rohlat Afrin before the European Parliament represents a model for the intersection of politics and philosophical theory regarding the state, power, and identity. The discourse is not merely a legal demand; rather, it is an exposure of the Syrian state’s predicament: the fragility of its legitimacy, its monopoly on violence and identity, and the difficulty of integrating grassroots actors into its institutions. This paper analyzes the discourse from a critical philosophical perspective, comparing it with previous liberatory feminist experiences while monitoring the dimensions of the crisis of state and identity.

The Centralized State and the Fragility of Legitimacy The discourse reveals that the Syrian state represents a model of a centralized entity that controls symbolic and physical power. However, the state lacks moral and political legitimacy on the ground: the Women’s Protection Units (YPJ) created security and achievements during the war against ISIS, not the state. The demand for official recognition and integration into the official army reveals that the state derives its legitimacy, in part, from achievements outside its own will. This illustrates a central crisis: the state is capable of imposing order through force, but it is incapable of recognizing real actors. From the perspective of modern political philosophy, this fragility reflects what Max Weber calls "legitimacy based on force versus legitimacy based on recognition."

From Revolutionary Action to Institutional Recognition Rohlat does not ask for mere symbolic integration, but rather an organized role within the official army. This is a critical demand of the state itself: the revolutionary actor, who guarantees security and gains, becomes a test for state institutions. Integrating the YPJ means allowing the "historical margin" to reach the center of power—a redistribution of power that threatens centralized hegemony. The discourse reveals a paradox: a state that produces laws and infrastructure but remains unable to recognize real actors will continue to produce marginalization, even through formal procedures.

Comparison with Liberatory Feminist Experiences

• The Russian Revolution – Alexandra Kollontai: She emphasized linking women's liberation to the restructuring of the state and society. Rohlat shares the idea that the active woman is not merely an object of protection, but an element of political production.

• The Algerian Resistance – Djamila Bouhired: The legitimacy of individual or communal heroism does not guarantee institutional recognition. Rohlat attempts to transform "deferred recognition" into a clear constitutional text before the state is reshaped.

• The Palestinian Resistance – Leila Khaled: Utilizing international space for moral pressure. Rohlat adopts the European Parliament as an international platform to transmit pressure and seek recognition. The shared lesson: no field victory or resistance automatically translates into authority or legal recognition unless it is linked to a political and institutional framework.
State, Power, and Identity Rohlat’s discourse exposes a crisis of state and identity:

1. The Syrian state suffers from an excessive centralization that cannot accommodate the diversity on the ground.

2. The imposed national identity does not align with the ethnic and social plurality of North and East Syria.

3. Demanding constitutional guarantees for Kurds and women is not a luxury, but a condition for stability: any absence of recognition threatens gains and reproduces conflict. From a philosophical perspective, the crisis is not purely political; it is a crisis of defining the state and citizenship: who possesses the right to determine who belongs to the state and who remains outside it?