Those institutions that repeat the same rituals of party authority are only trying to tell the creative writer or the one who maintains the purity of his positions and the authenticity of his pen: that you do not actually need to exist figuratively within a cultural institution that markets your work or that you find yourself through it. You only need more confidence in your pen.

From my experience with two cultural institutions I will not mention, "so as not to let their critics fish in troubled waters," I observed generally that they do not add any real benefit or role to the literary or cultural message of the writer involved. Even among the members, they resemble copies of party members; internal conflicts, toxic atmospheres, or bullying among them closely resemble the struggles seen within political parties, organizations, or stressful work environments. In other words, they practice partisan or clique-like behavior, but under the guise of culture. This is a corruption of creativity and the pen in every sense.

I often listened to the exhausted or defector politicians who spent a stage of their lives within the party, then left it, saying later: we spent most of our time in internal conflicts, one competing against the other, the other jostling his colleague for a position or authority. The diligent ones, or those with true vision and authenticity, were marginalized and excluded by opportunists who reached power and positions through their opportunistic and utilitarian methods. In the end, these self-made men or sincere individuals who maintained their convictions and tried to deliver their sincere national message are accused, condemned, or labeled traitors, now stabbing their benefactors after the service at the hotel they were housed in has deteriorated.

When I entered those cultural institutions seeking brotherly belonging among my peers of creators, filled with hopes of creating an ideal space within my imaginary domain, I realized with certainty that we, as Kurds within these institutions, are a poor and hybrid copy of party divisions, the harsh political reality, and the overall unhealthy mentality. Moreover, cultural practice in these institutions merely repeats the rituals of authority and opportunism instead of protecting the writer and ensuring that their message reaches diverse audiences.

The message I want to convey through this article is to distance young, talented, or enthusiastic intellectuals from the control of those restrictive cultural institutions, which carry negative residues affecting the cultural message itself. This article is not analytical or connected to a specific stance or reaction; rather, it is a thought process driven by swirling ideas. I truly aimed for objectivity through an in-depth experience and to present this to the writer so that he can see himself more clearly and be closer to that experience. I also want him to believe that in this era, it is not necessarily required for a writer to belong to a cultural institution; he can achieve or establish institutions and platforms in our current time, characterized by the proliferation of social media and visual dominance over field activities. I also wanted to say that creating new platforms, institutions, or forums can diminish the influence of traditional cultural institutions that treat culture and creativity in a partisan manner, similar to how partisan groups handle politics or ideology in a populist way.

We observe that these traditional institutions suffer from a lack or absence of youth participation in their activities, with hundreds of young people absent, and involvement limited to the elderly who have no work or professional engagement, or to politicians who have left the political arena and entered cultural affairs to practice politics in some way. Any critical article naturally targets intellectuals and critics, but also aims to make the public aware that partly, they are justified in withdrawing or not participating because they find no environment that attracts them or makes them emotionally connected to those cultural atmospheres. Through constructive criticism and active listening, mistakes can be addressed. Criticism does not stem from hatred but from a sense of responsibility, jealousy, and the necessity of rectifying errors to prevent their recurrence. Excluding any writer from the cultural scene in favor of others reflects the absence of an objective mechanism for dealing with the cultural and creative scene.

Developing cultural movement and striving for conscious, safe, and healthy institutions, especially in the absence of a Kurdish state, is a responsibility borne by individuals capable of movement, who have been helped by circumstances to create associations, institutions, or unions. Undoubtedly, every effort is not free of chaos, inexperience, or a desire to monopolize the scene. I affirm some solutions—among many—that could help escape neglect and stagnation, such as:
- Building bridges with youth and engaging with them; understanding their psychology, giving them a role in shaping the cultural scene, and helping them based on the principle of intergenerational concord, not conflict.
- Viewing criticism as evaluation, correction, and framing of cultural work to remove obstacles and create a better, sustainable environment characterized by flexibility and openness to various opinions and directions.
- Ceasing to practice partisan rituals within the cultural institution to ensure its continuity.
- Opening communication channels between active cultural figures and those resigned at home, hoping to re-engage and include them in the institution.

Reber Heboun