The dates of 9 and 11 July, much like the period between late February and early March, marked a powerful new step in the Peace and Democratic Society Process. The audio and video message of Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan, released on 9 July, sparked widespread hope and excitement. Then, on 11 July, under the leadership of Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK) Executive Council Co-Chair Besê Hozat, a group of guerrillas carried out a powerful democratic action that left its mark on history. Despite all efforts by the Justice and Development Party (AKP) to restrict the moment, the symbolic burning of weapons by 30 guerrillas near Sulaymaniyah (Silêmanî) was truly striking. Once again, this act demonstrated that the Kurdistan Freedom Guerrilla had taken up arms and gone to the mountains out of necessity and for a historical purpose.
There is undoubtedly no need to elaborate on the consciousness, determination, and discipline of the Kurdistan Freedom Guerrilla. These qualities have already been proven and well known throughout more than forty years of armed struggle. Likewise, it is hardly necessary to emphasize that the act of burning weapons was also, among other things, a response to the intensified militarization process being driven by the NATO. Even though the international powers may remain silent for now, it is evident that these facts are widely seen and understood. Clearly, the guerrillas’ weapon-burning action carries multiple messages and goals. One of the most significant is the message that the Kurdish side has now fulfilled its responsibility and in return, it is time for the state and those in power to take serious steps toward peace and democratization. This is a view shared by many observers.
Will the Republic of Turkey and the ruling AKP genuinely take serious steps toward peace and democratization? This is now the question openly being asked by many, and everyone is seeking an answer in their own way. The issue is sparking significant debate not only in Turkey, but across much of the world. Naturally, the answers offered and the perspectives voiced in this context, are highly diverse and varied. The reason is clear: the AKP government still fails to inspire genuine trust, neither through its words nor through its actions. The Republican People’s Party (CHP) and other political parties, rather than shaping their own positions based on democratization and the resolution of the Kurdish question, continue to base them on the AKP’s shifting rhetoric and behavior. Meanwhile, a significant portion of the press still maintains a hostile, degrading, and chauvinist-racist tone toward Kurds. Instead of serving peace and democratization, this media environment increasingly blocks the path of democratic politics.
Naturally, following the steps taken by the Kurdish side on 9 and 11 July, one of the most widely discussed developments has been President Tayyip Erdoğan’s speeches delivered on 12 and 13 July. Of course, it is not possible, nor necessary, to present the entirety of these lengthy speeches here. However, a few key points are worth highlighting. One of them is that Tayyip Erdoğan, at least partially, acknowledged the oppression and torture inflicted by the state on the Kurdish people, ranging from the notorious white Toros vehicles to the brutality of Diyarbakır (Amed) Prison. While it is positive that he voiced these as admissions, what is troubling is the apparent denial, or forgetfulness, of the fact that he himself holds responsibility as a head of state, and that many of those who carried out these abuses remain within his circle of power. Equally notable is how the ultra-nationalist, chauvinist segments of the press, often “more royalist than the king”, have completely ignored or pretended not to hear these words. That silence is both telling and meaningful.
One of the most debated aspects of Tayyip Erdoğan’s recent remarks was his emphasis on a “Turkish, Kurdish, and Arab alliance.” Referring to similar historical moments, Erdoğan noted the kinds of developments such alliances had led to in the past, and suggested that a similar process is now underway, claiming that new and important developments could emerge from such an alliance in the near future. Of course, alliances among peoples are both important and necessary. And there is nothing inherently objectionable about Erdoğan highlighting this. However, such alliances must not be directed against other peoples of the region, they should instead aim for the democratic unity of the region as a whole. What truly matters here is that Tayyip Erdoğan mentioned the Kurds alongside Turks and Arabs as one of the key peoples of the region. If he genuinely believes in this, then he must completely abandon the policy of Kurdish denial and begin defending the national and democratic rights of the Kurdish people. Otherwise, how can the Kurdish people, who are not even allowed to speak their own language, be expected to participate meaningfully in such an alliance?
Another debate sparked by Erdoğan’s remarks revolves around the question of “where the DEM Party stands.” This, too, is a telling discussion, one rooted in a colonial and genocidal mindset. Because when people refer to the DEM Party, they are in fact referring to the Kurds. The debate is essentially about “whose side the Kurds are on.”
What is striking is that no one considers the possibility of the Kurds having a political position of their own. The various parties discussing the issue assume that Kurds lack independent will and must therefore align themselves with one of the dominant forces. In their worldview, the real political actors are the AKP and the CHP, and the Kurds can only be positioned beside one or the other. It is obvious that this is not a genuine political inquiry but rather a reflection of colonial logic. The only clear and concrete point in President Tayyip Erdoğan’s two-day speech was the confirmation that a parliamentary commission, long discussed, would indeed be established. It now seems certain that such a commission will be formed. The AKP has finally decided to move forward with it, and Erdoğan himself has promoted this move as a new and significant step. The commission, which was originally proposed by Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan and has also been supported by other political parties, is expected to begin its work during the current summer period.
So, what kind of commission will this be? What responsibilities will it take on, and what kind of work will it carry out?
Debates surrounding these questions have produced a wide range of opinions. The only point of consensus seems to be that the AKP intends to establish this commission to manage “the disarmament of the PKK guerrilla forces.” It is being argued that the AKP sees the very existence of the guerrilla and its armed nature as the core of the problem and that once disarmament is achieved and the guerrilla is dissolved, the issue will be considered resolved. Many observers suggest that what is meant by a “terror-free Turkey” essentially refers to this outcome.
Of course, such an outcome cannot be entirely dismissed. However, it is also clear that disarmament can only come at the end of a broader process, one that must first include substantial legal and political steps. A result of this magnitude requires legal and constitutional guarantees. Without laws ensuring freedom and democratic integration, the total disarmament of the guerrilla would be both meaningless and impossible. In the absence of democratic politics and a legal framework, where would a disarmed guerrilla go, and what would they do? The disarmament and dissolution of the guerrilla forces in the form envisioned by the AKP is not feasible. If it were, it would have already been carried out without the need for such a process. Indeed, military officers are still issuing statements and dropping leaflets on battlefronts, calling on guerrilla fighters to “surrender.” Not only have these efforts failed to produce results, but it is also evident that they reflect the political approach of the AKP itself.
Therefore, after long debates, it is now certain that the parliamentary commission will finally be established. But its task must not be to focus on what is impossible. This commission must assign itself a serious mission and responsibility, seeing itself as a body that will contribute to resolving the Kurdish question and leading Turkey toward democratization. To achieve this, it must first acknowledge the existence of the Kurdish question and the fact that Turkey is not a democratic state. It must then engage in an honest process of confrontation, criticism, and self-criticism regarding the century-long practices rooted in the denial of Kurds and the absence of democracy. Drawing lessons from history, the commission should examine how Turkish-Kurdish brotherhood can be genuinely built, and how Turkey’s democratization can be achieved through a legal framework based on Kurdish freedom. It must draft and present legislative proposals to the parliament, laying the legal foundation for a solution and thus paving the way toward a new democratic constitution. Only a commission working in this manner would be accurate and realistic, and only then could it meet the demands of the ongoing peace and democratic society process.