The ongoing process in the Turkish Grand National Assembly through the “Commission for National Solidarity, Brotherhood and Democracy,” which continues by hearing different parties and institutions, has not yet been given any legal guarantee, raising concerns.
Peace Foundation Chair Hakan Tahmaz spoke to ANF and underlined that above all, the process must move away from security-oriented policies and restrictions and enter a path that paves the way for Turkey’s democratization.
The mother tongue issue is already the most important matter in resolving the Kurdish question
Hakan Tahmaz, who has been engaged with the Kurdish question for 25 years and has worked for its democratic resolution, said that while it is a positive development that parties are being heard in the commission, it was a serious problem that in the fifth meeting a Peace Mother was prevented from speaking in her mother tongue, Kurdish.
Tahmaz reminded that the Peace Mothers are the primary interlocutors of the Kurdish question and noted that the mother tongue issue is already the most important matter to be addressed in its resolution. Referring to the struggle of political prisoners that led to the partial recognition of the right to defense in Kurdish in 2011, he stated that it is strange for a right recognized by the courts not to be applied by the parliament. He stressed that this situation must be corrected and that a ground must be established for people to express themselves in their mother tongue.
Civil society outside parliament must actively participate for the process to become socialized
Hakan Tahmaz pointed out that it would be insufficient for the commission to remain limited to hearings alone in terms of ensuring positive progress in the process. He noted that in order for the process to become socialized, the active participation of civil society organizations outside parliament must be secured.
Tahmaz also underlined that it is not possible for all problems to be solved solely through this commission. Drawing on lessons from similar processes around the world, he stated that sub-commissions should be established outside this body in order to confront the past, achieve justice, and heal wounds. He emphasized the importance of creating a mechanism in which problems are resolved directly with their counterparts.
Tahmaz further reminded that while the silencing of weapons and the establishment of negative peace is an important step, the question of what legal reforms will be enacted in parliament still remains unresolved.
Öcalan, as a main actor in the negotiations, must be heard for the process to progress properly
Hakan Tahmaz pointed out that the absence of legal reforms and the fact that Abdullah Öcalan, one of the most important interlocutors in resolving the issue, has not been heard by the commission raises the question whether there is sufficient political will.
Tahmaz underlined that for the process to progress in a healthy way, Abdullah Öcalan, one of the main actors of the negotiations, must also be listened to, and said: “In the commission, the National Intelligence Organization (MIT), the Ministers of National Defense and Interior were heard. However, Abdullah Öcalan, who conducted negotiations on behalf of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and who is officially referred to as the founding leader of the PKK, is not being heard.”
We cannot say the solution process is one thing in Turkey and another in Syria
Hakan Tahmaz pointed out that the absence of legal reforms in the process, the fact that Abdullah Öcalan, one of the main actors in the negotiations, has not been heard by the commission, and the approaches of Turkey and Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan toward Rojava create serious concerns regarding the process as a whole.
Tahmaz underlined that the Kurdish question is one and indivisible, stating that it cannot be said that the solution process is one thing in Turkey and another in Syria. He noted that the likelihood of the two influencing each other is high. In this context, he underlined that the approach of Ankara or other political parties in parliament towards Syria will also be parallel to their approach to the solution process within the country.
Tahmaz said: “We believe that those who insist on a centralized government in Syria will be unwilling and reluctant regarding democratization in Turkey. In this sense, Turkish politics must adopt an orientation that defends pluralism both domestically and internationally.”
The commission has not yet formed a full road map regarding the process
Hakan Tahmaz stated that looking at all these shortcomings, it is clear that the commission has not yet formed a full road map regarding the process. He also underlined that leaving the continuation of the commission’s work to the discretion of the Speaker of Parliament constitutes a major problem.
For this reason, Tahmaz said that democratic mass organizations have insisted from the very beginning on the need to pass a special law, and he explained:
“We have made our proposals from the outset regarding the need for a special law. Because in the previous dialogue process, whether it was the arrival from Habur or the formation of wise people, no legal regulations had been made, as you may recall. In that process, a constitutional commission had also been established; it had no law either, and in any case, the process was later terminated. Unfortunately, no result came from the efforts made at that time. Even the reports prepared by the wise people are still kept within the state. If a law had been passed at that time, the social legitimacy of the process would have been stronger. Now, in this latest process, the fact that the functioning of the commission depends solely on the initiative of the Speaker of Parliament points to a major problem of trust. If you ask whether this commission can continue despite everything when the ruling partners say, ‘No result will come from this process, it will not benefit us,’ I cannot say it can. Because ultimately, the Speaker of Parliament is also a member of a party.”
Processes without definition lead to problems
Hakan Tahmaz noted that when looking at similar processes around the world, all such negotiations were carried out by a legislative decision. He cited the Moro example, recalling that in that negotiation process, secret talks were held for about one and a half years, after which the executive passed a law.
In this sense, Tahmaz underlined the need for the process to be defined on a legal basis. He stated that at present, the process in Turkey is being carried out not with the initiative of the executive but with the support of the legislature, and that this is not sufficient. Warning that processes without definition will lead to problems in a place where distrust and social polarization have reached such a peak, Tahmaz stressed that there must urgently be a transition to a process defined on a legal basis.
Parliament must clarify its purpose
Hakan Tahmaz said that parliament must first agree on what it intends to achieve, and continued: “Is the issue here the disarmament of the PKK, or is it the democratic resolution of the Kurdish question? Right now, there is ambiguity on these matters. For example, the government says it will do what is necessary for disarmament. Opposition groups and those who want peace, however, point to reforms for resolving the Kurdish question and for Turkey to attain a democratic regime. First of all, parliament must clarify its purpose. Second, what will be the mechanisms? How will civil society, academics, and various state institutions be involved in this process? These must be defined. A process cannot move forward with a mere ‘Come, speak, and go’ approach.”
Tahmaz also said, “There were a few defined tasks. For instance, regarding disarmament, there is an eight-point report announced by United Nations (UN) experts. One of these points stipulates that a timetable and methods must be developed for how those who disarm will be integrated into political and social life.
Now there is the issue of political prisoners in jails, and also people who were forcibly displaced, such as those in Maxmur. There are past crimes, such as evacuated and burned villages. On which of these issues does parliament reach a consensus? Is there a roadmap to be followed on these matters? It is said that the commission formed in parliament will prepare a draft law particularly concerning the fate of those who disarm. But we say that this alone is not sufficient for the democratic resolution of the Kurdish question.”
The commission must be able to call on the executive
Hakan Tahmaz said that mechanisms are needed for this and recalled that Abdullah Öcalan has also stated this in theory. He underlined that both the government and parliament must declare their will regarding what will be done to ensure the reintegration of those who lay down arms into social life and to strengthen the ground for democratic politics.
Tahmaz said, “For example, this commission must be able to call on the executive and state that every legal and constitutional regulation to be made in this process must comply with international law and human rights. All administrative measures that do not comply with this must be annulled.
For instance, the commission can call on the executive regarding the arbitrary refusal to release sick prisoners, or for the implementation of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the Constitutional Court concerning Selahattin Demirtaş, Osman Kavala, and Can Atalay. In addition, there is a file pending before the Constitutional Court regarding the closure of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), which has been kept waiting for one and a half years. On this matter, a decision could be made that there is no need to close the HDP. Such steps would increase public confidence in the process.”
Society must be included in the process
Hakan Tahmaz emphasized that, even with all the shortcomings, this process is very significant compared to the previous dialogue process because all parties in parliament, except one, are participating. He noted that what matters here is to persist in the struggle for the democratic resolution of the Kurdish question and to strengthen the social ground for it.
Tahmaz further underlined that peace will not develop simply through legal reforms imposed by the government and said: “We must trust our own base and our democratic struggle. Öcalan often expresses this as well. We will not enter into an expectation that the government will do something. We are calling for democratic struggle. The most important point here is that society must be included in the process. Society must show its reflexes. As in 2015, if those who want peace remain silent when the government overturns the table, then the government will do whatever it wants whenever it wants, and this will not lead to peace. What matters here is that society assumes a supervisory role in the process. The call for peace and democratic society already entails this. You must hold rallies, press conferences, and panels in order to include society in this process. Now look, it used to be said that ‘the PKK will not lay down arms with a mere call’; but when Öcalan called, it did.”
He also said, “To move this process forward, everyone must contribute in their own way. Asking ‘What will happen if this process does not work?’ will not allow us to advance; instead, we must say what needs to happen for the process to progress. The process must move beyond security-focused limits and enter a path where Turkey can democratize. We must walk a long road, and a ground must be created where everyone can speak freely.”