Political scientist Mehmet Zahir Saritaş, evaluating the ongoing process on the Kurdish question for ANF, said the initiative began out of necessities created by global and regional developments, but the government has failed to create a strategic roadmap.
Saritaş said: “Turkey is failing to take sufficient steps toward democratization at home, while in Syria it continues to pursue a singular and irrational policy that jeopardizes its own process. For the solution to be lasting, a democratic ground for negotiation and a long-term plan are essential.”
Concerns in domestic politics
Saritaş noted that the government’s pressure on the opposition, especially after the process began, contradicts the very essence of the initiative and undermines confidence in a peaceful resolution. He emphasized that the government must abandon this approach and take steps that would contribute positively to the process.
Among the necessary steps, Saritaş listed abandoning the policy of appointing trustees, correcting injustices in the execution law, and complying with the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights as crucial for the progress of the process.
Turkey’s credibility will be damaged
Saritaş pointed out that Turkey’s foreign policy, especially toward Syria, has led to serious tensions. He underlined that while Western states and even Israel promote a solution in Syria that respects differences and encourages decentralization, Turkey’s support for the Damascus government, which insists on a unitary and centralized policy, is irrational.
This stance, he said, shifts Turkey from a role of “game-maker” in the Middle East to one of “spoiler.” Saritaş stressed that such rigid policies toward Syria not only harm the peace process but also erode Turkey’s credibility in the international arena.
The survival concern behind the process
In his assessment, Saritaş recalled that Turkey’s motivation for initiating the peace process stemmed from the new power balances in the Middle East and from perceiving the Kurdish question as an “existential issue.” He underlined that a process launched with such reflexes, but without a strategic plan or program, inevitably brings serious contradictions.
Saritaş stressed that Turkey’s use of peaceful rhetoric domestically while simultaneously pursuing a threatening policy toward Kurdish regions in Syria is the clearest example of this contradiction. He added that the economic crisis Turkey has faced in recent years is rooted in this uncertainty and deadlock.
He noted that resources spent on the conflicts arising from the Syrian civil war and the Kurdish question have placed a heavy burden on the economy, adding that overcoming this crisis is only possible through resolving the Kurdish question and adopting more peaceful policies.
Saritaş emphasized the need to adopt a system of governance based on multiculturalism, human rights, and decentralization, as in Western democracies. He stated that Turkey must abandon its rigid, centralized nation-state mentality and move toward a decentralized governance model that empowers local administrations, which would contribute significantly to resolution processes both domestically and across the Middle East.
The parliamentary commission must bring the parties together
Saritaş underlined that for the process to move forward in a healthy way, the commission established in Parliament must play an active role, stressing that it is important for the commission to listen to all sides.
Saritaş continued: “The commission established in Parliament is of vital importance for the peace process. For the commission to function more effectively and take concrete steps, it is necessary, just as in other global resolution models for the parties to be heard together.
Mr. Öcalan must absolutely be visited; but this alone is not enough. The more appropriate method would be for both Mr. Öcalan and state officials to come to Parliament and present, at regular intervals, the requirements for a solution through a democratic method of negotiation.
In this case, the commission can act as a third eye and arbitrator, listening to the parties and laying the groundwork for healthier steps to be taken. This approach is also consistent with the state’s position at the start of the process, when it said, ‘We will resolve this issue internally without a third party.’
In this way, the commission can bring the parties together and hear their approaches to solving the problems. The demands and requirements that emerge from these negotiations would also be recognized by the commission. This would create an environment that facilitates a solution and positively impacts the process.”