Iskender Bayhan, Istanbul MP for the Labor Party (EMEP), told ANF that the Commission established within Parliament regarding the “Democratic Society and Peace” process has faced serious shortcomings in planning and progress. Bayhan believes that instead of taking concrete steps, the government has pursued a tactic of constantly lowering expectations and using the PKK’s decision to lay down arms and dissolve itself as much as possible for its own benefit. He underlined: “Instead of taking concrete steps, the approach of stalling will, after a certain point, bring much more difficult and negative consequences. The government itself is the sole addressee of its warning not to let the process become infected.”
Bayhan said one of the Commission’s biggest difficulties in taking concrete steps has been the way the ruling party group and Parliamentary Speaker Numan Kurtulmuş have planned and managed the process. He said: “Several times in the Commission it was suggested that the process as a whole be planned within a framework of priorities and that the steps to be taken and the debates to be held proceed simultaneously. This included legal regulations that must be enacted, steps that need to be taken for lasting peace and a democratic solution to the Kurdish question. We proposed that everyone bring concrete suggestions and that these be carried out with a coordinated timetable.”
Proposals were not given much attention
Bayhan recalled that after its second meeting, the Commission mainly carried out hearings: “Of course, these are not unimportant. In terms of understanding the effects of this process in Turkey, it is important to continue the debates about it—stretching back nearly 50 years to the last Kurdish uprising—questioning the causes of what has happened and listening to testimonies. But urgent steps that need to be taken—such as regulations regarding prisons, a return law after disarmament, and, above all, the issues of trustees and mother tongue as priorities for solving the Kurdish question and achieving lasting peace—were not given much consideration.”
The ruling bloc is blocking progress
Bayhan said that the reason no concrete steps have been taken so far is due to the ruling bloc: “The People’s Alliance is not united within itself. Especially the AKP has not made a single concrete proposal so far. Nor has it made any statement, positive or negative, about incoming proposals in terms of a working program. This alone is a negative stance. While emphasizing the importance of the process, they only resort to rhetoric about how valuable it is, constantly stressing risks and papering things over with reminders. Continuous promises, continuous reminders of thousand-year brotherhood. Frankly, we cannot move from Malazgirt to the present. Because of the stance of the ruling bloc, we cannot reach the point of discussing how today’s Turkish-Kurdish brotherhood can be built on peace, how the silencing of weapons can be guaranteed, and what concrete steps will be taken to heal the wounds caused by this war.”
We will insist on concrete steps
Bayhan pointed out that all participants invited to the Commission stressed the same key point: “That the process must be completed urgently, without delay, through concrete steps. Why, then, are no steps being taken? The government bloc’s failure to act on concrete proposals is reflected in the Commission. Is this a stalling tactic or simply unpreparedness? There can be much speculation. I believe it is a tactic of constantly lowering expectations and using the PKK’s decision to disarm and dissolve itself as much as possible for the government’s own gain. They will insist on this. We, for our part, will continue to say this is wrong, to expose it, and to insist on concrete steps.”
To eliminate Kurdish gains
Bayhan also said that in debates about the future status of North and East Syria within a new Syria, a similar attitude is visible: “Just as inside Turkey we face the stance of lowering expectations, giving lofty speeches, and refusing to take steps, in Syria the approach is as obstructive as possible. Instead of taking the steps needed to build a new democratic republic that would reflect the democratic will and common life of the Syrian people of different faiths and ethnicities, the attempt is to impose a structure that would even erase the democratic gains of the QSD and North and East Syria. Syria is very decisive in this regard, but this decisiveness is based entirely on the current Palace government’s neo-Ottoman regional dreams and Turkey’s expansionist ambitions under the name of ‘Greater Turkey’—trying to claim a share of regional partition, power struggles, and influence competition as a kind of capital plan.”
Not meeting with Öcalan is a flaw and problematic
Bayhan argued that whatever name people give it, the process is essentially an Imralı process: “The data we have, the statements made, Öcalan’s calls, the PKK’s dissolution decision—all these, when considered, show that this is an Imralı process. There have been talks at Imralı, certain arrangements and dialogues for steps to be taken, and some negotiations are being conducted, at least according to the information reflected. Even if this is denied, there is a table at Imralı and a dialogue is ongoing. Meetings are being held there. Given that the Kurdish political movement says ‘Öcalan is the chief negotiator, the main interlocutor,’ the Commission’s failure to hear Öcalan, or to bring his thoughts, evaluations, and proposals on this process into its agenda, is unacceptable. For the future of this process and the establishment of peace, this would be a very serious shortcoming. This is a necessity, an obligation. We constantly stress the importance of Öcalan being heard by the Commission and of creating a mechanism whereby his proposals can be shared with it.”
Concrete steps must now be taken
Bayhan concluded that from this point on, not hearing Öcalan or failing to bring this issue to the Commission’s agenda and clarify it is unacceptable: “Instead of taking concrete steps, the stance of stalling will, after a certain point, produce much more difficult and negative consequences. The government itself is the sole addressee of its warning not to let the process become infected. The ruling bloc is the primary party responsible. Therefore, in the coming period, it must state its view as soon as possible about the Commission meeting with Öcalan, and concrete steps must be taken toward such a meeting.”