Although Parliament resumed in early October, no legal steps were taken regarding the Peace and Democratic Society Process, and the prolonged inaction of the Commission has further deepened and intensified debates around the Process. The fact that the Parliamentary Commission has still not met with the Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan has prompted Kurds and their supporters to expand and strengthen the struggle for his physical freedom.
Developments in Parliament concerning the Process are, of course, not limited to this. Those profiting from war and opposing peace and democracy have brought their fascist attacks into the very halls of Parliament. Last week, offensive remarks made by Good (IYI) Party spokesperson Turhan Çömez against Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) Deputy Speaker Pervin Buldan sparked nationwide debate. Meanwhile, comments by Parliamentary and Process Commission Chair Numan Kurtulmuş during his visit to Diyarbakır (Amed), suggesting that Kurdish could be spoken also drew criticism. Referring to the fact that the Commission had not allowed the Peace Mothers to speak Kurdish, many asked, “Is speaking Kurdish forbidden in Parliament but allowed in Diyarbakır?”
Another major topic of debate in Parliament and across the public sphere is the motion submitted by the Tayyip Erdoğan government requesting a three-year extension of the mandate to send troops to Iraq and Syria. Many argue that this position is incompatible with the Peace and Democratic Society Process, describing the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) as anti-peace and pro-war. The question frequently raised is a justified one: “How can peace be achieved under such a policy?”
As always, the Tuesday group speech of Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) Chair Devlet Bahçeli has also sparked intense debate. His controversial remarks this time concerned Article 66 of the current Constitution. Previously, Bahçeli had stated that the first four articles of the Constitution could not be changed, but that the remaining articles could be subject to amendment. However, he has now reversed his earlier position, declaring that “the amendment of Article 66 cannot even be made a subject of discussion.” This statement has once again placed the issues of the Constitution and national identity at the center of public debate.
In fact, such rhetoric was expected from racist and fascist circles like the Good (IYI) Party, but not from Devlet Bahçeli, who once took the lead in dialogue with Abdullah Öcalan and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). If Article 66 of the Constitution remains unchangeable, there can be no democratic integration with the Kurds. Moreover, this position blurs the definition of Turkish identity itself: in attempting to deny the Kurds, it ends up denying Turkish history as well.
It is clear that this situation further complicates and obscures definitions of national identity. Until now, this ambiguity has mostly applied to Kurdish identity. However, the fifty-year struggle and efforts of the PKK have brought about significant clarification and enlightenment on Kurdish history and identity, grounded in scientific findings. There is now a definition of Kurdishness accepted by all Kurds, and a historical understanding that traces Kurdish existence back to the Hurrians.
In contrast, the definition of citizenship introduced in Article 66 of the Constitution drafted after the military coup of November 7,1982 has created serious ambiguity regarding the identity and history of the Turks. The article, which Devlet Bahçeli insists is “untouchable,” reads as follows: “Everyone bound to the Turkish Republic through the bond of citizenship is a Turk.”
If that is the case, then Turkish existence begins with the Republic of Turkey, founded on October 29, 1923, meaning it has a 102-year history. If what is written in the Constitution is to be taken as true, does this not imply that “there have been Turks for 102 years, and before that, there were none”? In that case, would denying the existence of Kurds not also mean denying the historical existence of Turks? How can a nationalist figure like Devlet Bahçeli accept such a notion concerning Turkish existence and history?
Moreover, Devlet Bahçeli claims that “Turkishness is a supra-identity.” In other words, “Turk” is presented both as an ethnic group rooted in history and as a supra-identity formed with the establishment of the Republic of Turkey. It is evident that this notion is illogical, unacceptable, and primarily fabricated to deny the existence of the Kurds. This idea was previously promoted by Bülent Ecevit and Deniz Baykal. It likely originated from the Sun Language Theory, which claimed that the Turks descended from the Sumerians, a theory that has long been discredited by modern historical research. No one should fall into the absurd position of denying the historical existence of the Turks just to deny the existence of the Kurds. Therefore, this so-called theory, invented by the architects of the September 12 military coup, must be abandoned immediately.
In fact, one of the most important developments of the past week was the election in Cyprus and its outcome. The result clearly showed that society does not embrace the official state thesis or the policies of the AKP. Despite all the efforts of the AKP–MHP coalition, the candidate they supported lost the election. So, what is happening now? As some have said, will the real breaking point occur in Cyprus? It seems clear that Cyprus and its surroundings are becoming one of the main focal points of the escalating Third World War. Under these circumstances, the state and government with their current policies, will find themselves trapped in a cycle of submission and conflict. Bahçeli’s proposals are pushing Turkey toward an unpredictable and dangerous conflict. It is difficult to comprehend how the same Devlet Bahçeli who once initiated the current political process under the slogan “The state faces a question of survival” can now advocate such ideas. It is evident that only a democratized Turkey, one that resolves the Kurdish question through peace, can save the country from this perilous course. Neither Bahçeli’s war-inviting rhetoric nor Tayyip Erdoğan’s submissive stance at Sharm El-Sheikh can prevent Turkey from facing disaster. Only Abdullah Öcalan’s Call for Peace and a Democratic Society can save Turkey from such a catastrophe.
Of course, for this to happen, the Kurdish people’s leader Abdullah Öcalan must gain his physical freedom and be able to live and work under free conditions. In other words, the Peace and Democratic Society Process must succeed. It is clear that this can only be achieved through struggle, by further expanding and strengthening the fight for freedom. In short, this process is not one of waiting or standing still, but one of advancing the struggle for freedom each and every day. This is precisely what the Kurdish people and their allies, especially women and young people, are doing in every sphere of life.
Within this framework, there are significant struggles being waged and celebrated across the four parts of Kurdistan and around the world. One such example is the Kurdish Culture Festival held in Rome between October 17 and 19. The festival, marked by great enthusiasm, rightfully centered on the demand for Öcalan’s physical freedom.
Similarly, on October 18–19, the Peace Mothers held their Third Conference in Diyarbakır. Entirely focused on the call for Öcalan’s physical freedom, the conference was truly remarkable. The awareness, organization, and determination of the Kurdish Mothers, pioneers of the Peace and Democratic Society Process, inspired hope and confidence in everyone who watched them on television. The Kurdish freedom struggle, which began with the youth, is now advancing toward victory through the steadfast stance of the mothers.
Of course, it is equally essential never to overlook or underestimate the Kurdish young people, who have been heroically resisting for fifty-two years. The march in Diyarbakır, which aimed to unite with the “Free Leadership (Abdullah Öcalan),” was truly powerful and inspiring. Although there has not yet been full information on how the planned rally in Bursa unfolded, it is clear that spreading mass democratic actions across the cities of Turkey will advance the freedom struggle on the path to victory.
Undoubtedly, discussing and analyzing the process is important for understanding it correctly and putting it into practice. However, since the process is, at its core, a process of struggle, maintaining constant action at the right place and time is far more crucial for achieving success. Therefore, Kurds and their allies in Europe must participate even more strongly in the November 8 march in Cologne, carrying the growing freedom struggle to an even higher level.
Source: Yeni Özgür Politika