Democratic Regions Party (DBP) Co-Chair and Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) Istanbul Member of Parliament Çiğdem Kılıçgün Uçar spoke to ANF and shared her assessments on the current state of the peace process and the future of democratic politics.
Çiğdem Kılıçgün emphasized that the Kurdish movement has been persistently struggling for peace and a solution for a long time, while the state, on the other hand, has approached this process unprepared and continues to stand before democratic politics with uncertainties.
After the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) announced its decision to withdraw from Turkey, the state still has not taken any concrete legal steps. Although there are claims that things will accelerate in the coming period, there is still no tangible development. Does this situation create a sense of distrust in society? How does this uncertainty affect the course of the peace process?
The Kurdish question has always been present both historically and in the present day. In terms of the Kurdish Freedom Movement and Kurdish democratic politics, a serious struggle has been waged to ensure that the solution to this issue advances on the basis of a democratic solution and a lasting and dignified peace. There is, in fact, a struggle in front of you that has proven itself.
The geopolitical reality of the Middle East and the fact that Kurds carry not only a national identity, but also democratic politics and a democratic system on their shoulders, in their collective memory and practices, also shapes the issues we are discussing today.
There is also a historical dimension to the peace process and the idea of solving the Kurdish question through democratic methods in Turkey. In a published interview with Mr. Öcalan, it is clear that since the 1990s, there has been both a search for a counterpart in peace and a search for a method, and there is a Kurdish side, together with the reality of Mr. Öcalan, who persistently continued this.
However, the power you negotiate, with the power you are trying to solve a problem or conflict with, is never equal to you. On the contrary, it is the very power with whom you have conflict and disputes at the table. Therefore, even though the Kurdish movement has its own goals of change and transformation, it also demands change and transformation from the government and equally from the state itself.
A century-old state mentality has systematized itself to such an extent that it is certainly not as prepared as the Kurdish movement is for this process. That is the first point. The second point is this: there is serious clarity about what the solution to this issue corresponds to. For example, Mr. Öcalan very clearly defined democratic politics instead of armed struggle. If the state and government, the other side of the table, intend to build a new period with Kurds as a whole, what will they replace violence and assimilation policies with? There is serious uncertainty there.
Of course, there is an expectation for a step to be taken. The state must take a step, because it is one of the sides sitting at the table. We will continue to wait. At the same time, this is being overlooked: in a process like this, peace processes have their own law and their own nature and that essence is what is being missed.
So, what are we saying? What are our demands? The right to hope must be implemented. Mr. Öcalan must reach conditions where he lives freely and works freely. There must be a side that refuses to leave this only as a demand and that is what is needed here.
Why?
Because this is inherent to the nature of the process itself. But the state’s reluctance to take steps manifests more as an attitude of continued observation. Inevitably, this has placed the process in a position that contradicts even its own natural logic. Instead of enabling progress, it has become an obstacle to progress.
Yes, there is the state on one side, but from this stage onward, as democratic political actors, we must continue voicing demands that are legitimate and necessary for the advancement of this process. At the same time, we must also engage in thinking and practicing how the side that demands peace and resolution, the side that presents a concrete roadmap for this, meaning Mr. Öcalan and his paradigm can be strengthened within society. Because in such processes, the stronger you are, the more you can push the state to take steps. The more you gather power and become a compelling force for democracy from the state’s perspective, the more likely it is that the state will take steps.
Therefore, yes, we will say that there is an expectation. But alongside this expectation, we will continue discussing methods and ways of acting together with everyone who longs for a democratic Turkey.
In fact, much can be said on the state side. It is evident that they do not have a long-term program, and that they do not approach the question of a solution from the same perspective as Kurdish democratic politics and the Kurdish Freedom Movement. But we believe we are at a stage where we must discuss the question of “What can we do?” so that this does not reach a level that blocks a lasting solution and a democratic peace.
For example, the commission was important. Even if this appeared as a step taken by the state, in reality it was the insistence and will of Mr. Öcalan that became decisive. For the first time in Turkey, a structure was established that brought together those who are normally described as “unable to sit at the same table”, a commission that took up major political issues in Turkish politics. But something crucial is missing in that commission: courage.
For example, the process itself demands a deep transformation. Not only the Kurdish movement, the process itself. Political developments in the Middle East and political developments in the world provide so much evidence that a path cannot be taken with the nation-state model that, from that perspective, transformation appears to be essential.
Linking this directly to what you just said about courage, the question of the commission going to Imrali Island has been debated for weeks. Devlet Bahçeli said, “The commission should go, and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) is ready to take part in that delegation.” On the other hand, Yeni Şafak, which is close to the Justice and Development Party (AKP), ran a headline saying “The commission should not go to Imrali Island.” How do you view these discussions?
When the commission was first put on the agenda, its name became a subject of intense debate. At that time, we already said: “For us, the activity the commission will conduct, the topics it will handle, and the content it will engage with are far more valuable than the name of the commission.” We are still standing there. Now, in his last meeting with the delegation, Mr. Öcalan pointed to two things: the language of peace, a positive approach, and serious observations and messages concerning taking this issue seriously.
It is not possible, and it should not be expected, to see the commission as the sole mechanism for resolving the Kurdish question. But there are very serious responsibilities regarding its parliamentary dimension, its legal dimension and its legislative dimension.
This is not an issue to be wasted on the future calculations of the parties represented there. Because the democratic resolution of the Kurdish question means securing democratic politics in this country. As we all see today, not only Kurdish democratic politics, but almost every political party faces restrictions, pressure, detentions and arrests for various reasons.
We will probably not see a commission member who would say “no” to a democratic Turkey. But there is a lack of historical and sociological knowledge about the fact that this democratic line, this democratic future, passes through the resolution of the Kurdish question.
Because there are academics who turned the denial of Kurds into academic knowledge and earned money from it; there are journalists who do not establish relations with Kurds, who ignore Kurdish history, and who earn money from producing news in this manner. Therefore, if one sees that the lack of knowledge and acceptance regarding the existence of Kurds is the very reason that brought this country to this state today, then the question of forming common ground, taking joint steps and voicing this courageously within the commission will become central.
The commission should ask itself: “Why was I established? Why was I needed? And to what extent have I met that need?” Civil society organizations and institutions were heard, and none of them said, “The Kurdish question should not be resolved.” On the contrary, different ways and methods for resolving the Kurdish question were presented. We cannot find any reasonable justification for using not meeting with Mr. Öcalan, who enabled so much progress on resolving the Kurdish question, and who prepared such a political ground for Turkey in terms of democratic politics, as a political line, an obstacle, or a negative stance. You cannot even find such a justification when you look at the logic of the commission or the content of its functioning.
Even the act of meeting with Mr. Öcalan, who has already put forward his will for these steps, should have been one of the first steps taken, without needing to be demanded by us. There is also this: Mr. Öcalan wants to meet not only with the commission, but with many different segments as well: with women, with workers, with different political parties, with journalists. Because he says: “I will explain the weaknesses and shortcomings in the relationship the Republic of Turkey has established with Kurds, why the republic in this country has not been democratic, and how it can be democratized.”
Within this framework, there were messages, transmissions and statements. Therefore, perhaps we must once again remind ourselves why the commission was established, and once again articulate Mr. Öcalan, who carries so much will, power and perspective on this matter. For the commission to go to Imrali Island and meet with Mr. Öcalan would be extremely valuable and meaningful in terms of all political parties in Turkey taking more serious responsibility for resolving the Kurdish question and for a democratic Turkey. Likewise, it is of great importance that all civil society organizations and especially the press in this country protect the language of peace.
Because the period we are in is a threshold where we will decide what kind of life we will all live and take the first steps of that life. This process requires a common responsibility. This responsibility does not only belong to governments, it belongs to all institutional structures and democratic forces in the country. Perhaps this could be a joint call that we make together: Let us all protect the language and struggle of peace.
This process will not be limited to the state and the commission; it should not be limited to them. On the contrary, we need a political perspective and a political practice that can include all social segments. We will continue to insist on this and to articulate this. And I both hope and it seems inevitable that we are living in a period in which we speak about the Kurdish question most deeply and feel its resolution most deeply. There are many reasons for this.
Therefore, I see that the state understands this but does not want to place itself on equal footing with the Kurdish side and although it possesses knowledge that peace processes can only be constructed on equal ground, it nonetheless makes the process more difficult.
But let me say this: the most fundamental topic for Turkish politics is the Kurdish question. This is something everyone knows and recognizes. From the 1990s up to today, there have been several stages concerning a resolution, but there has not been a solution. This creates anxiety and fear in itself. But on the contrary, I believe that what Turkish society and politics should actually fear is the insistence on non-resolution of the Kurdish question. The resolution of the Kurdish question should be seen as the topic that we can most easily dare for, bring to our agenda, and for which every party can quickly prepare its own roadmap. This is very important.