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.
Part one of this interview can be read here.
You say that Abdullah Öcalan wants to meet not only with the state or a commission, but with many different sectors. Yet the right to hope is not being implemented. And the right to hope will not only be for Öcalan, but also for many political prisoners. Is it so difficult to take these steps through the new judicial package or legal regulations? Why does this create a blockage?
Türkiye is a signatory to conventions that are binding on itself. For example, even without adopting any new legal regulations and without introducing any new law, simply starting to implement these would be very meaningful and valuable. This could be one of the important steps that would enable the process to progress.
But the main point is this: yes, we expect legal regulations. Mr. Öcalan referred to these as ‘transitional laws’ after the dissolution of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), the laying down of arms, and the withdrawal of PKK forces from Türkiye. But at its core, the real issue is that the people who live in this country are not recognised in the laws that are prepared and implemented here.
How?
For example: Kurds do not exist in the law. Alevis are not recognised in the law of this country. Women and labourers are not recognised either. So perhaps we are speaking about something very fundamental here. But in a country where you are not recognised in the law, whichever country it may be, and today we are speaking about Turkey, even your most rightful demand can be turned into a crime simply because you are not recognised legally.
There are thousands of political prisoners who have been held for thirty years. There are those who are imprisoned simply because they pursued democratic politics: Selahattin Demirtaş, Figen Yüksekdağ, and the prisoners of the Kobanê Case, for example. What we call the law and the judiciary is being used as a stick against them. But what this country needs is democratic politics. On the other hand, judicial packages are presented to society during election periods and at critical stages, but these regulations do not meet the demands of society. They have become titles that appear promising, yet ultimately do not reveal anything.
First of all, the law in this country must be inclusive. We need a legal system that recognises everyone. When this is ensured, perhaps we will no longer have to speak about judicial packages. This is what is essentially needed.
But at today’s stage, especially when it comes to the situation of ill prisoners and the hostage-taking of democratic politicians, in a process where law and the judiciary have become so politicised, we think that it is important that everyone who is suffering from this injustice is released as soon as possible.
On the other hand, the issue of the right to hope concerning Mr. Öcalan actually forms a part of this foundation. Because Imralı Island has been turned into the main address of the impossibility of resolving the Kurdish question in Turkey. A memory was attempted to be created in Turkish society, and an impression was formed that ‘Imralı is the place where the Kurdish question will not be resolved, and this must be accepted.’
Yet in the Imralı Prison, created by the state, which tries to turn the impossibility of resolving the Kurdish question into a symbol in the person of Mr. Öcalan, the hope for democracy, peace, a will for common life, and a free future emerged in this country. In a place where the hope of something emerged, to not implement the right to hope is problematic not only in terms of the judgements of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), but also in terms of the universal perspective that people who are imprisoned should not spend their entire life in prison.
A right to hope and a right to freedom is defined for everyone who has completed twenty-five years. Many people do not see the implementation of the right to hope solely through Mr. Öcalan’s freedom; they see it as a beginning that will open the door to many freedoms through the Kurdish question, which has been turned into a legal deadlock.
So the implementation of the right to hope is not only an issue of Mr. Öcalan’s freedom. On the contrary, the non-implementation of the right to hope has become a binding knot for many political prisoners. The implementation of this is seen as something that will show the state’s intention regarding the democratic solution of the Kurdish question, and also as a guarantee for legal and legislative regulations that are truly constructive and inclusive of all segments of society.
Therefore, this issue of rights covers very broad segments of society. Mr. Öcalan defines this not only as a right to hope, but as a ‘principle of hope’. In other words, this must be defined as a principle for everyone who lives in this country to live freely and equally. That is why it is important. And the implementation of the right to hope also plays a key role for the new period that we are trying to advance.
There is a recent development: the ECtHR ruling regarding Selahattin Demirtaş. On the other hand, Ahmet Türk has been acquitted, yet the term of the trustee has been extended. How do you evaluate these?
All of these are closely connected. For example, the fact that your right to engage in democratic politics is strong against the ruling power can turn you into a political hostage. We believe that the 2015 elections were an important turning point in the political history of Turkey. Because we collectively experienced how all the marginalised and all the diverse segments of society living in Turkey could come together around a party and a paradigm, how they could grow, how they could become an effective force in politics, and how this form of doing politics rendered society an active subject.
Unfortunately, the state we face today is not one that would allow a politics in which society participates as the subject. Because we cannot speak of democracy.
In fact, in discussions on the new period, there are certain debates about ‘democratising the existing democracy’. But we know that nothing presented as democracy in Turkey is actually democracy. On the contrary, we are confronted with a state that justifies the absence of democracy in Turkey through the existence of the Kurds. Thus, this process itself is, in a sense, an invitation to the state to abide by the law and democracy. Now, with the Kobanê Case and many political developments around it, from the Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK) operations to preventing Kurds from doing politics, to preventing Alevis from engaging in democratic politics, and to refusing the coming together of these fields of struggle, this must be understood as an intolerance and rejection.
This mentality still continues. One of the things that needs to be changed is to both reduce and eliminate this intolerance and hostility, and also to turn it into a force in favour of democracy and society. Therefore, this is not merely a legal issue. On the contrary, the Kobanê Conspiracy Case is an indicator of how much the existence of the Kurds in this country will be accepted, and how much the democratic politics of the Kurds in this country will be accepted.
What we are facing today, the delaying, the overlooking, the insistence on not implementing even a ruling that they are responsible for, is nothing other than the test of how the Kurds will exist in this country, and how the marginalised will exist in this country.
Finally, many developments in Turkey always seem to get stuck in Syria. But it is not limited to there; for example, Hakan Fidan also made statements regarding Iraq and Iran. Hakan Fidan says that the withdrawal of the PKK from Turkey is important, but he also adds that activities in Iraq and Iran must come to an end. What does it indicate, in terms of the process, that the government constantly puts forward such a condition?
Syria today stands clearly as the main address and centre of the new restructuring in the Middle East. This is very clear. Both because of the presence of hegemonic powers there and because of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria that the Kurdish people have created together with other peoples… In fact, I see this as an important field of testing for humanity. An important field of testing for democracy and freedom.
While the real power that should determine Syria’s future ought to be the peoples and dynamics that live in Syria, there are many powers in the Middle East positioned through both energy routes and security-based policies. And every power is trying to keep strong the ground in which it can protect and reproduce itself.
On the other hand, there is the issue of new massacres and the issue of Israel’s attacks on Gaza. There is a war that is being kept hot, and a new design through this war. Yet there, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) themselves are showing a strong stance that a Syria and a Middle East without war can be built. In a period when war politics is so dominant and when almost all countries, especially nation-states, consolidate their economies and their politics through war politics and war strategies, we must say that we are faced with very serious difficulties.
Now, will there be a democratic Syria, or will it continue under the mentality that economic powers describe as the ‘interim government’, which we hold responsible for the most brutal periods in the eyes of the peoples of the Middle East and of Turkey? The debate is clear at this point. Therefore, the democratic integration that the SDF have put forward today for Syria’s democracy, their word and their practice regarding the issue of different peoples and different beliefs being able to live together there is very valuable.
But such a system does not appear suitable for the investment that the powers present there are making for their own future, and therefore turns into another debate. Let me say this: the Kurdish question in Turkey, the Kurdish question in Syria, the Kurdish question in Iran and Iraq, at the stage we have reached today, must be addressed with a democratic solution. If we are to speak about a plane or a new period, we must speak about it on the basis of equality and freedom. And the Kurds are the ones most prepared for this, because they know it very well due to the struggle they have waged. But it is not very possible to say that everyone is prepared for this, or that everyone is willing for this.
Both the continuation of the occupation and the fact that the countries there imagine a Syrian future through Damascus, and their efforts to redesign Syria through their own socio-economic needs… It is clear that we are in a time frame where many debates and developments are tied in a knot.
Our perspective is this: at the very least, the SDF have formed a significant power there in the name of democracy and freedoms. They have established a governance and a will to which the peoples of Syria can turn their faces in all the difficulties they have experienced. Therefore every step to be taken there for democracy is important for the democracy of the Middle East. But at the same time, the concrete advancement of the new period we are discussing today in Turkey will also influence the new system that will be established in Rojava. Perhaps we should conclude this part like this: the SDF also have a debate of their own.
They say that they are not against an issue of integration and participation, but that they will continue their struggle for decentralisation; and that if there is participation, they will exist with their own identity and their own struggle. Yes, this identity and this struggle continues to preserve itself as the hope of a new period in the Middle East. But bringing this matter of solution here as a condition every time is not something acceptable, nor does it look very realistic in terms of the nature of the process.
There is a process going on in Turkey. A table has been established, and discussions are being conducted in accordance with its own nature and character. If the same things will happen in the other parts as well, if such things will happen in Syria, in Iran, in Iraq, the ones who will not take even a single step back will of course be the Kurds. Because the Kurds are the ones who see the struggle for peace and democracy as the greatest need and who never give up on it. In fact this struggle, at the stage we have reached today, continues to be the voice of all the oppressed peoples living in the Middle East. I believe this is its critical point.