Peoples’ Democratic Congress (HDK) spokesperson Ali Kenanoğlu said in the second part of this interview that the “Republican People’s Party failed to take a clear stance from the beginning. Secondly, the CHP’s position shifted from opportunity to error. Whether the CHP said, ‘We are going to the island,’ or ‘We are not going,’ they would have faced intense reactions either way. The reason for this lies within CHP itself. One must question why this decision was left until the very last moment.”
The first part of this interview can be read here.
Kenanoğlu continued: “The issue is this: Ever since the commission was formed, this topic has been constantly discussed within the public sphere. Had CHP told its base from the beginning, ‘Everywhere in the world, such processes work this way. These issues cannot be resolved without speaking to their interlocutors. Since this commission has been established, it will speak with everyone, including Mr. Öcalan, because he is the interlocutor,’ and had they conveyed this clearly to the public, CHP would not be experiencing today’s problems and tensions. And after announcing that they would visit the island, they would not have faced this backlash.
But instead, what happened? They kept saying, ‘Let us see what the Justice and Development Party (AKP) will say,’ or ‘Let us see what Erdoğan will say,’ and by doing so the process dragged on to this point. This also enabled opponents of the process to organize.”
Kenanoğlu addressed criticisms directed at CHP and stressed that their movement had provided more votes to CHP than many CHP voters themselves: “Organized structures opposing the process, both inside and outside CHP, have seriously blockaded the party. CHP has reached a point where it can no longer say, ‘We are going to the island.’ This is a strategic mistake of their own making. When they eventually decided, or when an internal vote produced the result of ‘We are not going,’ it naturally caused deep reactions among the Kurdish public.
In truth, the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) administrators and we, as Peoples’ Democratic Congress spokespersons, criticize CHP reasonably and constructively, not in a harsh or dismissive manner. However, the public’s emotional response is very strong, and this must be understood. I read an article in which a CHP administrator said, ‘DEM Party members are reacting emotionally.’ This is entirely natural.
There is public debate, and many people ask us: ‘Why do you criticize CHP this much but not the AKP?’ We did not vote for the AKP. We never called on anyone to vote for them, nor did we ever express support for them. Yet we are a movement whose voters supported the CHP’s chairperson more strongly than many CHP voters themselves. In CHP’s strongest regions, the votes cast for Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu were lower than the votes cast in regions where our base is strongest. In that sense, of course, criticism will be directed toward CHP, and emotional reactions will arise. Because people say, ‘We worked, we campaigned, we voted, we supported, but this should not have been done.’ What are we supposed to say to the AKP? We are a party that has opposed them from the beginning.”
Kenanoğlu noted that Özgür Özel relied on a public opinion survey while making this decision, and continued: “It is understood that Özgür Özel or his team had a survey placed before them while making this choice. As far as I recall, this survey claims that approximately thirty-three percent of DEM Party votes come with an Abdullah Öcalan motivation, and more than sixty percent come with a Selahattin Demirtaş motivation.
But how is such a survey conducted? There are two methods: either you approach someone on the street in Turkey or in Istanbul with a pen and paper to ask them face-to-face, or you call them by phone. Now imagine stopping someone in the street in Istanbul and saying, ‘Abdullah Öcalan or Selahattin Demirtaş, which one?’ In such a climate of political pressure, who could openly answer ‘Abdullah Öcalan’? Is that even possible?
Or imagine calling them on the phone and saying, ‘I am calling from a polling company, Abdullah Öcalan or Selahattin Demirtaş?’ How could something so absurd produce any meaningful or healthy result?”
Reactions in Tokat highlight shifting social sensitivities
Ali Kenanoğlu stated that during the public meetings organized by the DEM Party and the HDK, many participants were encountering certain realities for the first time. He explained that simply hearing the name of Mr. Öcalan without derogatory language was surprising to many people, yet they listened attentively to what was being conveyed. Kenanoğlu said: “I have attended several of these meetings, and I know the crowds well. For example, I took part in gatherings in Ordu, Samsun, Çorum, and in many towns and districts of Tokat. When we say ‘Abdullah Öcalan’ or simply ‘Öcalan,’ people find it extremely unusual. Why? Because until today they have never heard the word ‘Öcalan’ on its own; it has always been accompanied by disgusting, insulting phrases. So even when you refer to him simply as ‘Öcalan,’ it feels strange to them. And in such an environment, they expect to conduct a survey, ask you, ‘Selahattin Demirtaş or Abdullah Öcalan?’ and you would answer ‘Abdullah Öcalan.’
In Tokat, I experienced the following: During a crowded meeting, while I was speaking, one person insulted Mr. Öcalan. We paused for a moment, trying to decide how to respond, but the people in the hall reacted immediately. Before we could say anything, they intervened and said, ‘Do not be disrespectful. These people have come here and are explaining things clearly. We ask our questions and they respond. Why are you provoking?’ The crowd intervened before we did. We then tried to calm them down, saying, ‘Please, do not do that.’
At another meeting, someone said, ‘The way you described it makes Öcalan sound like a dove of peace.’ I replied, ‘Those words did not come from me. I explained what Öcalan himself has said. If you reach that conclusion, then that means there is something there.’ People want this process to reach a healthy conclusion. There are worries and concerns, but these stem from the government. From every segment of society, we hear the same question: ‘Do you trust them?’ This distrust comes directly from the government.”
What remains now are the legal steps
HDK Co-Spokesperson Ali Kenanoğlu stated that emotional reactions toward the CHP are inevitable, but that politics does not allow for rigid declarations such as “one cannot walk this path with them.” Kenanoğlu concluded his remarks with the following words: “Of course, people will give emotional reactions regarding the CHP issue. But statements like ‘we cannot walk with CHP anymore’ are not accurate in the world of politics. None of us could have imagined that Devlet Bahçeli would one day call Mr. Öcalan a ‘founding leader’ and defend him to this extent. Politics operates differently; for that reason, no position should be rejected with absolute and rigid lines.
CHP continues to participate in the commission and remains an important political force in Turkey’s democratization. It is a party that must stay on the side of democracy. Its base overlaps with ours. Emotional reactions are understandable, but as responsible individuals, we must act with greater caution. Ultimately, we will all continue living together in this country, including with CHP voters.
What remains now are the legal steps. In this regard, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) has already done far more than expected. When it faced dead ends, it put forward additional proposals and met additional requests. Under normal circumstances, after the ceremony of laying down arms, it should have been the government’s turn to take steps. Despite that, numerous moves were made, withdrawals, evacuations of risky areas, and many difficult decisions.
The critical threshold here was visiting the island and officially confirming Mr. Öcalan’s role as the interlocutor. From this point on, the matter is entirely about drafting the legislation required for this process. There is no other method or path left. The parliamentary commission will present its proposals, the relevant committees will work on the draft laws, and the legislation for this process will be enacted. I believe the process will be completed without dragging on for too long.”