The second day of the International Conference on Peace and Democratic Society, organized by the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) in Istanbul, began with a session titled “From Nation-State to Democratic Nation.” Speaking at the session moderated by Ebru Günay, Co-Deputy Chair of Foreign Relations for the DEM Party, German scholar, lawyer, and politician Prof. Norman Paech recounted his 1996 meeting with Kurdish leader Abdullah Öcalan.
Paech said the meeting centered on two important questions: “First, the role of violence in the liberation struggle; second, the question of establishing a separate state or limiting the struggle to autonomy and self-governance within that state. Both questions were closely linked to our understanding of democracy, which was entirely consistent with the opposing view that had decided to abandon armed struggle against NATO member Turkey, which was heavily armed at the time. It also included abandoning the idea of a separate Kurdish state. This was based on a deep and well-founded skepticism toward the capitalist democratic world. Democracy had, and still has, both an imperialist and individualistic character. The goal of the liberation movement should not be to seize the state, but to transfer the political decision-making process to local communities, neighborhoods, professional associations, and councils. Therefore, this concept is a way of thinking in which local, grassroots democratic institutions unite horizontally to make fundamental political decisions, thereby rendering the old, outdated nation-state irrelevant. Öcalan’s concept of the democratic nation refers to a political community that is not created by a homogeneous nation-state, but is defined by various identities that determine common demographic rules.
Capitalism carries war within it like clouds carry rain. This statement remains valid 100 years after it was first uttered. Aggression, competition, and the pursuit of dominance have been characteristic features of the capitalist state for centuries. Despite countless attempts, it has not been possible to eliminate interstate war through international law, as evidenced by the 1907 Hague Convention, the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact, or other similar efforts. From the perspective of international legal experts, the right to self-determination is a fundamental norm for protecting and guaranteeing the existence and identity of a people such as the Kurdish people. The right to self-determination is mentioned very briefly and incidentally in the United States Constitution and in the principles of Article 1, paragraph 2 of the United Nations Charter. It took years for this right to be accepted as a binding legal concept through countless decisions.
Öcalan abandoned his goal of establishing a Kurdish state by seceding from Turkey in 1996. This leaves the well-known alternatives of decentralization and federalization for democratizing Turkey within its current borders. Both demands are legally acceptable, but politically challenging for a centralized state like Turkey. While working on the Minority Rights Declaration, the Turkish government made a clear statement against the recognition of minorities and referred minority members to the protection of human rights. According to the Turkish Constitution and other relevant legislation, all Turkish citizens, without exception, have equal rights and status. Therefore, it is impossible to discriminate in favor of or against any person or group on the basis of ethnic, religious, or linguistic differences. In addition, we believe that the rights of individuals with ethnic, religious, or linguistic differences should be evaluated within the framework of human rights. Reducing the protection of minorities guaranteed by Article 27 of the Declaration of Human Rights does not ensure justice for the protection of these individuals by referring to individual rights. The existence and identity of ethnic, linguistic, or cultural minorities such as the Kurds must be protected through collective rights that go beyond the protection of individuals.
This brings me to the authors of the latest studies: The Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) developed recommendations for the government in 2008 and 2010 on how local, municipal, and regional administrations and self-governance should be defined and included in the new constitution. To summarize briefly, the foundation argues that decentralization is necessary not only because of inequalities between regions and changes in the economic structure of society, but also for the sake of democratization. Furthermore, regions should be established as autonomous administrative units. This is because the structure of provinces has changed significantly since the founding of the republic. The distribution of authority between the central government and regional autonomous administrative units should be easily regulated by law without going into further detail. These efforts demonstrate how deeply Öcalan’s ideas and proposals for the democratization of Turkey have taken root in society and allow us to imagine how the debate has completely changed in just 30 years.
The issues discussed in 1996 are now behind us, and new problems and questions are being debated. This is the passage of time, and it gives us hope that this will continue. However, there is something missing for this to become a genuine dialogue that creates new democratic realities: Öcalan’s release from his inhumane isolation in the prison on İmralı Island. When the Kurdish people are given their rightful place and position in Turkish society, and when the former fighters from the mountains of Iraq can return without being put in danger, the democratization of this country will be realized. You have a real chance, and this chance is coming to you.
Finally, allow me to add a personal note. I come from Germany, a country where the PKK is still banned as a terrorist organization. When the German government declared the PKK illegal in 1993, the Kurdish community asked me to file a lawsuit against the highest administrative court. I fought in court on the basis of international law, but I have not been successful so far.”