Writer Ali Bayramoğlu, who spoke to ANF about the Peace and Democratic Society process, examined the Kurdish question, one of Turkey’s deepest-rooted problems, through its historical background, current dynamics and possible avenues for resolution. He said the current moment represents a positive phase that draws on the accumulated experience of all previous peace efforts and goes beyond them.
Bayramoğlu also spoke about the scope and origins of the Kurdish question, noting that the issue is not merely an internal matter for Turkey. He stated: “The Kurdish question has persisted since the era of the empire, and especially after the First World War, taking on various forms and formulas. Kurdish aspirations, which were once focused on independence and later on autonomy, today revolve around preserving their identity and presence within the countries they live in. They seek integration into these state systems while contributing to their democratization. In this sense, the Kurdish question has become a central political issue shaped by these evolving methods of engagement.”
Bayramoğlu underlined that the largest Kurdish population and the most intense periods of conflict are found in Turkey, and that the issue has expanded further when considering the sociological ties between Kurds in Syria and Turkey. He pointed out that, in the period following the Arab Spring, the institutional extension of the Kurdish movement from Turkey into Syria and the emergence of a political space there reshaped the political balances across the region. He said the developments heightened Turkey’s sense of threat on multiple fronts and pushed the state further toward a security-centered framework.
The process is moving in a positive direction
Bayramoğlu said the period that began with the emergence of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) unfolded through intense conflict and continued as follows: “If we consider the PKK specifically, roughly fifty years of conflict included thirty-five to forty years marked by various search efforts for a solution. The point we have reached today can be regarded as one of the most advanced stages shaped by these overlapping and maturing attempts at resolution. For this reason, I consider the current situation positive. The Oslo process took place, and it was followed by new phases between 2013 and 2015. The experiences and accumulated knowledge of these periods are reflected today on both the state side and within the Kurdish movement.”
Bayramoğlu also said: “What is this point? Abdullah Öcalan defines it very clearly. The phase centered on conflict, weapons and independence has been left behind, and what we are seeing is a transition from armed struggle to political engagement. The Kurdish movement is now expressing its demands within the framework of politics. At the core of a solution lies the idea that Kurds should participate in the systems of the countries they live in, protect their rights and identities, and advance through social contracts and shared democratic processes that support the democratization of these countries.”
Bayramoğlu added: “There have already been partial steps in this direction. Both Abdullah Öcalan’s will and the will within Turkey’s political system are moving in a positive direction for the progress of the peace process. When we look at state institutions, the components of the People’s Alliance and the parliamentary commission that has been formed, we see that, with the exception of one or two parties, political actors are coming together and acting in favor of establishing peace. This indicates that the system is moving toward a legitimate peace.
Of course, viewing the process only through a positive lens is not enough. Practical and technical problems still exist. A will for peace alone is not sufficient to achieve peace; concrete steps must be taken.”
Transition from negative peace to positive peace
Bayramoğlu expanded his assessment of the peace process by referring to the concepts of “negative peace” and “positive peace,” which have recently come into use. Bayramoğlu said: “Negative peace, as the term suggests, describes the initial phase. It refers to a situation in which weapons fall silent, the parties move toward disarmament and demands are at least partially addressed through political channels. Turkey is currently in this phase.
Positive peace, on the other hand, defines a more advanced stage in which the core demands and historical expectations of Kurds are fulfilled. At the moment, Turkey is discussing both forms of peace. Bahçeli, Öcalan and the chair of the Republican People’s Party are all talking about this, meaning the two profound dimensions of the Kurdish issue. We can say we are in the first phase, and this phase contains several critical steps.”
Öcalan has shown that he is a decisive and guiding political will
Bayramoğlu said the resolution of the Kurdish question involves several critical stages, one of which is the status of Öcalan. He continued: “One of these critical stages is the issue of Öcalan’s status. Abdullah Öcalan has shown, both during the 2013–2015 process and today, that he is the decisive and guiding political will of the Kurdish movement. The movement has taken shape in line with his initiatives, expectations and demands.
However, the talks between Öcalan and the state have continued for a long time and have largely taken place in a semi-closed and informal manner. Although Abdullah Öcalan’s letter being read by Sırrı Süreyya Önder in Diyarbakır in 2013 created a political shift, the fundamental equation did not change. On one side stood a prisoner, on the other the state. For Turkey, this phase marked the first moment in which one side in the peace process was acknowledged as a legitimate counterpart.”
Bayramoğlu also said: “A delegation from parliament meeting directly with Öcalan is significant because it represents society and the political system. The maturation of the process requires several critical steps, including the expansion of Öcalan’s room for action, the facilitation of his ability to guide the movement and the possibility of engaging with Syria. The integration of Kurdish political actors and the clarification of their legal status are also essential parts of the process. Work on these issues is currently underway within the commission, and the healthy progress of these efforts is of great importance.
A second key stage in the process is the dialogue between the state’s security bureaucracy and the Kurdish movement. It would not be inaccurate to say that frameworks and plans have already been discussed. However, the essential issue is the adoption of legal measures, the legitimization of the process and the capacity to move forward on this basis. Alongside the institutionalization of Abdullah Öcalan’s role as a counterpart, this stands as the second major dimension of the process.”