One of the steps that Abdullah Öcalan regards as most crucial for the new period is the adoption of transitional justice laws, as these are a requirement of democratic integration. Öcalan also grounds the legal framework of democratic integration on three fundamental principles.
Although transitional justice laws are often perceived in Turkey as a newly introduced concept, they in fact emerged after the Second World War. The Nuremberg trials, in which those responsible and commanding figures of Nazi Germany were prosecuted, went down in history as the first practical implementation of transitional justice.
Transitional justice laws and democratic integration are complementary processes. According to the definition of the United Nations, transitional justice encompasses the full range of judicial and non-judicial measures aimed at redressing past abuses in countries where human rights violations have been widespread. These measures include truth commissions, reforms, particularly in security-related legislation and compensation programmes.
In his message shared on 3 December, Öcalan clearly articulated what he meant by transitional justice by defining it as a “law of transition to the century of peace.” What is crucial here are those steps which should not be considered separately are instead presented to the public as if they were unrelated to one another.
Following the Second World War, the process known as transitional justice, initiated to confront crimes against humanity and to establish appropriate accountability mechanisms for human rights violations, was later tested in many contexts, offering a clearer picture of its practical dimensions. Courts symbolised by the prosecution of Nazi Germany’s crimes and measures addressing grave human rights violations marked the first concrete steps of this era. Transitional justice, however, refers to a process far too complex to be reduced solely to judicial sanctions and practices. Even the smallest mistake or omission in this process can be significant enough to undermine it entirely.
There are several core principles commonly identified in relation to the transitional period. These principles have emerged from transitional justice experiences to date and can be outlined as follows:
* To put an end to human rights violations
* To investigate past crimes
* To identify those responsible for human rights violations
* To impose sanctions on those responsible
* To provide compensation to victims
* To prevent violations from occurring in the future
* To implement lasting reforms in the security sector
* To protect and legitimize peace
* To ensure equal citizenship
* To acknowledge past abuses
* To enable a transition toward a better society
These principles do not signify the defeat or dominance of one side. Nor can they be adequately understood through the lens of criminal law alone; such an approach would be both incomplete and misleading.
Transitional justice is not an “amnesty”
One of the most common misconceptions in Turkey’s public debate is the framing of transitional justice laws under the heading of “amnesty.” Transitional justice, however, is not an amnesty. It is about confronting past violations, holding those responsible to account, and placing the period that follows on a sound and just foundation. Reducing the discussion solely to “amnesty” diminishes both the seriousness and the scope of the process being pursued.
In an interview on 28 November, Besê Hozat, Co-Chair of the Executive Council of the Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK), set out a clear framework and said: “The cadres of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) are not seeking amnesty. We did not commit crimes; we waged a struggle for existence and freedom for a people subjected to genocide. These are dignified people. Their gaze is not simply fixed on returning to their families. The ‘categorisation according to crime’ approach being discussed shows a failure to understand the process. Our demand is freedom laws for everyone. If freedom laws are enacted and the path of democratic politics is opened, everyone, from the leadership of this Movement to its newest fighter, will step forward. They will carry out democratic reconstruction across Turkey and Kurdistan. Our understanding of politics is not about being confined to Ankara, but about building society on moral and political foundations.”
Revising laws enacted during wartime
Transitional justice is not a process of reconciliation in the sense of mutual forgiveness. What is being demanded is accountability for what has taken place and a confrontation with the pain that remains the greatest obstacle to peoples coming together. One of the key pillars of transitional justice is the revision, repeal, and re-regulation of laws enacted during periods of war in line with a peace process. This constitutes one of the most important steps the state can take toward peace and serves as a guarantee that the same period will not be repeated. Otherwise, under various pretexts, the peace process risks being abandoned and treated instead as preparation for renewed war.
Used as a means of exoneration
If there is no organised struggle grounded in a proper political framework, states can use transitional justice processes to absolve themselves of their own crimes. In Argentina, this was not possible because popular organisation was strong. During the Nuremberg trials, all Nazi officers and commanders who were prosecuted claimed they were merely following orders and refused to accept any of the accusations. One judge expressed his reaction by saying, “I did not see a single guilty Nazi here.”
During one period, the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government opened cases related to the Gendarmerie Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism (JITEM), which could be considered within the scope of transitional justice. However, the courts were used as instruments to exonerate the state, and all cases were concluded in the state’s favour. No state official tried for enforced disappearances in custody, village burnings, acid wells, or extrajudicial executions received any punishment.
The importance of truth commissions
It is precisely at this point that truth commissions emerge as a crucial guarantor of transitional justice. These commissions have been established in countries where human rights violations were widespread and have played a decisive role in investigating the state’s past crimes and monitoring related legal proceedings. The first truth commission was formed in Argentina in 1983, following the struggle of relatives of those who were forcibly disappeared during a large-scale dirty war, under the name of the National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons (CONADEP). Since then, more than forty truth commissions have been established in different parts of the world under various names.
* In Argentina, truth commissions undertook extensive and significant efforts to document human rights violations, make them public, and initiate legal cases. They revealed that 8,960 people had been disappeared and that there were 365 illegal detention centres. Some of the cases they initiated are still ongoing.
* In Peru, twenty years after the report published by the Reconciliation Commission, former president Alberto Fujimori was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison for enforced disappearances, torture, and executions carried out in the 1990s.
* In Guatemala, the Historical Clarification Commission determined that 200,000 people lost their lives during the conflict between 1960 and 1996, and that the state was responsible for 93 percent of these deaths.
* In South Africa, some perpetrators were publicly named, preventing them from remaining hidden. After being granted the authority to issue amnesties, the commission approved only 849 of the 7,112 applications submitted by individuals seeking pardon.
Transitional justice and integration
Abdullah Öcalan identifies democratic integration as one of the most critical pillars of the new period. Democratic integration does not merely mean, as framed by those in power, the participation of members of the Kurdistan Freedom Movement in “social life.” It also entails the abandonment of the state’s genocidal policies and a clear break from racist approaches. The first essential step toward democratic integration is the proper planning and implementation of transitional justice on a sound and principled basis.
In his remarks on democratic integration and transitional justice, Öcalan said:“Advancing the process we are in requires taking history and sociology far more seriously. It is important to recognise that the Turkish–Kurdish relationship has come down to the present as two pillars with a history of a thousand years. These pillars must be seen, understood, and repaired in order to strengthen coexistence. We should not proceed by drawing rigid lines, but by creating a horizon that also encompasses our current problems. Under limited conditions, we are making a serious effort around a historic issue. We are trying to develop a positive phase, not a destructive or negative one.”
Three core principles emphasised by Abdullah Öcalan
In a message sent to the International Peace and Democratic Society Conference, Abdullah Öcalan underlined that one of the key arguments he puts forward as a fundamental strategy of struggle is democratic integration and its legal framework and stated: “The law of democratic integration, through which law is restructured in favour of society on the basis of individual and universal norms as well as collective peoples, must rest on three fundamental principles:
* The Law of the Free Citizen
* The Law of Peace and a Democratic Society
* Freedom Laws
The law of democratic integration will both transform the state into a state governed by norms and enable society to institutionalise the existence it has gained and to realise its freedom.”
Therefore, unless democratic integration is implemented in line with the principles defined by Öcalan, transitional justice cannot be put into practice.