A multidimensional debate is unfolding over the resolution of the Kurdish question as part of the “Democratic Society and Peace” process. After a solution commission established within the Grand National Assembly of Turkey visited Abdullah Öcalan, political parties submitted their reports outlining proposed solutions to Parliament.
Assessing the process, political scientist Toros Korkmaz said the reports prepared by the ruling bloc are fundamentally shaped by a “security-focused” approach, while on the opposition side, concerns over “historical reckoning” remain a serious obstacle on the table. Korkmaz stressed that overcoming these barriers and achieving genuine democratization requires that Abdullah Öcalan be allowed to benefit from the “right to hope” and regain his freedom.
The government’s electoral concerns
Political scientist Toros Korkmaz said the reports submitted by the Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) government do not directly address the Kurdish question. Instead, he noted, the texts function as defensive documents aimed at alleviating Turkey’s security concerns.
Korkmaz underlined that the AKP is an “electoral party,” adding that Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s political future and his party’s survival depend on winning elections, which drives decision-making based on vote calculations. He said a voter base consolidated for years along nationalist and authoritarian lines is being shielded from democratization steps by framing the process around notions such as “Turkey’s survival” and regional risks like the “Greater Israel threat.” Korkmaz said, “If the government were able to overcome this security barrier and persuade its base. Only then would it become possible to move to a stage of democratization.”
Öcalan’s and the DEM Party’s legitimacy has grown
Political scientist Toros Korkmaz said that beyond ongoing debates, the current process has already created a significant “threshold crossing” in favor of Kurds. He underlined that this development rests on two core points: the recognition of the full legitimacy of the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) and the formal acknowledgment of Abdullah Öcalan’s leadership position.
Korkmaz noted that the long-standing negative image constructed over the years is giving way to a discussion of Öcalan as a “founding leader” that is now effectively accepted across different layers of the state and political sphere, describing this shift as both significant and historic. He added that Kurds have once again demonstrated, through their demographic presence, political capacity, and organizational strength, that they are a major actor in the Middle East who must be taken seriously under the new process.
The opposition and the left are misreading the process
Political scientist Toros Korkmaz criticized not only the government but also the opposition and segments of the left for confining the process to a narrow timeframe. He said those who distance themselves from the process with arguments such as “trustees have not been lifted, Selahattin Demirtaş has not been released, and rights have not been secured” are ignoring its long-term political consequences.
Korkmaz also commented on the reports prepared by political parties within the framework of resolving the Kurdish question, saying he considers it significant that the Republican People’s Party (CHP) explicitly names the Kurdish question in its report. However, he described it as a major shortcoming that the CHP has failed to enter a process of historical self-criticism by confronting the policies of forced assimilation and repression carried out during its founding period, adding that approaching the issue as a purely technical problem constitutes a serious deficiency.
Korkmaz said the report prepared by the New Path Group (Yeni Yol Group) goes further than the CHP’s and carries the potential to persuade nationalist-conservative voters.
He noted that the Workers’ Party of Turkey (TIP) presented the most progressive report in terms of a rights-based framework, but added that despite this, all left-wing circles remain inadequate when it comes to genuinely confronting historical massacres, including the 1925 Sheikh Said uprising and the 1937–1938 Dersim atrocities.
Social struggle is necessary for peace
Political scientist Toros Korkmaz said the democratization of peace places major responsibilities on the democratic public, stressing that a solution cannot be confined to macro-level politics alone. He emphasized that confronting deeply rooted anti-Kurdish prejudices in society is essential, adding that all sectors, from labor unions to professional associations, must assume responsibility in this process.
Korkmaz also underlined the need for an educational dimension in addressing the Kurdish question, offering the following assessment: “It is unacceptable for Kurds to be mentioned in written and visual media, as well as in school curricula, solely in the context of ‘traitorous elements.’ Structures such as the Education and Science Workers’ Union (Egitim-Sen) need to run stronger campaigns against these curricula.
Meanwhile, silence in the face of racist attacks against Leyla Zana in the stands of Bursaspor represents one of the greatest obstacles to social peace. An ideological and cultural struggle must be waged against such racist attacks at the micro level.”
Öcalan’s imprisonment must be opposed more forcefully
Political scientist Toros Korkmaz said the freedom of Abdullah Öcalan should no longer be a matter of debate, describing it as a strategic necessity for both the international and domestic legitimacy of the process. Recalling that Abdullah Öcalan carries significant symbolic and political weight among the Kurdish people not only in Turkey but across the Middle East, Korkmaz compared the current process to South Africa’s democratization experience and continued:
“Just as the release of Nelson Mandela played a decisive and constructive role in South Africa’s peace process, Öcalan’s participation in the process under free conditions would have the same effect. The only thing that can put an end to all debates and doubts such as ‘Is Öcalan free, is he speaking of his own will?’ is his actual freedom. Democratic forces must move beyond the narrow legal boundaries drawn by the government and defend more loudly the principle that this political leader should not be in prison.”