As discussions continue around a democratic resolution to the Kurdish question, ongoing commission work in parliament, reports prepared by political parties, and regional developments have all given rise to critical debates over the direction of the process. At the center of these discussions is the fact that, despite the passage of a year, the process has still not been given a legal framework by the state, alongside the Turkish state’s approach toward Rojava and the expectations of the Kurdish side.
Remzi Kartal, Co-Chair of Kongra-Gel, spoke to ANF about the state’s and political parties’ approaches to the process, as well as the expectations of the Kurdish side. Kartal shared assessments on a wide range of issues, from the political address of a possible solution to the broader roadmap of the struggle for democracy.
Reports remain far from a solution
Debates on a democratic resolution to the Kurdish question in Turkey have been ongoing for more than a year. For the success of the process, the Kurdish Freedom Movement and its leader Abdullah Öcalan have taken many concrete steps. However, reports submitted to the parliamentary commission show that the approach to the Kurdish question has still not gone beyond security-based policies. The Freedom Movement has voiced serious criticism over this. How do you assess the reports submitted to parliament, particularly by the ruling bloc?
The reports submitted by political parties to the commission essentially reveal each party’s approach to assessment of the process. From this perspective, the reports presented by the government bloc, primarily the Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), are extremely superficial and prepared within the framework of security-oriented policies.
The Kurdish question is a fundamental issue that has shaped the Republic for nearly a century. It holds central importance for Turkey’s democratization and its transformation into a democratic republic. Yet neither the AKP nor the MHP reports contain a comprehensive democratic perspective or a concrete roadmap for resolving the Kurdish question.
The approach put forward by the MHP reflects a historical understanding that Kurds and Turks are one and the same, even if this is not stated explicitly.
The AKP’s report, meanwhile, largely functions as a propaganda text. It is based on the rhetoric expressed to date by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, approaches the Kurdish question within that framework, and evaluates the process accordingly. For this reason, these reports do not inspire confidence among the public.
On the other hand, although three parties visited Imralı Island to meet with Abdullah Öcalan, the third party, the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party), was excluded from the process of preparing the report on the Imralı meetings. The AKP and MHP drafted a report based solely on their own assessments as the delegation that visited Imralı and submitted this summary to the commission. Accurate and transparent information was not shared with the press or the public.
All these practices clearly demonstrate how the AKP and MHP approach the process. They also reveal how they view the work of the parliamentary commission and the resolution of the Kurdish question.
Looking further at party reports, the Republican People’s Party (CHP) report does include certain assessments regarding the Kurdish question. However, it does not put forward an ambitious approach grounded in the goal of a democratic republic, nor does it propose a strong legal framework for resolving the issue on that basis. As the founding party of the Republic, it also fails to position itself with a strategic sense of responsibility toward democratization. Similar limitations can be seen in the reports of other parties.
At this stage, the most decisive texts are those submitted by the AKP, the MHP, and the main opposition party, the CHP. The current picture does not yet reflect a solution-oriented approach that inspires public hope or strengthens confidence in the process.
The commission’s mandate has been extended by two months. This period is critical for the commission to prepare its own report and formulate recommendations to be submitted to parliament. During these two months, the work carried out by political parties, civil society, and the public will directly influence the commission’s efforts.
For this reason, a strong and substantive effort must be undertaken during this period, directed at political parties, civil society, and the wider public. Only in this way can the report prepared at the end of the two-month extension and the recommendations submitted to parliament, be more concrete, solution-oriented, and democratic in content.
A meeting is needed on the axis of law and democracy
You say the report to be prepared by the commission must be solution oriented. What should be included in this report? What does the Kurdish side and the Kurdish Freedom Movement expect in tangible terms from this report and from the process as a whole?
First, one point must be stated clearly: what is the Kurdish question? The Kurdish question is the result of the state’s century-long policies of denial and destruction directed against the Kurds. Abdullah Öcalan has laid this out in an extremely clear, direct, and concrete manner.
At its core, the Kurdish question concerns the inclusion of the Kurds within the framework of law. It is about Kurds taking their place within the legal order of the Republic of Turkey as a people, with their identity, language, and culture. However, for nearly a century, the state has pursued policies of denial and destruction against the Kurds, and the Kurds have resisted these policies. At the point reached today, the state must abandon its policies of denial and destruction, and the Kurds must also move beyond this conflict-ridden ground.
On this basis, there is a need for a new meeting on the axis of law and democracy. The fundamental expectation is that Kurds can freely express their identities, languages, and cultures, that the obstacles preventing democratic political participation are removed, and that the space for democratic politics is opened. The commission must therefore be grounded in law and democracy and must encompass these areas.
Approach to Abdullah Öcalan is fundamental for us
Another key issue is the approach toward Öcalan, who created a historic opportunity for this process to emerge and who offers a major strategic possibility not only for the Kurds but for all peoples living in Turkey, particularly the Turkish people. How do you assess this issue within the context of the current process?
The approach toward Öcalan is fundamental for us. For the process to develop in a healthy and secure manner, conditions must be created that allow Abdullah Öcalan to live and work freely. This is a responsibility that lies with both the ruling bloc and the opposition.
There is a strong expectation in this process that the public, democratic forces, and political actors will adopt a political and democratic approach regarding the freedom of Öcalan.
In short, steps taken on these two issues, recognition of the Kurds based on law and democracy, and the development of a correct and democratic approach toward Öcalan, will ensure that the process advances in a healthy and principled way.
Devlet Bahçeli’s remarks were forgotten
Was there any commitment from the state side at the start of the process toward the Kurdish Freedom Movement regarding the freedom of Öcalan or the possibility of house arrest?
When Abdullah Öcalan’s message was read out, Sırrı Süreyya Önder also shared an informational note. This note outlined the framework of Öcalan’s message. In that message, it was stated that ending the armed struggle and, on that basis, building peace and a democratic society would only be possible if a legal and democratic framework were opened. In other words, the creation of a democratic ground for Kurdish political struggle was emphasized. This naturally also concerns the position of Öcalan.
In this context, the earlier remarks made by Devlet Bahçeli, “Let him dissolve his party and come speak in parliament”, must be assessed within the same framework. The condition for speaking in parliament is the recognition of the right to hope, the taking of political and legal steps, and the ability of Öcalan to advance this process in an environment of freedom.
This issue does not concern only the Kurds. It is a process that concerns all peoples of Turkey, Kurds and Turks alike, one that is based on a Kurdish–Turkish meeting and has the potential to open the path to democratization for the peoples of the region as well. At the same time, it carries the capacity to eliminate the grounds for interventions directed at the region.
For this to happen, the freedom of Abdullah Öcalan is necessary. However, the approach displayed on this issue so far has not yet been reassuring.