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.
The first part of this interview can be read here.
Approach to Rojava is the measure of the approach to the Kurdish question
Another key issue concerns Rojava. The Turkish side repeatedly raises Rojava as if it were an obstacle to the process. At the same time, the Kurdish Freedom Movement stresses that politics in Rojava constitute a separate political ground and a process that should be conducted with the Damascus administration. How do you assess the Turkish state’s insistence on foregrounding Rojava and its overall approach towards the region?
In fact, the policy pursued by the AKP government toward Rojava, and its general approach to the region, clearly reveals its broader stance on the Kurdish question. What is this approach? It is the demand for the liquidation of the gains achieved in Rojava and for the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, representing not only Kurds but also Arabs and all peoples living there, to be handed over unconditionally to the Damascus-centered Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) regime.
What does this mean? It means that what has happened to Alawites and Druze today is what would be inflicted on the Kurds. This also clearly exposes what is meant by the frequently invoked discourse of “Kurdish–Turkish brotherhood.” While brotherhood is established with HTS, the Kurds are being forced, based on annihilation, to be handed over to HTS.
This approach also clarifies how the Kurdish question in Turkey is viewed. An understanding that seeks to hand Kurds in Syria over to HTS based on annihilation makes it entirely clear what it understands by a democratic resolution of the Kurdish question in Turkey. To date, no genuinely democratic approach or concrete proposal capable of convincing the public has been put forward. We already touched on this point in our earlier assessments of party reports.
For this reason, the stance toward Rojava is the measure of the approach to the Kurdish question.
From this perspective, it must be said clearly that no result can be achieved through this approach. No solution will emerge from it. If Turkey insists on this policy, it risks both resolving its own Kurdish question and achieving a democratic breakthrough in Turkey and across the region.
For this reason, not only the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) or the Kurds, but all segments of society that favor Turkey’s democratization must firmly oppose the AKP–MHP government’s Syria policy and its stance toward the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria.
The address of the solution is the peoples of Turkey
Given this approach, how credible can discussions of a solution be with such a regime and ruling power? At the same time, the Kurdish movement maintains an insistent stance on a solution, stressing that the process is now irreversible and must succeed. So, with whom will this solution be achieved: with the current government, or with the peoples of Turkey? Where should the address of the solution be?
Yes, the address of the solution is the peoples of Turkey. Abdullah Öcalan’s message is very clear: the construction of peace and a democratic society. Within this framework, a manifesto of freedom has also been put forward. The addressee of this call is the peoples of Turkey.
Turks, Kurds, all peoples living in Turkey, and all social identities, first and foremost women, young people, faith communities, Alevi, those belonging to the Sunni faith, and all circles that defend a democratic Turkey, are the addressees of this call. Öcalan’s call encompasses all segments of society.
Under the conditions of the 1970s, Öcalan led a movement that was compelled to turn to armed struggle due to the state’s policies of denial and destruction. However, from the 1990s onward, he clearly and consistently called for resolving this issue not through weapons, but through dialogue and political ground. To this day, he has uninterruptedly maintained calls centered on peace and a solution.
Today, the conditions for this call exist. Abdullah Öcalan is now proposing that the ongoing struggle be carried forward on a political and democratic ground. He states that a struggle waged on such a political and democratic basis will generate serious developments. This stance neutralizes policies that seek to terrorize and criminalize the Kurdish movement, while carrying the Kurdish question onto a more visible and legitimate ground at both the regional and international levels. In this respect, it is a stance that strengthens the hands of democratic forces.
On this basis, the democratic forces of Turkey are the primary addressees of the process. Yes, there is a dialogue and negotiation process conducted with the state and with the AKP; however, the principal addressee remains the peoples of Turkey.
Öcalan has also clearly defined the character of the process: this is a process of negotiation and struggle. In other words, while negotiations continue on the one hand, struggle will continue on the other. The main objective of this struggle is to transform public consciousness in Turkey, to change the social mindset that the state has poisoned for decades through racism and monolithic nation-state policies.
The aim is to explain that peace and democracy are in the interests of the peoples of Turkey, to demonstrate how Turkey can achieve a major breakthrough through this path, to transform public consciousness accordingly, and to wage a struggle that will compel the state mindset to produce solutions.
Öcalan’s warnings must be considered
Abdullah Öcalan refers to Pierre Bourdieu and uses the concept of “habitus” to point to the risks inherent in the process. What are the risks he is warning about in this context?
Abdullah Öcalan has extensive experience on this issue and has always adopted a cautionary stance. As in all past processes, he continues to issue warnings today. Within Turkey, there are forces opposed to a solution and to democratization. These forces consist of extra-legal state structures that seek to maintain their power through a monolithic and racist mindset, while presenting the appearance of a so-called democratic Turkey.
Similarly, international powers also maintain various relationships and forms of influence within the Turkish state system. Yet this process promises democracy and freedom for Turkey. It opens the way for Turkey to make a new and historic breakthrough based on democracy and freedom. Turks and Kurds, because of a democratic partnership, could put forward a model in the Middle East that would serve as an example to the entire world. Naturally, this prospect also disturbs forces that do not want such a development due to their own regional interests.
For this reason, Öcalan’s warnings point both to extra-legal structures within the state and to the possibility of provocations by regional and international powers targeting the process. These risks must be considered.
It is therefore of great importance that all political actors, civil society, and democratic forces aiming to secure Turkey’s democratization and internal peace remain vigilant and take ownership of the process.
2025 is a turning point for us
We have entered a new year. What significance did 2025 hold for the Kurdish Freedom Movement? What gains did the Kurds achieve during this year? And what does 2026 represent for the Kurdish people and forces engaged in the struggle for democracy?
The year 2025 is, in fact, a new turning point. The initiative put forward by Abdullah Öcalan represents an example without paralleling on a global scale. There are, of course, instances in which international powers intervene as a third party and bring warring sides together. However, the Kurdish question is an extremely unique issue.
The international powers that gave rise to the Kurdish question have, since the First World War, played a direct role in the denial of the Kurds and have contributed to the continuation of these policies through the support they provided to states. The move initiated by Öcalan has disrupted the calculations of forces that have benefited from the unresolved nature of the Kurdish question and have pursued regional policies on that basis. A historic opportunity has been created for Kurds and Turks to resolve their internal issues together.
A move that marked the century
This move has indeed marked the century. If this process is advanced and Turkey resolves the Kurdish question through democratic means, it would mean reaching a very different position both regionally and internationally. A democratic experience in which Kurds and Turks live together would constitute an example for the entire world.
From this perspective, throughout 2025, particularly in the Middle East but also globally, Abdullah Öcalan’s initiative and the developments connected to this move were widely discussed. The issue was on the agenda in every sphere. For this reason, it is fair to say that 2025 bore the imprint of Öcalan.
The year 2026, on this basis, is one marked by high expectations. Especially as a transitional period for advancing the process, if the legal ground is strengthened, democratic steps are taken, the political and democratic space is expanded, and democratic struggle is elevated across all regions of Turkey, 2026 could turn into a major democratic gain for the country.
This expectation is shared by all democratic forces, foremost among them our people’s freedom movement. The fundamental source of this expectation lies in the people themselves, in the struggle they will carry forward, and in the support that will be extended to this process at the international level.
If, in this direction, support for and struggle toward a democratic resolution of the Kurdish question are intensified both within Turkey and at the regional and international levels, 2026 can truly become a year in which freedom and democracy prevail. We must strengthen our hopes. The process should not be narrowed to the question of “what the AKP does or does not do.”
The key to freedom lies in the hands of the people and in the struggle itself. By expanding the struggle and the forces of struggle, it is possible to compel the system, first and foremost the AKP and the MHP to take steps toward a solution.
A call to the CHP
On this occasion, I would like to make a particular call to the CHP. As the party that founded Turkey, if the CHP truly claims to be committed to Turkey’s democratization, it must approach this process not because of narrow party interests, but within its historical and strategic role in advancing democracy in Turkey. Without resolving the Kurdish question, Turkey cannot be democratized.
The CHP should take ownership of this process and, at the same time, strengthen the democratic struggle it wages against the anti-democratic policies of the AKP. Through the struggle for democracy, it can also develop its own political strength on this basis.
Within this framework, I wish all democratic forces success in the struggle for freedom and democracy in 2026. I extend my best wishes for the new year. The year 2026 should be a year of peace and freedom.
Mr. Kartal, thank you very much for your valuable assessments. Finally, is there anything you would like to add?
Thank you as well. On this occasion, I would like to emphasize the following: in this process, everyone must fulfill the responsibilities that fall upon them. Everyone should see themselves as responsible. Rather than waiting for others, we must ask ourselves, “What can I do? What can we do?”
Not only political parties, but all civil society organizations and individuals must act on this basis. Everyone should plan what they can do, in their own place and environment, to ensure that 2026 becomes a year of peace and freedom. In this direction, everyone must play their part.
I believe that democracy and freedom will prevail. On this basis, I wish everyone success.