The absolute isolation imposed on Abdullah Öcalan in Imrali Prison continues as a clear and ongoing violation of the “right to hope,” which is safeguarded by rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The Turkish state’s failure to enact legal regulations concerning life imprisonment is being assessed not only as a breach of international law, but also as a political insistence that directly targets the Kurdish people’s will for peace and a democratic solution.
Zeki Irmez, an MP for the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) from Sirnak (Şirnex), spoke to ANF about the “right to hope,” saying that the political authorities have been moving extremely slowly toward legislating this right.
Irmez said: “It is an obvious reality that, aside from the DEM Party, the reports submitted to the Solution Commission make no reference to the right to hope or, as Mr. Öcalan has described it, the ‘principle of hope.’ There are many headings through which the government’s approach can be explained within a cause-and-effect framework. Broadly speaking, the entrenched perception and perspective of the state, the political power, and especially institutions of central importance regarding the Kurdish question; Turkey’s overall departure from universal legal norms; the conditioning of even the most basic humanitarian and legal demands on ‘certain circumstances’; the security-oriented paradigm; and the very existence of Mr. Öcalan can all be counted among the fundamental indicators of the ‘stagnation’ and static state surrounding the right to hope.
From past to present, all laws in Turkey, those that have been enacted, those that have not, and those that might be, concerning human rights and freedoms have been shaped by being filtered through the state’s long-standing official ideology and by calculations of benefit and harm for peoples and communities that do not enter into relations of subordination. This perspective has also determined the point the Kurdish question has reached. Unfortunately, the right to hope cannot be read separately from this reflex. Above all, the state’s and the government’s ‘old’ approach stands out as one of the primary factors preventing the principle of hope from being enshrined in law.”
The right to hope is a societal issue
Zeki Irmez said that recognition of the “right to hope” represents a decisive threshold for social peace and continued as follows: “It is very clear that although the issue of the right to hope not being legislated is inextricably linked to the presence of Mr. Öcalan and the Öcalan reality, as he himself has repeatedly stated, this situation stands before us as a societal problem. Enshrining this right in law would mean resolving a social problem, bringing about a paradigm shift toward the Kurds, and ultimately igniting the fuse of peace. Its potential contribution is therefore extraordinarily significant.
The legalization of this right would enable the dynamics of social transformation to develop along the axis of peace and a democratic society. This is precisely what all of us hope for.
The desire for peace among the peoples of Turkey is not new. With the aim of ending the conflict, many steps have been taken, and important opportunities have been created over the years, both at the level of society and by the Freedom Movement, under the leadership of Mr. Öcalan.
Certain developments, whose nature is not difficult to anticipate, have played a role over time in squandering opportunities for peace. For more than a year now, we have been through a ‘new’ process. While past experiences have not diminished the desire for peace, they have given rise to a considerable sense of caution regarding trust in the state. This cautious stance can affect how the process functions and advances.
The enactment of the right to hope would provide a major opportunity to reduce this caution to zero. It would establish maximum trust in the process and strengthen the discourse of all actors. Ultimately, it would play a vital role in advancing peace, democratization, and ensuring that Kurdish existence finds recognition on a legal basis.”
The main responsibility of the process rests with parliament
Zeki Irmez said that a democratic and peaceful solution to the Kurdish question can advance only on legal and political grounds, stressing that the core responsibility of the process lies with parliament. Irmez said: “At the outset of the process, I find it useful to recall the message that Mr. Öcalan conveyed to the public through Ömer Öcalan. Mr. Öcalan clearly stated that, provided appropriate conditions are created, he has ‘the capacity to move the process from a terrain of conflict and violence to a legal and political one.’ The key concepts here are the legal and political spheres. The essence of a democratic solution to the Kurdish question lies in firmly consolidating these two areas.
Whether understood in a narrow or broad sense, the indispensable arena of law and the irreplaceable arena of politics, at this stage, is necessarily the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM). Considering this assessment, a body officially named the ‘National Solidarity, Brotherhood and Democracy Commission, known as the Solution Commission, was established under the roof of parliament. Presentations were heard from individuals and institutions representing a broad spectrum of society; proposals were entered into the parliamentary records, and political parties with parliamentary groups submitted various reports to the commission. We are now awaiting the drafting of a joint report, proposals, and a roadmap that may also include legislative recommendations related to the transition process.
The most vital duty and responsibility of the commission, and ultimately of parliament, is to open space on a legal basis for a peaceful and democratic solution to the Kurdish question and to take the necessary legal steps to secure the physical freedom of Mr. Öcalan, the architect of the peace process and its chief negotiator.
If parliament assumes responsibility for these steps, establishes a consensus framework capable of bringing together the majority, and takes the necessary measures by building the legal infrastructure of the solution or by enacting a peace law, this will enable the process to move forward in the direction of peace.”