The Tigris Social Research Center (DITAM) organized a panel titled “Syria, Rojava and the Kurdish question.” Many representatives of political parties and civil society organizations attended the panel, which was held at the Diyarbakır Chamber of Commerce and Industry (DTSO).
Speaking at the panel, DEM Party Imralı delegation member Mithat Sancar said: “We can follow a path that widens the distance between our wishes and reality. The process in Turkey began with the understanding of moving the Kurdish question away from weapons and violence to legal and political grounds. Öcalan’s call was in this direction. The call has a title: Peace and Democratic Society. Peace means ending conflict, and democratic society means making democratic arrangements to make peace permanent for the whole country. Expectations from the process are very high among some segments: both the end of the conflict and major developments that would suddenly solve the Kurdish question. It is difficult to reconcile this with the nature of the process, but this should clearly be the goal.”
This path is being followed, but slowly. After the call, the decision to lay down arms and to dissolve the organization was important. However, this does not mean that the decision was implemented together with integration. Laying down arms and rendering them inactive also requires legal regulations and political steps. Concrete steps need to be taken in this regard.
Removing violence from the Kurdish question cannot be a one-sided or single-pillar approach; it must also be carried out under conditions that broadly liberate democratic politics. If violence ends, politics must replace it. It is not realistic to expect people to abandon their goals along with their weapons. Therefore, conditions must be created in which these goals can be pursued through democratic politics and within a legal framework. We are now at this stage. We have experienced nearly 42 years of conflict, and many of our habits have been shaped by the conditions and realities of that period. Whether supporters or members of the organization, or its opponents or adversaries, no one could engage in politics without taking the organization into account. It stood as a reference point that significantly affected both its base and its opponents. If what comes next is the construction of a solution and the stage of making peace permanent, then everyone’s responsibility becomes clearer and heavier. In achieving these two goals, laying the foundations of a solution and making peace permanent, responsibility shifts from a horizontal to a vertical plane, meaning it spreads across all segments of society.
Explanations have been made about the reasons behind these decisions by Öcalan and the PKK. Such a decision exists, and it places us at a historic turning point, not only for the organization, but for the entire society in Turkey. When we act based on ingrained habits and reflexes, if where we have arrived does not create a sense that we are making progress toward a solution, it leads to other emotions such as anger and disappointment. Yet this is a time to act with a strong collective consciousness and sense of responsibility.
There is a model and experience in Syria and Rojava. There is an important ideological framework. Through models that guarantee coexistence under free and equal conditions, it is possible to prevent conflict and deaths in the Middle East. A Middle East where identities and beliefs can live together equally, and where borders become practically insignificant, was tested in Rojava. Due to conditions, it has not yet reached the desired point and is now at a different stage, but I do not find it realistic to respond to this stage with disappointment. I do not find the approach that says this model and ideology have collapsed to be realistic; I find it dangerous. The model in Rojava, where freedom and security can be ensured together, remains the most important goal. This goal must never be abandoned. The Kurdish political movement’s leadership in and ownership of such a model is something that should be embraced. In my view, this should essentially be the solution model for the Middle East in terms of peace, freedom, and security. We should see shortcomings as lessons and, keeping these lessons in mind, seek ways to improve them both intellectually and practically. I believe this is what we must do now.
Developments in Syria have shown this: if a new Middle Eastern order is attempted without recognizing the existence and freedom of the Kurds, it will bring nothing but conflict to the region. It will promise the peoples nothing beyond a constant state of alertness and an uneasy life. Whether we speak in geopolitical terms or from within political philosophy, whether we talk about coexistence or peace, the fundamental condition for all of this is recognizing the existence and freedom of the Kurds. Seeing this and ensuring that it is seen, both in the Middle East and in the country we live in, is the most important responsibility we have today.