The Peace and Democratic Society process has reached a highly significant stage. It can be described as a bend in the road, a turning point, or even a zone of leap. If a careful, responsive, and requirement-based approach is adopted, the developments that may emerge, if not immediately, then in the long term, could lead to the reform that Turkey needs. The opposite, however, is also possible. If the process is not approached with seriousness, responsibility toward the peoples, and sensitivity, the door could be opened to unpredictable developments within the chaos of the Middle East. Another black hole that drags the peoples of the region into uncertainty could be created.
This refers, of course, to the stage reached by the work of the commission. In a context where one wing of the state has tended to conduct the process with security-oriented aims, insisting on the establishment of a commission in the resolution of a fundamentally political problem, one that requires political will in order to address the Kurdish people’s problem of existence and freedom, and to build a shared will for coexistence among the peoples of the region has, in fact, meant insisting on politics itself. Over the past fifty years, a formula for resolving the Kurdish question placed under the guidance of intelligence services and the military has culminated in policies based on war.
Both sides have persistently claimed that they have gained from this war process. Is this really the case? This is something that requires reflection and careful reckoning. As a result of this war, the Kurds have emerged by asserting their potential, their geostrategic position, and their visibility within the reality of the Middle East. They have, of course, achieved this at a great and heavy cost. For a people that had been subjected for a century to policies of covert genocide and forced into an unprecedented condition of statelessness, breaking this ‘‘entrenched order’’ could only happen in this way. Until very recently, there was a reality in Turkey in which the very existence of the Kurds could not even be spoken of. This has changed, and it cannot be denied.
As for Turkey, it is difficult to say how the gains it claims to have achieved through the war waged against Kurdish existence could be categorized. Perhaps it could say that it fought strongly, that it “left no stone unturned and no head standing.” It might say that it convinced ninety percent of the Turkish public of the absence of Kurds. It is unclear how such “gains” can be defined. The losses are evident: loss of life, economic devastation, a widening rift between peoples, the destruction of truth carried out to sustain the war, and moral decay in social life. One “gain” for Turkey may be the securitization of Kurdish existence and the pressure-based policies it has developed in regional politics. Even so, what has been lost far outweighs what has been gained. Those responsible know this far better themselves. The question now is whether a new door of opportunity will open.
It is well known that the forced Turkification imposed on Kurdish society has contributed nothing to Turkish identity. On the contrary, the pursuit of a “pure” nation-state erodes the originality and strengths of Turkish identity. Kurdish existence subjected to Turkification means a wounded, incomplete, and concealed sense of belonging. Turkish identity has never needed this, and it does not need it today. While Turkmen identity shaped our geography at important historical thresholds with its own distinct color, the artificial construction of “Turkishness” imposed on everyone living in Turkey harms this identity most of all. In short, together with the Peace and Democratic Society process, the possibility of developing an equal, free, and just system has emerged for all peoples living in Turkey, first and foremost for the Turkish people. The door of opportunity that may open could also become a springtime for Turkish society.
I want to say that we are at the threshold of a process that, on the basis of re-establishing Kurdish–Turkish relations in a fair manner this time, would bring far greater gains for both peoples. Öcalan’s “democratic integration strategy” marks a new turning point in the history of both peoples. If the democratic integration process is not derailed and can develop in a healthy way, it will become a center of attraction not only for Kurds living within the Republic of Turkey but for Kurds across the region as a whole. A Turkey surrounded by what is described as a “Kurdish fortress” would step into the future by developing its own strategy in economic and security terms. A Kurdish society that does not see its own existence as being under threat would act together with Turkish society through its own free will and would shape the new century based on a shared homeland and nation.
We all know very well that the architect of the democratic integration strategy is Öcalan. The implementation of this strategy is only possible under his guidance. The only realistic step that can inspire confidence among Kurdish society, which has lived through a century marked by genocide, conspiracy, coups, exclusion, and lawlessness, is to allow Öcalan to work under free conditions. We understand from Abdullah Öcalan’s assessments that democratic integration will develop based on advancing a democratic republic. However, as the details of this strategy are not yet fully known, there is a desire to hear it from its architect, to understand it, and to discuss it.
Source: Yeni Yaşam Newspaper
Leave a Reply