The solution commission report prepared within the framework of the “Peace and Democratic Society Process,” launched last year on 27 February with a call made by Abdullah Öcalan, who is being held on Imralı Island, has been approved. The 83-page text titled “The democratic solution of the Kurdish question” sparked debate due to its language and approach, despite receiving only two votes against. While the word “Kurd” appears 16 times in the report and the word “terror” 36 times, the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) reacted to the terminology used. Published at a time when expectations for peace in society have been strengthening, the report has opened a new debate on the trajectory of the peace process, and the discussions in parliament as well as the concrete steps to be taken are expected to be decisive in the period ahead.
Adalet Kaya, MP for Diyarbakır (Amed) from the DEM Party, spoke to the ANF about the current state of the peace process, the commission report, and the “right to hope.”
A valuable and significant report has emerged
Let us begin with the most pressing issue. The report that had been expected to be prepared for months has passed through the commission. You had raised objections beforehand and accepted the report by attaching a dissenting note. How will this joint report affect the direction of the process?
This report has many aspects that need to be criticized. That is precisely why our party signed it by attaching a dissenting note and clearly stating our reservations. There are also two votes against one abstention, and these were cast for justified reasons. The justifications put forward contain quite appropriate criticisms. The fact that these criticisms are being voiced does not mean that the report is negative or bad.
In the final analysis, every criticism can provide strength; it can also strengthen and support the report in terms of the period ahead. When viewed from this perspective, the report indicates, at the very least, a return to the rule of law in Turkey in the period to come. It offers a perspective on the implementation of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the implementation of the decisions of the Constitutional Court, and the creation of a legal framework regarding the integration of the organization.
In this sense, it has emerged as a valuable and important document with a joint signature. In the end, all other parties have also signed it. From this perspective, I believe it carries historical significance. Of course, as I said, it has shortcomings and aspects that can be criticized, and many points that need to be strengthened. For this reason, it is an important document for the period ahead both in terms of its implementation process and in terms of strengthening it by addressing and correcting the criticized aspects and moving forward in this way.
27 February is an important milestone
The process has now completed one year. What kind of social and political climate emerged in Turkey after the process began? What has changed between last year and today, and what positive outcomes have emerged?
27 February is an important milestone, not only for Kurds but also for Turkey and the Middle East. When we look at the recent developments in Rojava, we can now see more clearly what the Kurdish People’s Leader was seeking to achieve on 27 February. At the time, many people could not make sense of it and struggled to understand its political meaning.
Over the past year, we have held dozens, perhaps hundreds, of public meetings to explain to people what the process of building a democratic society and the peace process means. We sought to organize and explain this in neighborhoods and on the streets. This was a politically intense period for us. A commission was also established in parliament, and we have just discussed the commission’s final report.
From the moment it was established, the commission listened to dozens of people from different segments of society in Turkey on questions of war and peace, on how this process should be resolved, and on how the Kurdish question should be addressed. It also listened to those who have been directly affected by the conflict and to their experiences. Taken together, the past year has been a politically dense and intense period, both from our perspective and from that of the other side, namely the government.
PKK has fulfilled its responsibilities
There is also this: following the call of Mr. Öcalan, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) held its dissolution congress. As you know, this was followed by a symbolic ceremony in which weapons were burned and then a withdrawal took place. When we look at the entire process, the PKK, as one of the parties, has more than fulfilled its responsibilities.
But the public’s expectation is this: on the streets, we are confronted with the question, ‘Why are concrete steps still not being taken by those in power?’ There are expectations from the government and the state in terms of demonstrating good faith and sincerity. At the very least, the public expected democratic steps during this period, such as the release of politicians in prison, the release of seriously ill prisoners, and an end to the trustee regime. These expectations still remain.
For this reason, the commission and, subsequently, the commission report and the steps that will follow are extremely important. There is still an approach that continues to frame the issue solely under the heading of ‘terror’ and to pursue it only through security-oriented policies and this paradigm.
Unfortunately, in this country there is an entrenched founding paradigm that causes both the ruling power and the opposition to act cautiously and without courage. This security-oriented paradigm, which has been in place since the founding of the state, has produced an approach that does not see Kurds as equal citizens anywhere in this country and renders them invisible. It is now necessary to break up with this paradigm.
It is time to move to the second phase
Yesterday, for example, our delegation held a meeting with Mr. Öcalan, and important messages were shared with the press. We all read them. The Kurdish People’s Leader says, ‘It is now time to move to the second phase,’ and says that we can begin to speak about integration. This is very important and is one of the issues that needs to be discussed.
He then expressed his expectations regarding the commission by saying, ‘I hope it can put forward proposals with the concreteness needed to address social realities and produce solutions.’ When all of this is taken into account, we see that one side adopts an approach that repeatedly refers to democracy, the rule of law, and politics. Unfortunately, on the other hand, there appears to be a hesitant and cautious stance that still revolves around a security-oriented paradigm.
Mr. Öcalan must be free
The physical freedom of the Kurdish People’s Leader, Abdullah Öcalan, is of vital importance for the peace process. Why, then, is the government so insistent on not implementing the “right to hope”?
A great deal can be said about this issue. From a legal perspective, there is a ruling issued by the ECtHR in 2014. The Court ruled that the isolation regime imposed on Mr. Abdullah Öcalan constitutes a system of torture and defined the failure to grant him the right to hope as a violation of the prohibition of torture.
The Court also made recommendations to Turkey, calling on the authorities to introduce domestic legal arrangements to enable the application of the right to hope. After the process began, there was another decision by the ECtHR, as well as a decision by the Committee of Ministers, both referring to the commission and to parliament and stating that these steps now need to be taken.
When we look at the decision that emerged from the commission today, the right to hope is not mentioned explicitly by name. However, there is an expression of determination to implement the rulings of the ECtHR. If the ECtHR rulings are to be implemented and this is a report that emerged through broad consensus, all parties are saying that parliament and the government must implement ECtHR decisions.
Accordingly, parliament must now pass the necessary legislation and ensure its implementation, because all parties have reached a common position on this issue. From a legal standpoint, the commission provides guidance on the implementation of ECtHR rulings, and this is an important point. Even if it does not explicitly say ‘apply the right to hope,’ it clearly points in that direction.
In practice, however, we see that this is not being implemented politically. In Turkey today, violations of the rule of law and of the principle of a state governed by the rule of law have been driven by political choices, and the right to hope has therefore not been implemented for political reasons.
The violation of the principle of separation of powers is another issue that must be discussed here. The influence of the executive over the judiciary and the non-implementation of this decision presents a picture in which this is a political decision and, for that reason, has not been implemented.
What is the government trying to do in this regard? We saw this in Rojava. The government remained hesitant throughout the entire year. This was its approach to the process.
The issue of laying down arms in Rojava and the issue of laying down arms in Turkey were handled through an approach that proceeded in a conditional manner. Alongside the attacks that began in Aleppo in Rojava, a campaign of black propaganda targeting Mr. Öcalan was launched at the same time. We can see an approach aimed at discrediting the Kurdish People’s Leader. This was imposed on society through the public sphere and through social media trolls as well.
When all of this is taken into account, it can be said that this hesitation, unfortunately, lacks sincerity. We can also see that no clear stance has been put forward regarding the process. This is something that needs to be overcome.
We have repeatedly said that the right to hope must now be implemented and that the Kurdish People’s Leader must be granted conditions of physical freedom, conditions to work, and security conditions. Conditions must be created in which he can meet with his people, with society, with researchers, journalists, academics, and politicians, and in which he can help pave the way for this process.
We know that over the course of this one-year process, whenever the process became blocked, the hand and the will that unlocked that blockage was once again the Kurdish People’s Leader. This is highly meaningful and valuable. For the process of moving forward in a healthier way as soon as possible, and to repair the atmosphere of anxiety and concern among the people, as well as the sense of trust that has been damaged, Mr. Öcalan must be able to directly make his voice heard.
Legal steps must be taken
Finally, I would like to ask this: how does the state’s failure to take clear steps so far affect expectations and trust? What are the indispensable first steps for the sustainability of the process?
Trust must be built within society, above all among the Kurdish people. Since this process began, we have genuinely sought to conduct politics with an approach that considers the sensitivities of Turkish society. We have shown great care in this regard. At the very least, we as members of the DEM Party, together with the Kurdish people and Kurdish civil society, can state this clearly.
We now expect policies to be developed with a sensitivity that can consider the feelings of the Kurdish people, the injustices and oppression they have suffered for so many years, and that can also repair the sense of trust that has emerged in recent times. The government and other political parties are obliged to take this into consideration.
This now needs to be done. Beyond this, there are, of course, many steps that must be taken. Democratization is the first of these. The release of politicians and seriously ill prisoners from prison, and the complete abolition of the trustee regime are among them. These are, in fact, issues on which there was common ground within the commission.
New regulations based on an egalitarian approach are needed in the Anti-Terror Law, the Penal Code, and the Law on the Execution of Sentences. Society needs this, not only Kurds, but Turkish society. These are issues that can no longer be avoided, and that require determined and courageous regulation. These are the first steps, and they are precisely the steps that must be taken.
Leave a Reply