One year has passed since Abdullah Öcalan issued his “Call for Peace and a Democratic Society.” During this period, a Parliamentary Commission on National Solidarity, Brotherhood and Democracy was established within the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, bringing together all political parties except the Good (IYI) Party. The commission subsequently shared its report with the public.
Democratic Regions Party (DBP) Party Council member and lawyer Gülay Koca Öztürkoğlu assessed both the past year and the report released by the commission, saying that the call was not merely a ceasefire text, but a historic threshold aimed at ending the conflictual period and opening the way for democratic politics.
Öztürkoğlu said that the process had been approached in two phases, with the first phase being disarmament and the second democratic integration. She said that the language used in the commission’s report does not reflect the spirit of the process, adding that an inclusive language should be preferred instead of the term “terror.” She criticized the report for failing to address key issues such as fundamental rights and freedoms, constitutional arrangements, and in particular the right to hope. At the same time, Öztürkoğlu described the discussion of the Kurdish question under the roof of parliament and on a broad political basis as a historic opportunity.
This call is a historic turning point for Turkey
Lawyer Gülay Koca Öztürkoğlu said that the anniversary of the 27 February call has been reached, drawing attention to the political and historical significance of the process. Öztürkoğlu said: “The Call for Peace and a Democratic Society made by Mr. Öcalan on 27 February is, in essence, an important turning point for Turkey, as it emphasizes ending the conflictual period and opening the way for democratic politics. This call should not be seen merely as a ceasefire call, but also as a text that illuminates the path toward a democratic society.”
This is the transition to democratic integration
Öztürkoğlu said that the process has now moved into its second phase, pointing to the work carried out within parliament over the past year. She said: “Over the past year, a Parliamentary Commission on National Solidarity, Brotherhood and Democracy was established within the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, with the participation of almost all political parties. After intense and controversial processes, this commission paid a visit to Imralı. More recently, following another contentious period, it announced its report, and with the announcement of this report, the second phase of the process has begun. This marks the transition to democratic integration.
In the meeting he held with the delegation on 16 February, Mr. Öcalan described this meeting as an introductory meeting to democratic integration. In the same meeting, he stated that the exclusion of Kurds and the banning of the Kurdish language produced denial and rebellion, and emphasized that the process we are in is one aimed at ending denial and rebellion, underlining that the conditions for this and how it will be implemented need to be discussed.”
The new process cannot be built with this language
Öztürkoğlu said that the language used in the commission report does not reflect the spirit of the process, noting that the definitions and choice of concepts continue an old approach.
She said: “Taking Mr. Öcalan’s assessment as a point of departure and looking at the commission report, we see that the language used falls far short of meeting the needs of this process. We see that this language contains an approach that is distant from the spirit of the process and from the construction of democratic society being sought. For instance, old language is used in the definitions and in the approach to the issue; defining the process as a ‘terror-free Turkey’ process and preferring the term ‘terror’ within the text instead of the Kurdish question shows an insistence on the old. It is also clear that the new process cannot be built with this language.”
Öztürkoğlu said that the name and objective of the process are clear, pointing to the need for an inclusive language, and noted that there are shortcomings under the heading of fundamental rights. Öztürkoğlu underlined that the focus should be on building a democratic society and added: “The name of the process is clear and explicit: the Process of Peace and a Democratic Society. For this reason, using an inclusive language would have been more constructive. A language within this framework should have been preferred instead of the term ‘terror.’ It is now necessary to abandon viewing the Kurdish issue as a matter of terror and to give up this language. If we are speaking of building a new republic, it is necessary to abandon the old language, approach and denial, and to use an inclusive and constructive language that does not exclude or criminalize.
What must be discussed is how a democratic society will be built, how fundamental rights and freedoms will be guaranteed, how legal statuses will be ensured, and how legal arrangements will be made. The fact that the text does not mention such a basic and innate right as the mother tongue, and that the report does not include this, is also an issue that must be criticized.”
Placing the Kurdish question on parliament’s agenda is historic
Öztürkoğlu said that, despite all objections, addressing the issue on the parliamentary floor carries historic significance. She also said: “Since the day the report was published, it has been widely debated and subjected to many criticisms. Of course, it should be criticized, and of course there should be discussions on how it can be transformed in a more constructive way. However, despite all these negativities and criticisms, the fact that the Kurdish question has been placed on parliament’s agenda and discussed on a broad platform in which almost all political parties are represented is a historic opportunity. This situation also carries historical significance. It is also important that, during the preparation of the report, the views of different segments were sought and that it was debated on a broad basis.”
Öztürkoğlu said that the process in question offers a new opportunity against policies that have been in place for a hundred years, adding that making use of this opportunity is a shared responsibility. Öztürkoğlu also said: “Perhaps for the first time in a hundred years, there is a text and an issue that has been shaped, in one way or another, through debate among all political parties under the roof of parliament, and this carries historical meaning. The Call for Peace and a Democratic Society have the potential to bring to life the principle of the ‘unity of differences,’ envisaged by the Manifesto for a Democratic Society, against Turkey’s century-long policies of homogenization and denial. Proceeding from the reality that it carries the potential for different identities and beliefs to express themselves equally and freely and to have status, making use of this opportunity and remedying the shortcomings is a historic responsibility for political parties and for all segments of society. From an ethical and conscientious perspective, this is a historic burden and responsibility not only on political parties, but on all segments of society.”
The text falls short in terms of legal arrangements
Öztürkoğlu said that the report could have presented a more comprehensive perspective in terms of legal arrangements, and that the text therefore remains incomplete in this respect.
She said: “The report could have set out a broader framework that also includes legal arrangements. Despite the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the fact that Mr. Öcalan, who is one of the main actors guiding this process, has been deprived of the right to hope for twelve years and that no legal regulation has been made in this regard, and that one of the key actors has still not regained his physical freedom, constitutes an important issue. The fact that the right to hope is not mentioned at all in the text is also a point of criticism.
When we look at the text, we see that it largely emphasizes matters that already exist in the law and envisages that these be assessed more broadly and made applicable. However, the text needed to go beyond this. Each demand for rights and each heading on the path toward the democratic nation should be addressed and set out separately.
Of course, this commission does not have the authority to enact laws. However, by undertaking this task, the commission has assumed an important role in the construction of peace and a democratic society. For this reason, I believe that the building blocks should be laid out one by one, and that the areas falling under the responsibility of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, as well as the issues that require constitutional amendments, should be clearly underlined with explicit reference to constitutional change.”
This historic opportunity places responsibility on all segments of society
Gülay Koca Öztürkoğlu said that a democratic solution concerns not only one segment, but society as a whole. Öztürkoğlu continued: “The roadmap presented by Mr. Öcalan will strengthen Turkey’s claim to being a democratic model in the Middle East only insofar as it is codified into law. This is a historic opportunity, and it places a historic responsibility on all segments of society. A democratic solution and a new beginning concern not only Kurds, but also Turkey, the peoples of Turkey, and all the peoples of the Middle East.”
Öztürkoğlu said that the success of the process does not depend solely on the steps to be taken by political actors and drew attention to the importance of social ownership. She also said: “The success of this process will not be possible only through the courageous steps taken by political actors. Of course, political actors must take bolder steps in this process. However, equally important is that all segments of society voice their democratic demands in a stronger, more organized and more committed manner, and that they take ownership of the process and follow the legal arrangements. This historic responsibility lies with all segments living in Turkey today, with everyone who claims a democratic Turkey. All of us need to adopt a braver, more inclusive, more constructive and more vigilant approach.”
Leave a Reply