The National Solidarity, Brotherhood and Democracy Commission has presented a report to the public on the work it has carried out since 5 August, including a number of recommendations on what parliament should do.
The report states that problems cannot be resolved through security-focused policies and that democratization is therefore essential to addressing these issues. This assessment is accurate. However, because the report refers to democratization in general terms, it does not specify which concrete problems this process is meant to resolve. As a result, the report remains at the level of general claims and fails to put forward tangible proposals that could lead to solutions. Although some legal changes are mentioned, the content of these changes is not clearly defined. In short, the fundamental issue, the Kurdish question, is not named, and the steps required to address this problem are avoided.
The Kurdish question cannot be resolved through piecemeal amendments to individual laws. What is needed are steps that recognize Kurdish existence and enable this existence to organize itself in all respects, gaining social and political embodiment. When a Kurdish reality takes shape on the basis of freedom of identity, language and culture, its integration with the Republic of Turkey can be achieved more easily. The state itself knows best that there is a serious rupture between Kurds and the Republic of Turkey. Democratic integration would eliminate this rupture. This, in turn, would also realize the social cohesion referred to in the report.
From this perspective, the central issue that must be addressed after the publication of the report is the adoption of the steps required to achieve democratic integration. Otherwise, what remains will be little more than demagoguery and empty rhetoric, with no meaningful progress toward resolving the problems at hand.
The report directly concerns Kurds and democratic forces, and both have responded with criticism. There was an expectation that the report would offer clearer assessments and more concrete proposals. When this did not materialize, a critical response emerged. This criticism centers on the view that the commission failed to present a report commensurate with its historical responsibility. Even so, the steps to be taken by the political establishment and parliament in the aftermath of the report are seen as crucial. Following the report, attention has now turned to parliament.
In another sense, the report amounts to implicit admission of the wrong policies and practices pursued by the Justice and Development Party (AKP)–Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) government, particularly over the past decade. Many observers have long argued that if the government were to lift the arbitrary restrictions it has imposed, some developments could take place immediately. If the Justice and Development Party government were to abandon its past obstructive practices and negative stance, this would amount to a form of self-criticism and an acknowledgment of its own mistakes.
If, after this report, the government fails to implement what is required, it would be acting outside the bounds of the law and forfeiting its legitimacy. For this reason, the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Constitutional Court must be implemented without delay and without any pretext. A government, judiciary, or administration that fails to do so would itself be committing an unlawful act.
It is contradictory to speak of democratization, rights, law and justice, freedoms, the freedom of differences and pluralism, while at the same time making these principles conditional. These are the rights people are born with. Yet there are rights that continue to be denied and violated, above all the right to education in one’s mother tongue. To subject such rights to conditions amounts to an apology that only compounds the wrongdoing. The report contains other examples of this kind as well, and they have already drawn criticism from many quarters, particularly from legal experts.
The key concept in this process is “democratic integration.” Abdullah Öcalan, the chief negotiator of the Kurdish people, has called for steps to be taken to realize democratic integration. Pervin Buldan, a member of the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) delegation that visited Imralı, explained to the press what Öcalan means by democratic integration. She said that democratic integration can be achieved through measures such as local democratic self-administration, education in the mother tongue, recognition of Kurdish existence, and a proper definition of citizenship. The very notion of integration being democratic means the recognition of Kurds’ fundamental democratic rights. Contrary to the distortions put forward by some, this is not an understanding of integration based on denial and assimilation, or on the rejection of self-administration.
Democratic integration represents a contemporary and democratic approach to resolving issues such as the Kurdish question. Only in this way can problems be addressed at their roots. For this reason, moving toward a solution on the basis of democratic integration would not only help resolve the problems themselves, but would also ease the broader anxieties surrounding them.
Source: Yeni Yaşam newspaper
Leave a Reply