Debate continues over the commission report adopted in the Turkish Parliament. Doğan Erbaş, Co-Spokesperson of the School of the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party), evaluated both the report and the criticism directed at it, saying the report should be seen as part of a long-term process aimed at resolving a historical problem.
Erbaş said the past year should be understood as a stage in efforts to resolve the Kurdish question, which is rooted in more than fifty years of armed conflict and a historical background stretching back nearly two centuries.
Erbaş added that exaggerated expectations could lead to disappointment. According to Erbaş, the timing of possible legal regulations will depend both on the contacts carried out in Parliament and on broader political and social developments. He also emphasized that the course of the process will be shaped by the stance of the public and democratic forces, noting that the government’s willingness to take steps is closely linked to social pressure.
This report is not a consensus text, but a negotiation text
Erbaş stressed that the process has not yet been completed and underlined that the report should be understood not as a consensus text but as a negotiation text.
Erbaş said: “To be honest, I think there have been very exaggerated expectations from the report. In my opinion, the nature of the report is being discussed incorrectly. What is being said may be right; I am not objecting to that. However, we cannot approach any political event or phenomenon, especially this political process, with a ‘all or nothing’ logic. Secondly, this report is not a consensus text, but a negotiation text. I want to underline this. There is no consensus text on the table. Nor is there a concluded or finished process. The process continues. Both negotiation and struggle continue. From the very beginning we said that this is a process of negotiation and struggle, and we will continue to say so.”
Erbaş added that the report is a document offering recommendations to the Turkish Grand National Assembly for its future work, emphasizing that the decisive factor will be the stance adopted by Parliament and political parties in the period ahead.
Erbaş also said, “In this sense, the report is a recommendation document that offers certain suggestions to the Turkish Grand National Assembly for its future work. What matters is the stance Parliament will take in the coming period. The DEM Party will of course play its role here. What is important is the course that will be followed from now on. This report is an introduction. In fact, it is the beginning of a long journey, the first step. If we are to draw a comparison, it opens a door toward a solution, toward disarmament, peace, a democratic solution and democratic integration.”
It is not right to dismiss the commission’s report entirely
Doğan Erbaş recalled his initial assessment of the commission’s establishment and emphasized the historical importance of this step.
Erbaş said: “I would like to recall the evaluation we made when the commission was first established. We had stated even then how important the creation of the commission was. For the first time in history, Mr. Öcalan was officially recognized as an interlocutor, and the visit of a commission established within a legislative body of the Turkish Grand National Assembly was considered highly significant. Therefore, it is not correct to dismiss the commission’s report entirely or to say, ‘Nothing will come out of this.’ The criticisms raised are, of course, valid. Comprehensive assessments of the Kurdish question, in its historical and social dimensions, its political aspects, its background and the policies of denial during the founding of the Republic, have not been made; that is true. However, as I said, this text is not a founding document.”
Erbaş pointed out that the report contains some important observations, stressing that particular attention should be paid to the references to legal guarantees and social integration. Reiterating that the text is not a consensus document but rather a negotiation and introductory text, Erbaş said that some flexible approaches can be seen in the report, even if indirectly.
Erbaş also said: “This text is not a founding document or a consensus text; it is a negotiation text, an introduction. The issues raised in the criticisms may be explanations more typical of founding documents. Nevertheless, even if in a somewhat cautious manner, indirectly and sometimes through rather forced formulations, some important observations have been made. For example, the report refers to ending the period of armed conflict through legal guarantees. Although the exact content is still being debated, there is clearly a search for legal guarantees. It also speaks of social integration. Rather than the coercive ‘repentance’ policies used in the past, there appears to be a search for ways in which armed forces might integrate with society after their return.”
I do not say it is fully sufficient, nor worthless
Doğan Erbaş said they see the report as neither fully sufficient nor entirely worthless, adding that it provides a basis for discussion.
He said: “I am not saying that these steps are entirely sufficient; there are shortcomings. However, I do not consider them worthless either. This text provides a ground for discussion. Starting from here, debates can be further enriched and strengthened. For example, the emphasis on the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Constitutional Court can be interpreted as an indirect recognition of the principle of the right to hope; such an interpretation would not be wrong. Of course, the ideal situation would be to clearly define the framework of the right to hope both legally and politically, in relation to Mr. Öcalan’s position as well as within the broader legal context. That would certainly be better. However, if we look at the emphasis on implementing the decisions of the ECtHR, it is possible to interpret this as an approach to the right to hope in line with a decision of the ECtHR.”
Erbaş also said they consider it important that the report includes criticism of the trustee system and points to Parliament as the address for a solution.
Erbaş continued: “We see that the report contains criticism of the trustee regime. It also states that the place for a solution is Parliament and speaks of the law of brotherhood. If the concept of the law of brotherhood is to be used from now on, those engaged in democratic politics must make this concept concrete. For example, when we speak of the law of brotherhood, education in the mother tongue should come onto the agenda; the powers of local administrations should be discussed. The expression ‘law of brotherhood’ should not remain an abstract phrase. The emphasis on freedom of expression is also important. The report states that all expressions of opinion that do not involve violence should not be treated as crimes. It also refers to ‘innate rights’; within this framework, our commission members in Parliament argue that education in the mother tongue should be evaluated.”
Erbaş added that despite its shortcomings, the report represents an attempt to open a door and said: “In the coming days, these issues will be further developed in the work to be carried out in Parliament. Therefore, this is not a text that we should reject entirely. Of course, it has shortcomings and there are problems with its underlying logic. However, it should also be seen as an attempt to open a door. Our party voted in favor for this reason, while at the same time expressing its different views and criticisms in detail on various platforms.”
Öcalan’s status and conditions must be addressed
Erbaş also commented on Devlet Bahçeli’s remarks during a parliamentary group meeting regarding “Öcalan’s status.” He said Bahçeli’s statements have been interpreted in different ways but should nevertheless be taken seriously.
Erbaş said: “Statements made by Bahçeli from time to time can be interpreted in two ways. Some circles argue that there is a division of roles within their own ranks and that such statements are meant to distract public opinion and therefore should not be taken too seriously. Others think differently. I believe Bahçeli’s remarks should be taken seriously. If there is a rational state approach, these statements should be read as reflections of that tendency. His most recent evaluation regarding Mr. Öcalan is important. Just as his earlier statement that ‘the right to hope should be implemented’ was significant, his latest remarks are at least as important, if not more so.”
Doğan Erbaş added that their party has long defined Abdullah Öcalan as the chief negotiator. Erbaş also said: “Our party has stated this for a long time. Mr. Öcalan is the chief negotiator. He is the most effective actor in ending the period of conflict and division, achieving peace and moving toward democratic integration. He has played a decisive role in the implementation of decisions and in preparing the legal and political ground for the process. The developments of the past year have clearly demonstrated this. Therefore, his position, status, and conditions must now be evaluated. The conditions must also be created for him to address the public directly.”
Direct interlocution will further clarify Öcalan’s role
Doğan Erbaş of the DEM Party also pointed to public opinion surveys, saying support is increasing for recognizing Abdullah Öcalan as a political interlocutor. He argued that direct communication would further influence this trend. Erbaş said: “In a recent survey, people were asked whether they consider it correct for Mr. Öcalan to be recognized as a political actor in this process. Over time, the proportion of those who say it is correct has increased. Despite all the campaigns against him and the harsh rhetoric that has continued for years, support is approaching 23–24 percent, with around 10 percent undecided. Although the proportion of those who do not support this remains higher, the upward trend compared to previous months is noteworthy.
Mr. Öcalan is the direct interlocutor and negotiator of the issue. I believe that his direct communication with the press and the public, and his ability to address society directly, would help clarify the situation and make his role as an interlocutor more visible. I think the statements he would make would contribute positively to these discussions.”
Erbaş also drew attention to the visits conducted by the Speaker of Parliament to political parties and the ongoing contacts, offering an assessment of the possible timing of a legal regulation. He said the process will take shape both through political developments and social dynamics.
Erbaş said: “Considering the visits carried out by the Speaker of Parliament, the visit to our party and the ongoing contacts, there is talk of a possible legal arrangement. Although the content remains debated, some say that a regulation, whether described as a transition law, a framework of law or a special law, could be adopted by the end of April. However, I do not share that view. It may be expected to pass through Parliament by the end of April, but that will depend on discussions and developments.
This also depends on the struggle of our people and democratic forces. As we have recently seen in the developments concerning Rojava, the stance of the public can influence decisions. Ahead of us are International Women’s Day on 8 March and then Newroz (the Kurdish New Year celebration). The process will partly be shaped by this social dynamism. Pressure will need to increase for the state, or rather the government, to take steps. This is also part of the spirit of the process; it may either accelerate or slow down the timetable.”
Leave a Reply