Reactions continue to grow over the joint report announced by the “National Solidarity, Brotherhood and Democracy” Commission established in the Turkish parliament to address the Kurdish question. The report has drawn criticism from many political parties and civil society organizations for framing the Kurdish question as a “terror issue” without examining its causes and consequences, presenting rights and freedoms already guaranteed by the Constitution as if they were conditional, failing to include a single reference to confronting the truth, and portraying the state’s own sensitivities as matters of “public order.”
Human Rights Association (IHD) Co-Chair and lawyer Cihan Aydın spoke to ANF about the report and said one of its most significant shortcomings is not only the failure to explicitly name the Kurdish question, but also the absence of any proposals or assessments regarding confronting the past or transitional justice.
Treating the Kurdish question as a “terror” or “security” issue is a major handicap
Cihan Aydın stressed that framing the Kurdish question as a “terror” or “security” issue in the parliamentary commission report is a major handicap that makes solutions more difficult. Aydın recalled that correctly identifying the root of a conflict is crucial in any resolution process and noted that discussing the issue within a “terror” or “security” framework makes it far more difficult to propose viable solutions or advance meaningful approaches. Aydın said that viewing the Kurdish question as a “terror issue” will not produce constructive results. Aydın said: “If you look at the matter as a ‘terror’ issue, it is quite possible to conclude that ‘terror has ended, weapons have been laid down, therefore the problem is solved.’ But everyone is aware that this is not simply an armed conflict, a terror issue or a security issue. On the contrary, there is broad consensus that the Kurdish question is a matter of identity, citizenship, and equality. Therefore, approaching the issue from the framework set out in the report makes it harder to find appropriate solutions and methods for resolving the problem. Of course, this is ultimately a process. We will see over time which stages this process will evolve into, what measures will be taken, and what kind of legal or constitutional arrangements may be introduced. The fact that it is not even named as the Kurdish question is itself a handicap, though it is not a final decision. This may reflect what some call a ‘Turkish-type model’: identifying social, political, economic and cultural needs over time and taking steps accordingly. We hope that such steps will follow.”
Confrontation and accountability are essential principles of conflict resolution
Cihan Aydın underlined that one of the most significant shortcomings of the report is the absence of any proposal or even assessment regarding “confronting the past” or transitional justice. Aydın said: “There is not even a single assessment regarding what we call confronting the past or transitional justice in conflict resolution processes, let alone a concrete proposal. Issues such as thousands of unsolved murders, burned and evacuated villages, millions of displaced people and extrajudicial executions, serious human rights violations, require confrontation and accountability. This is one of the fundamental principles of conflict resolution. If you fail to address this, you also fail to eliminate the risk of these violations recurring. In general terms, what is referred to as transitional justice, processes formulated around confrontation, truth and reparation, must be carried out. If these processes are not implemented, it effectively means that the problem remains unresolved. The scale of the tragedies and suffering experienced requires a societal process of confronting the past, seeking the truth and providing reparation. Unless the issue is approached from the perspective of civilians, looking at what society has experienced, including what Kurds and Turks have endured, it is not possible to bring this conflict resolution process to a definitive end. Experiences of conflict resolution around the world have also addressed these questions through different mechanisms, practices, and methods. However, the fact that the commission report does not even include a single reference to this issue is, in my view, one of its most serious shortcomings. Without processes of confrontation, truth, and reparation, we cannot speak of a genuine peace process or a true resolution process. It is said that Turkey is developing its own model. Of course, the methods and tools may differ, but there are certain procedures that must be followed, and transitional justice is one of the most important among them. We will continue our struggle to ensure that the necessary steps toward transitional justice are taken and that processes of confrontation, truth and reparation are carried out.”
Democratization steps are an admission of authoritarianism
Cihan Aydın also evaluated the commission report’s presentation of measures such as the implementation of rulings by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Constitutional Court, both of which Turkey is already bound to follow, as well as the inclusion of rights like freedom of expression and freedom of the press, which are already guaranteed under the current Constitution, as if they were conditions of the process. Aydın said that the listing of such democratization steps, particularly in the seventh section of the report, effectively amounts to admission. According to Aydın, the reform proposals and measures outlined in that section implicitly acknowledge that Turkey has drifted away from democratic standards and entered a process of authoritarianization. Aydın also said, “These democratization steps are not a favor. The fundamental rights and freedoms mentioned in the report are already protected by the Constitution and existing laws. Presenting these rights as part of the solution process, as if they were incentives or bargaining tools, is quite striking.” Aydın emphasized that this approach also reflects an admission of authoritarianization, as it reveals serious problems in Turkey regarding freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, press freedom and the implementation of rulings by the ECtHR and the Constitutional Court.
Fundamental rights and freedoms cannot be presented as a condition of the process
Cihan Aydın emphasized that if there is genuine intent to implement these reforms, they can be carried out independently of the solution process. Aydın said, “If there is an intention to implement these reforms, there is nothing preventing them from being carried out. Because these are fundamental rights and freedoms. These rights are already protected by law and guaranteed by the Constitution, regardless of the solution process. Therefore, presenting these fundamental rights and freedoms as a condition of the process is difficult to understand. For example, there is no need for any reform to implement rulings of the ECtHR or the Constitutional Court, because the relevant provisions of the Constitution and legislation already oblige authorities to enforce them. The measures listed in the seventh section of the report should be implemented rapidly, without delay and without being tied to any conditions. If legal regulations are required, they should be introduced; if administrative steps are needed, they should also be taken. However, Turkey’s fundamental problem today is the lack of judicial independence. Almost all the issues listed in the seventh section stem not from the absence of laws but from problems in their implementation. The judiciary must be freed from the control of the government and rebuilt as an independent and impartial institution. If this is achieved, significant progress may become possible, or at least we may be able to move away from the current climate of repression to some extent.”
The right to hope cannot be used as a bargaining tool
Cihan Aydın stressed that it is unacceptable to treat the right to hope as a matter of negotiation. He underlined that the right to hope is part of fundamental rights and freedoms and should be considered in the same context as freedoms such as expression, assembly, and the right to protest. Aydın said, “There is a ruling by the ECtHR from 2014 regarding the right to hope. This decision concerns not only Abdullah Öcalan but the fundamental rights of every prisoner who is incarcerated. This right must be implemented. The criminal justice system around the world functions in this way. Unfortunately, the current situation is almost unique to Turkey. For this reason, presenting the right to hope as a bargaining chip or keeping it as leverage is unacceptable for us. This issue is not directly related to the solution process. The main aspects of the solution process are disarmament, the return and integration of armed militants, and subsequently the social, political and cultural reforms that must follow. As we discussed earlier, transitional justice, namely truth, confrontation and reparation, will also be essential.”
Trustee appointments would end if post-July 15 provisions are repealed
Aydın said that the appointment of government trustees to municipalities is clearly a seizure of the people’s will and added that presenting this issue as a condition in the report is not the right approach. He noted that the trustee issue could be removed from Turkey’s agenda if certain legal provisions introduced after the July 15 coup attempt are repealed. Aydın said, “After July 15, several provisions were introduced through decree laws and later incorporated into legislation. If those provisions are repealed, the trustee issue will also come to an end. The legal basis for trustee appointments stems from the decree of laws issued after July 15, which were subsequently added to the relevant legislation as legal articles. Therefore, if the legislation is cleared of those additional provisions introduced after July 15, the trustee issue would disappear. What is needed is a change in municipal legislation, nothing more. In this sense, the trustee issue could be resolved very quickly. With a small legal amendment and a return to the previous practice, the problem of trustee appointments would be eliminated.”
Civil society and academia must actively participate in the process
Cihan Aydın said that, regardless of the report’s content, the IHD considers it important that political parties came together under the roof of the Turkish parliament, as this acknowledges the existence and legitimacy of the Kurdish question. He recalled that IHD was among approximately 137 individuals and institutions heard by the commission. Aydın added that one of their main criticisms is that the views and recommendations of the institutions, individuals, academics and civil society organizations heard by the commission were not sufficiently reflected in the report. At the same time, he noted that the commission report should be seen as a starting point rather than an outcome. Aydın emphasized that civil society and academic circles must be actively involved in the process in the coming period and said: “Civil society organizations that have worked for years on conflict and resolution and have accumulated significant experience must be actively involved in the process. What we describe as a ‘third eye’, a mechanism that monitors the process, supervises it and contributes through opinions and recommendations, must be established. If such a mechanism is not created, the issue will be left solely to the political stance or approach of the government. In similar processes around the world, different mechanisms have been established to ensure oversight by a third party and to facilitate dialogue between the parties. Turkey may develop its own model of resolution, but this process has not yet been properly structured or organized from beginning to end. To overcome these shortcomings, civil society must participate more strongly in the process. Our efforts from now on will also focus on ensuring that participation.”
Leave a Reply