Journalist and writer Ali Bayramoğlu spoke to ANF about the first year of the “Democratic Society and Peace” process, the statements made by Abdullah Öcalan on the anniversary of the process, the new domestic political balances taking shape alongside it, and the legal steps the state needs to take.
Parliamentary report is an interim stage in resolving the Kurdish question
Ali Bayramoğlu evaluated the report prepared in Parliament regarding the resolution of the Kurdish question and said that it was never expected that the commission would take steps addressing the fundamental demands related to the issue.
Bayramoğlu said: “That was not the commission’s task. It should be viewed within that framework. The commission’s main duty was essentially to determine what the rights and legal status of those who lay down their arms would be after the weapons are laid down, and how their integration would take place. Within the framework of the rules and principles established by this commission, Parliament would then enact legislation.
When we look at the situation so far, there are many criticisms. The phrase ‘Kurdish question’ does not appear even once in the parliamentary report. Yes, it does not even point to the demands of the Kurds as a possible solution on the horizon, that is correct. But when we consider the process itself, the first phase of the process was both the expression of political will and the declaration of a shared orientation between the will of the state and the will of Öcalan, saying: ‘We are considering a solution in this direction, though it remains undefined.’
The second phase concerns the symbolic laying down of arms and the legal framework that will follow for further disarmament. In other words, it includes principles such as under what conditions and how a Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) member will be defined and how they will be integrated into the system.
Therefore, we are all aware of this, especially the Kurds. If this report had attempted to resolve the Kurdish question, it would have been extremely valuable. This sense of dissatisfaction is therefore understandable, because this was not a report aimed at solving the problem itself. Rather, it was an effort to define and clarify an interim stage within a broader process of resolution.”
I can neither feel hopeful nor fall into despair
Ali Bayramoğlu said he sees the Kurdish question as a multi-layered issue and explained it as follows: “When we say the Kurdish question, we can define it through many different issues. Let’s look at it in two layers in three.
The first is the armed organization; that is, the armed organization representing the Kurdish movement. Any solution will be a continuation of conflict resolution. The commission report addresses this.
The second layer concerns some of the Kurds’ demands the demands that gave rise to the Kurdish question. These can be grouped under three main points: the demand for constitutional citizenship, the demand for education in the mother tongue, and the demand for local democracy. How will these demands be met? There is no concrete arrangement on these issues in this process, only wishes and assumptions. The idea is that weapons will be laid down, the space for politics will open, and these problems will be addressed through democratic politics.
As these issues are taken up, the parties currently in Parliament will also be active. The report makes references to democracy and integration. But the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party), or whoever represents the Kurds… In other words, a new social contract: an equal citizenship definition for Turks; enabling Kurds to receive education in their mother tongue; and within the logic of a unitary state, offering them opportunities to govern themselves, meaning a strong reform of local administrations. That was the horizon target of the resolution process.”
Bayramoğlu also said: “As I said, there is an approach that says: we are opening the door to politics, and these will be done through politics. That is how I see it. That is why, frankly, I can neither feel hopeful nor fall into despair. I do not fall into despair because what has been defined as a resolution process has been this from the start. It is not right to assign it to another meaning. I do feel pessimistic, however, because I know Turkey and the Turkish political system. I know how much difficulty, effort, and resistance it will take to make steps on this issue. There can be many obstacles, from Turkish nationalism to the state’s understanding of governance.
The third layer of the problem is this: what kind of living space will Kurds in the region, especially Kurds in Syria, have? Turkey is one structure, Iraq is another, Syria is another. A kind of autonomy was granted in Iraq. In Turkey, rather than autonomy, what appears is a reform through local administrations. So, what will happen in Syria? If Kurds in Syria are told only, ‘Be Syrian citizens and integrate into the system individually,’ that will create a problem.
Therefore, Kurds need a living space in Syria, in the Rojava region. This has not yet been clarified, but it is moving in a positive direction. Even though the recent clashes have been disappointing, Öcalan’s definition from the beginning was this: wherever you are, Kurds should integrate into the systems of those countries, protect their differences and rights, and contribute to the democratization of that country. The door that has been opened now is in that direction. But as I said, these are more like guidelines; implementation is crucial. We will see it step by step.”
Abdullah Öcalan is positive about the process
Ali Bayramoğlu also evaluated the statement made by Abdullah Öcalan on the first anniversary of the “Democratic Society and Peace Call” and continued as follows: “When asked about Öcalan, I think he views the process very positively. What he is essentially saying is this: we have completed the first stage; that is, the laying down of arms and the question of what will happen to those who lay down their weapons. The questions have not been fully answered, but now politics should take place. For politics, Öcalan has a demand: ‘Expand my room for maneuver.’ This will not only expand his own room for maneuver; it also requires the creation of a somewhat more democratic environment. For certain demands to be expressed and to receive responses, this process needs to begin. Öcalan pointed to this as the second stage. That is the situation.
So, perhaps the problem is not being fully resolved, but a very important transformation is taking place. Whether this transformation will ultimately succeed depends entirely on the state. You close the door to weapons and open the door to politics, but politics requires space. Just as dancing requires space, politics requires democracy. How far the conditions will be fulfilled remains to be seen.
Frankly, I do not expect major breakthroughs in terms of democratization. A few steps will be taken, because Erdoğan needs Kurdish votes in Parliament. The second issue, perhaps even more important, is the matter of Rojava; that is, the issue of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). In Syria, the demand for absolute autonomy was not accepted and conflict followed. After the conflict, integration was accepted, but how will this integration take place?”
Bayramoğlu added: “Will the military brigade of the Syrian Democratic Forces become part of the Syrian army by distancing itself from the political stance and representation of the Kurdish population, or will it retain its character? We do not know. Ahmed Al-Sharaa (al-Jolani) does not want this, but in Mazloum Abdi we observe such a horizon, such a hope.
The second issue concerns the administration of the Kurdish region. How will this administration be structured and shaped? Will offering a deputy position in the Ministry of Defense, or proposing governorships, such as the governorship of Al-Hasakah (Hesekê), be sufficient? Will this mean that the Kurds there will govern themselves? This model is still in the formation stage. The most significant developments in the coming period may occur in this field. The direction will depend on the balance of power.
But one thing must be acknowledged: Öcalan, Erdoğan, Bahçeli, and the other parties in Parliament are adopting a positive stance. I do not think the process will go backward; it may not progress quickly, and it may take time.”
Ali Bayramoğlu also noted that the uncertainty created by a possible war with Iran could affect many issues in the region. He said: “Conflict and tension in the region affect many problems. Iran’s resistance, its attempts to reassert itself, the presence of Kurds in Iran, and the conditions of war in the region can influence developments. Its impact on the resolution process can already be observed; we will see when it ends.”
Leave a Reply