Statements made on Tuesday by Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) Chair Devlet Bahçeli during his parliamentary group meeting in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM), emphasizing that legal regulation processes should be carried out meticulously and “not rushed,” were met with criticism from the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party).
Mahfuz Güleryüz, a member of the Central Executive Board of the DEM Party, criticized Bahçeli’s remarks, recalling that approximately one and a half years have passed since the beginning of the process. He argued that the current stage reflects not “haste,” but rather a serious “delay.”
Güleryüz stated that the Kurdish side responded to the calls with swift and mature steps, while the state side failed to fulfill its own commitments. He stressed that the trustees, the execution of law, and the provisions included in the commission report must be implemented without delay.
He also drew attention to the deep sense of distrust created in society by the current uncertainty, stating that the steps to be taken would not put the country in difficulty, but on the contrary, would ease the democratic ground.
Kurdish side responded to Bahçeli’s call with swift, mature steps
Mahfuz Güleryüz stated that following Devlet Bahçeli’s call, the Kurdish side approached the issue with great seriousness, emphasizing that the process was rapidly matured and that critical decisions were taken without delay. Güleryüz said: “Immediately after Mr. Bahçeli’s call, the process was handled with great care from the Kurdish side, and decisions were made without delay. Important steps were taken at this stage. Therefore, the Kurdish side responded with swift and mature steps from its own front. This was undoubtedly an important process. Although it was clear that the matter would not be rushed, we have now moved beyond that phase, because the process has been considerably prolonged.
The initial statement included both a call and a commitment. One aspect of the call was directed at what the Kurdish side needed to do. For example, key issues such as the organization dissolving itself and the decision to lay down arms were expressed. The Kurdish side and Abdullah Öcalan embraced this matter with sensitivity and took the necessary steps. They managed the process by weighing their decisions, being aware of their capacity and what they could achieve and establishing dialogues both with society and within their own structure. As a result, they fulfilled the requirements of that call within the appropriate timeframe.”
This commitment binds not only Bahçeli but also the state
Güleryüz recalled that the statement did not place responsibility solely on the Kurdish side, but also constituted a pledge for the state side, emphasizing that the process is built on mutual commitments. He continued: “There was also a commitment aspect to the call. While one dimension included responsibilities directed at the Kurdish side, the other dimension reflected Mr. Bahçeli’s position regarding what the state would do. It was declared that if the organization dissolved itself and a decision to lay down arms was taken, the doors to freedom, first and foremost for Mr. Öcalan, would be opened wide. We do not see this as a temporary statement. This is a commitment, and it binds not only Mr. Bahçeli but also the state.”
Güleryüz pointed out that although the Kurdish side has fulfilled its responsibilities, no concrete step has yet been taken by the other side and said that the process has been unnecessarily prolonged despite the completion of the commission’s work. He also said: “Approximately one and a half years have passed since the commitment. While one side has fulfilled its responsibility, the other side has not yet taken any concrete step. We consider the commission established during the process as a step, despite its shortcomings. The commission held discussions with various segments of society, received proposals, and produced a report.
However, both the discussions and the report process took far longer than necessary. It is no longer possible to describe this as ‘haste,’ because that stage has long been left behind. Now that the commission has completed its work and submitted its report to the parliamentary floor, the period we are experiencing can only be defined as a delayed and lost stretch of time.”
The current stage is one where society is left breathless
Güleryüz argued that the Kurdish question lies at the center of all crises in Turkey, stating that the lack of a solution has paralyzed both the social and democratic structure.
He said: “This issue is the cornerstone of all of Turkey’s problems and the most fundamental point where everything is locked. We are facing a problem that causes the decay of the state and the social structure and prevents the development of democratic grounds. The victim of this process is not only the Kurds; all social dynamics in Turkey have, in one way or another, been affected by this anti-democratic order. The stage we have reached is one where society is left breathless.”
Güleryüz also commented on Bahçeli’s remarks about “haste,” and he said: “Although I do not fully interpret what Mr. Bahçeli means, if he is referring to legal regulations, this is not an accurate assessment. The regulations we expect will not put society in difficulty; on the contrary, they are steps that will strengthen everyone’s position. For example, the issue of trustees is one of the country’s most fundamental problems. Who could be disturbed by the urgency of taking a step regarding trustees? Likewise, changes to the execution of law are a correction of delayed and unjust practice. These are legal regulations that must be amended immediately.”
Recalling the government’s previous promises, Güleryüz underlined that the provisions included in the commission report must be implemented without delay for the process to move onto a proper path. He said: “There were commitments made by the state itself to society regarding the execution of law and similar regulations. It was said that this issue would be resolved by last year’s Eid al-Adha, yet a year has passed and there is still no concrete step. If these regulations are seen as ‘haste,’ then this approach is detached from reality. It is now necessary to move beyond this state of expectation.
For the process to be grounded on a correct basis, it is essential that the regulations outlined in Articles 6 and 7 of the commission report be implemented as soon as possible. This is what both society and we are waiting for.”
One side responded to the call, but the other failed its commitment
Mahfuz Güleryüz stated that society is waiting for the issue to be grounded in a concrete framework, emphasizing that the one-sided steps taken so far have not been met with a response from the government, creating deep mistrust. Güleryüz said: “This issue needs to be placed on concrete footing as soon as possible. The steps taken so far have unfortunately remained one-sided. The government’s failure to provide a positive response is increasing anxiety, doubt, and concern within society. No one can yet fully describe this as a ‘peace negotiation process.’
The state’s cautious approach, its tendency to treat the issue in a conjunctural manner, and its expectation of resolving external problems such as Syria or Iran first, are leading to deep mistrust within the social structure.
Mr. Bahçeli’s statement, ‘let us proceed without rushing,’ does not align with the current reality. There is no situation that can be described as being rushed; it has already been one and a half years since the call was made. The Kurdish side responded to this call, yet the other side has not fulfilled its commitment.
Some of the statements made from the parliamentary podium were calls, while others were commitments. At this point, can Mr. Bahçeli say, ‘The Kurdish side has done these things, and in return, we have taken the following concrete step’?”
Leave a Reply