A new dialogue process began in Kurdistan and Turkey following the “Call for Peace and a Democratic Society” made on February 27 last year. Significant steps were taken immediately after the call, which contained messages aimed at resolving the Kurdish question through democratic means. However, despite the passage of one year since these steps, described as a “historic threshold”, the state has yet to take the measures demanded by the public regarding lasting peace and constitutional guarantees.
The process, which has recently remained on the agenda particularly due to statements by Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) Chair Devlet Bahçeli, has led the public to question its sincerity. Speaking about the steps that have not been taken and the rhetoric that has not been translated into practice, academic and politician Ahmet Yıldırım emphasized that historical realities must be taken into account and that a strong political will is necessary for a solution. Pointing out that debates over mutual trust and sincerity continue, Yıldırım stated that a lasting solution is only possible through dialogue and negotiation.
Ahmet Yıldırım, who was also among the figures witnessing the 2013–2015 resolution process, said that he considers this period not as a “solution” process but rather as a “dialogue” process. Noting that many methods had previously been tried to address the issue, Yıldırım emphasized that these problems have a deep historical background. He stated: “Therefore, evaluations and approaches should proceed by taking this historical background into account, but without becoming trapped in it.” Yıldırım also offered assessments regarding the government’s approach, public perceptions of the recent process, and the policies pursued by political actors.
Yıldırım criticized the tendency to evaluate historical issues in Turkey through day-to-day political developments, and said: “I believe that the greatest ailment in Turkey, both among the ruling elites and within opposition politics, is the tendency to approach such historical problems through day-to-day events, with assessments shaped accordingly. Of course, there has been an operational clampdown targeting the Republican People’s Party (CHP) since March 19, 2025. However, opposing this ongoing process by citing these operations, none of which we approve of results in confining a century-old issue with a historical background to daily events and evaluating it in that manner. I can understand such an assessment by the ruling powers to a certain extent, but it is far less understandable when adopted by opposition politics.”
Trust and sincerity issues persist in the process
Ahmet Yıldırım, offering an assessment of the background of the ongoing process, drew attention to the contacts established between the state and Imralı Island and stated: “In the period leading up to what we learned about on October 1, 2024, this process had in fact begun several months earlier, when the state established contact with Mr. Öcalan on Imralı Island and initiated a process as a state project. Throughout this one-and-a-half-year period that has developed on this basis, a mutual problem of trust has emerged. There is also a problem of sincerity. A debate continues over whether this process is genuinely sincere. Personally, I am quite comfortable on this issue. For such a process to begin, proceed, and advance, I do not believe it is necessary to insist that the ruling powers must be sincere. Of course, sincerity is very important. I also agree that more accurate solutions can be achieved if sincerity is present. However, rather than sincerity, I see that the ruling powers in Turkey initiated this process out of necessity for several reasons.”
Yıldırım emphasized that even if there is a lack of sincerity, the process remains worthy of support. Yıldırım said: “Even if there is a lack of sincerity, and even if we know that the fundamental motivation behind this process is shaped by necessity, such a process is still worth supporting. In order to support this process, each of us must recognize that the reasons of necessity are significant and approach it accordingly, without becoming fixated on the sincerity problem of those conducting the process on behalf of the state.”
Lack of concrete steps increases doubts
Ahmet Yıldırım pointed to the imbalance between the parties in the progression of the process and stated: “In recent days, it has rightly been observed that one side has taken disproportionately significant steps in this process, while the other side has remained disproportionately limited and has not taken any concrete steps that have been reflected in social life so far. This stands before us as a fundamental problem. Of course, it could be understandable that in the first months, even within the first year, there was no concrete outcome from the state. But after the first year, we see that one side has taken very advanced steps. In the face of this will, the state’s failure to take any steps naturally leads the public to approach the process with suspicion, to question its sincerity, and to experience growing concerns regarding the continuation of the process related to the government.”
Every day without action brings further criticism
Ahmet Yıldırım stated that criticism within society has been increasing and continued: “I observe that with each passing day, week, and month in which the state fails to take steps, the criticisms directed at this process are increasing, particularly among Kurds and other social groups in Turkey who possess the desire and will for change. This situation also reveals problems in their relationships with their own political leadership. Consider this: if I, as a Kurd, had not approached this issue from a more historical and scientific perspective, I would have distanced myself from this process as a result of such one-sided steps. The ruling powers and the governing mindset may believe that their failure to take any steps in response to these unilateral actions creates division and weakening within the social bases of their political rivals, particularly among Kurds. This constitutes a very serious problem.”
Kurdish politics must remain vigilant
Ahmet Yıldırım offered an assessment of the potential political consequences of the process, and said:“Otherwise, because they are conducting this process, they may one day create a zone of political comfort among their nationalist base by saying, ‘We saved the country from terrorism.’ While political gains may be derived in this way, Kurdish politics must remain highly vigilant against any approach that weakens it. The representatives and spokespersons of Kurdish politics need to be extremely alert. This constitutes a very important area of concern.”
When it comes to the Kurdish question, their differences disappear
Yıldırım also addressed the relationships among the ruling political actors. He said: “Since I served in parliament during the same period, I had the opportunity to become more closely acquainted with Devlet Bahçeli and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan from a political perspective. I will not even mention the harsh words they exchanged with each other before these organic relations were formed, that is, before their cooperation evolved into a governing partnership prior to 2016–2017. Even today, I believe there are significant differences between the political legacies of the MHP and the Justice and Development Party (AKP), as well as between Erdoğan and Bahçeli. However, these differences emerge in their perspectives on Turkey’s economic life, health policies, retirees’ incomes, energy facilities, and certain foreign policy issues. But when it comes to the Kurdish question, I believe these differences disappear.”
No difference in approach on the fundamental issue
Ahmet Yıldırım offered an assessment of the leading actors in the ongoing process. Yıldırım said: “From my perspective, placing Devlet Bahçeli in a different position from Recep Tayyip Erdoğan simply because he uses rhetoric that appeals to Kurdish sentiments, and declaring one as good and the other as bad, is not the role of either the Kurds or Kurdish politicians. We take a holistic approach. There are ruling powers that govern this country, and the century-old Kurdish question has historical causes.
Let me name four prominent actors here: Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Numan Kurtulmuş, Hakan Fidan, and Devlet Bahçeli. Two of them use more moderate and flexible rhetoric: Bahçeli and Kurtulmuş. However, Fidan and Erdoğan at times employ harsher language. Nevertheless, there is no difference in their approach to the fundamental issue. It would be more accurate to see each of them as fulfilling their respective roles from their own positions.”
Yıldırım also made assessments regarding the Imralı process and said: “I believe that such a process was not even necessary to establish Mr. Öcalan’s connection with the outside world, given that he has been held as a political prisoner on Imralı Island for 27 years. Even in the absence of this process, the rights that should have been recognized have not been granted. There are also European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decisions supporting our arguments in this regard. Now there is a process, and on one side of this process stands its principal actor. The importance attributed to him is explicitly expressed by those who govern the state and the government. It is acknowledged that he has an undisputed role in removing weapons and violence from the realm of methods. This is because, apart from Mr. Öcalan, there is no second person capable of bringing an end to the Kurdish movement’s use of arms and violence as a method since 1984. Despite this, it is ironic and unacceptable that the state, fully aware that he is the only person capable of playing such a role, has not granted him the opportunities to assume more effective responsibilities.”
Political will is essential for a solution
Ahmet Yıldırım concluded his assessment of the resolution of the Kurdish question with the following remarks: “The Kurdish question is truly a century-old bleeding wound of this country. This wound must be closed and treated in such a way that it never reopens. The fundamental aim is the recognition of collective social rights. So, has there been an approach over the past one and a half years that corresponds in significance to the historical depth of this issue? We have not seen this so far. This constitutes a serious paradox. Let me answer the question of how this can be overcome without any hesitation: Mr. Erdoğan must demonstrate the political will that he has not shown up to now. I do not claim that nothing has been done. However, I believe that the necessary will for the success of the process has not yet been demonstrated. Of course, tensions among Iran, Israel and the United States, or the rise of nationalist sentiment in Turkey, may be put forward as excuses. Nevertheless, placing such justifications in front of the resolution of a century-old issue does not seem reasonable or rational to me. I believe that the fundamental step here is to take the actions that have not yet been taken and to demonstrate a genuine will for a solution. Let me reiterate: if there is mutual sincerity between the two sides in this process, rapid progress in the desired direction can be achieved.”
Leave a Reply