Terrorism and Democracy: Contradictory Approaches to the Kurdish-Turkish Peace Process

By Sarkis Kassargian

In conjunction with developments in the Syrian and regional context following Bashar al-Assad’s escape and the fall of his regime in Damascus, attention is now focused on the changing Kurdish political scene in Turkey, particularly in light of recent statements and actions from political leaders.

Despite differing circumstances, the implications of the Turkish government’s potential Kurdish initiative, starting with the call from the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), led by Devlet Bahçeli, cannot be disconnected from southern developments in Northern and Eastern Syria, especially as Ankara continues its threats against the Autonomous Administration.

The peace process remains a one-sided narrative

The Turkish government has signaled its willingness to engage in a new approach to addressing the Kurdish issue, termed the “solution policy.” However, this policy does not presently resemble a genuine democratic dialogue; rather, it appears as a one-sided narrative lacking a real platform for discussion. This raises concerns that the proposed solutions will not adequately address the needs or aspirations of peace advocates due to the absence of a democratic space.

Conversely, the Kurdish political movement, represented by figures such as Ahmet Türk, has shown responsiveness to recent initiatives. Many Kurdish leaders are actively participating in negotiations, reflecting a readiness to engage with the current political framework.

The Kurdish political movement still sees the ongoing political process as a potential path toward democracy and peace. Despite the authoritarian tendencies exhibited by the Turkish government, some Kurdish representatives remain hopeful that dialogue and negotiation could yield positive outcomes. While the government, often represented by Bahçeli, imposes restrictions on Kurdish municipalities and imprisons Kurdish politicians, it simultaneously seeks to engage in dialogue with the Kurdish political movement. This duality raises fundamental questions regarding the government’s true intentions and the possibility of reconciliation in such circumstances.

By placing the entire responsibility for Turkey’s democratization solely on the Kurdish movement, those advocating for it, overlook the significant role of the broader democratic opposition, which has failed to adopt a collaborative approach that includes all political actors, among them Kurdish representatives, in discussions about democratic reforms.

The complex Kurdish question in Turkey is far more than a mere “terrorism issue” or a question for equal citizenship rights. It represents a fundamental challenge to the country’s democratic governance and its efforts to achieve both internal and external peace. Thus, resolving the Kurdish question is closely linked to numerous pressing social problems confronting Turkey today.

The existing system in Turkey finds it difficult to address the complexities related to the Kurds and their demands for rights and recognition. Additionally, the Kurdish question cannot be viewed in isolation from broader societal issues such as poverty, injustice, the erosion of the rule of law, the politicization of the judiciary, and the resulting widespread governmental injustices, particularly affecting marginalized communities, including the Kurds.

More significantly, the ongoing conflicts within Turkey and with neighboring countries, especially Syria, complicate efforts to resolve the Kurdish issue. These conflicts are often rooted in the same authoritarian practices that have marginalized the Kurdish population.

In contrast to the narrow focus of the Turkish government and state apparatus on the PKK, the key to resolving the Kurdish question lies in addressing the larger democratic system. This makes reforms aimed at strengthening democracy, ensuring justice, and promoting social equality essential for any meaningful progress in addressing the Kurdish question. Conversely, the lack of commitment to democratic principles renders attempts to resolve the Kurdish issue futile.

The Turkish government’s and its opponents’ vision for peace

Despite reinitiating the stalled peace process in 2015, Bahçeli’s recent statements have adopted a threatening tone rather than a constructive one. Phrases like “don’t test our patience” raise concerns about the potential consequences of dissent in a highly charged political environment, especially considering the historical consequences of such rhetoric in a country with a history of tensions escalating into violence.

Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK, plays a critical role in the peace process. The ruling coalition and the Kurdish party view Öcalan as a potential mediator—not for dismantling the PKK, as often claimed, but for negotiating with the People’s Democratic Party (HDP). Additionally, Öcalan’s influence extends beyond Turkey’s borders to northern Syria, Iraq, and even into Iran.

The changing dynamics in the Middle East provide both opportunities and challenges for Ankara as it seeks to define its role within this geopolitical landscape. The Turkish government may view current developments in Syria—including the potential fall of Assad and a decrease in Iranian influence following setbacks for Hamas and Hezbollah—as an opportunity to reshape its regional influence. The government might leverage the peace process to bolster its standing.

Conversely, the influence of the Republican People’s Party (CHP) on the Kurdish question appears limited, as Erdoğan’s government, bolstered by loyal MHP members, largely dominates decisions regarding Öcalan, the PKK, and the Kurdish issue in general. This political reality reduces the CHP’s effectiveness in mobilizing, undermining any potential for a unified opposition front regarding Kurdish rights.

The Turkish opposition has consistently expressed support for some longstanding demands of the Kurdish people in Turkey, such as the recognition of Kurdish language rights and the enhancement of local governance. However, this support has largely remained within the confines of statements and declarations made during election seasons, with many critical issues left unaddressed. Furthermore, the current political climate lacks discussions on deeper matters, such as acknowledging the Kurds as a “founding element” of the state.

While resolving the Kurdish question may be regarded as a positive development, the general political conditions in Turkey do not indicate that genuine democratization is forthcoming. The prevailing perception is that the peace process might be used as a tool for the ruling party to maintain control, rather than as a means of effecting real political reform.

Turkish elites do not conceal their fears that the engagement of the Kurdish political movement with the government could reinforce the presidential system rather than advance the democratic values the Kurdish movement has sought for decades. They point to the delicate balance that Kurdish politicians must maintain during negotiations, especially given that past Kurdish experiences cast a long shadow over current strategies and aspirations. However, progress is still possible if the political process is approached wisely and inclusively.

Despite the ongoing evolution of the peace process and the shuttle meetings between the HDP delegation and political figures, Bahçeli has categorically stated that there is no “new solution or opening process” regarding the Kurdish question in Turkey. He emphasized that any dialogue or negotiation concerning the PKK and its activities must be viewed through the lens of national security, rather than as an ethnic or political matter. In his view, the Kurdish question is a “terrorism issue” rather than a social or political issue.

Bahçeli emphasizes “ethnic and sectarian tensions in Syria,” warning that ongoing conflicts and the presence of the People’s Protection Units (YPG) pose significant threats to Turkey’s national security. He calls for their elimination to ensure that their influence on Turkey is curtailed.

In contrast, CHP leader Özgür Özel adopts a different stance, advocating for dialogue with all political parties to address the Kurdish question in parliament. Özel’s statements reflect the party’s commitment to a transparent and inclusive process, emphasizing the importance of parliamentary involvement in resolving national issues, aligning with Öcalan’s recent statements.

The existing tensions in the region and the complexities of the Kurdish issue will continue to play a pivotal role in shaping Turkey’s domestic and foreign policies, especially in light of Bahçeli’s hardline stance and the historical failures of previous peace initiatives. The internal political divide is evident in the contrast between Bahçeli’s security-focused narrative and Özel’s call for dialogue, highlighting the ongoing debate on how to address Turkey’s complex ethnic and political issues.

Democracy is urgently needed to consolidate peace

The exploration of political discourse, the role of key figures, and the urgent need for democratic reforms underscores the growing necessity to reevaluate how the Kurdish issue is addressed within the broader context of Turkish politics. Analysts argue that the current political climate resembles previous attempts when the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) sought to consolidate its power, creating a need to support Kurdish politicians and their broad popular base.

Experts express skepticism about the likelihood that the new peace process will lead to genuine democratization in Turkey. They indicate that the government’s motives appear more focused on consolidating power rather than addressing the root causes of the Kurdish question.

In addition to the complicated relationships among Turkey’s various political parties and the influence of their differing views on the Kurdish question concerning legislative processes and public opinion, the lack of progress in addressing the Kurdish issue exacerbates broader social tensions and poses challenges to achieving unity in Turkey’s multi-ethnic society.

Ultimately, the “solution track” requires a broader framework of democratic reforms as a prerequisite for a sustainable resolution to the Kurdish issue. Without genuine democratic progress, the prospects for effectively addressing the Kurdish question remain slim. It is essential to include all peoples, political parties, ethnic and religious groups, and ensure representation in the political processes to guarantee that the voices of all citizens, especially marginalized groups such as the Kurds, are heard and respected.

Author

  • Sarkis Kassargian is a senior journalist and reporter. Armenian nationals, he is based in Dubai, UAE, and holds a diploma from the UCMT Institute of Media in Lebanon. Fluent in Arabic, English, Turkish, and Armenian, he has extensive experience covering breaking news and feature stories for various Arabic and international news outlets. He is also a political studies writer focused on Middle Eastern and Turkish affairs and has successfully managed social media campaigns to enhance online engagement. In addition to his reporting work, he is a Turkish affairs editor for "Annahar" and has contributed articles to multiple publications.

    View all posts
You might also like

Comments are closed.