Nergis Demirkaya / Gazete Duvar
Turkey has been discussing possible solution process scenarios for the Kurdish issue over the last month.
Last week, the government ally Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) Chair Devlet Bahçeli, who surprisingly shook hands with the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Equality and Democracy (DEM) Party members at Parliament’s opening session, “raised the stakes” and signaled that Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) leader Abdullah Öcalan could potentially be released after 25 years in prison. He invited the leader to speak at the DEM Party’s group meeting in Parliament. “If he shows this determination and resolve, then let the path to the ‘Right to Hope’ be wide open,” he said.
Main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) Chair Özgür Özel also joined the debate, saying, “I’m offering the Kurdish people a state—a Turkish state where all Kurds who feel they don’t fully belong can find true belonging as owners of the Republic of Turkey.”
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan remained silent, while Bahçeli’s Republic Day message, stating “There is no Kurdish issue,” drew criticism.
Özel responded to questions from the correspondents of several newspapers, TV channels, and news sites, including Gazete Duvar, about the recent developments.
Bahçeli said in his Republic Day message, “There is no Kurdish issue.” What do you think of Bahçeli’s stance, who seems to accept Öcalan’s release on the condition of “ending terror,”?
Bahçeli made a similar statement in a previous speech, which I criticized. Neither letting Abdullah Öcalan speak, nor freeing him, nor making the constitutional changes Erdoğan wants, would resolve the issue. This is not a personal matter but a societal issue.
Besides Bahçeli and his group, almost everyone accepts the existence of a Kurdish issue. Perhaps there are one or two far-right parties that don’t. Even before Bahçeli spoke, I stated that we want a Turkey where all Kurds feel equal, and we’re offering democracy for this, nothing else. If we’re going to go down this path, then, instead of waiting for our government, if others have the will, let’s solve Turkey’s democratic problems together in Parliament.
We should follow the method used worldwide to solve conflict processes and terror issues: transparency, mutual confidence-building steps, accountability, and, most importantly, achieving social consensus. I summarize it this way: We will not support any solution we can’t look martyrs’ families and veterans in the eye.
The most essential element of social consensus is conducting this work in Parliament, with the participation of all political parties. We need to involve any civil society organizations political parties want to include in the process.
Since former President Turgut Özal’s tenure in the 80s, Turkey has made progress and done the right thing by recognizing the Kurdish issue’s existence. Denying it now would set the issue back by half a century. During periods of denial, terrorism emerged. If you say there is no Kurdish issue, then release Öcalan, and watch as another organization, whether PKK or some other group, surfaces. This is not a good approach. We need to resolve the root of the problem. Globally, no conflict has been resolved without democracy, negotiation, and social reconciliation.
In your view, what is the Kurdish issue? When CHP says, “There is a Kurdish issue,” what are you pointing to?
Turkey needs a democratic constitution. Without touching the first four articles, many articles could be rewritten to be more democratic and inclusive. This could help Kurds feel better, but constitutions are consensus texts, and there is no current environment in Turkey for a constitutional amendment. If Mr. Erdoğan is trying to get us to a table aiming to make constitutional changes, we won’t be there.
In democratic countries, it is the people facing the issue who decide whether it exists, while in autocratic countries, autocrats or dictators decide. Today, Bahçeli displays a dictatorial attitude. Many people in Turkey say there is a Kurdish issue, and he says there isn’t. Saying this won’t make the issue disappear. So, what they call an opening is neither democratic nor inclusive; it’s dictatorial and autocratic. If they call it a process, it’s not democratic but authoritarian. We can’t agree to the process in this form. People saying the issue doesn’t exist need to go out and talk to Kurds.
A tea seller in Diyarbakır said, “I just want to be a citizen, nothing less, nothing more.” If I said to him, “Come on, what’s missing?”… People in other provinces elect their mayor, but people in (the Kurdish majority) Diyarbakır cannot. They elect, and then the government appoints a trustee. How can I tell these Kurds they are equal? The constitution states equality, but the state doesn’t act that way.
We need to discuss what Kurds express as the reasons they feel unequal. We should address the commonly discussed grievances of Kurds. They’ll express the problem, Parliament will express the solution, and at some point, we’ll reach an understanding.
CHP has done a lot of work on this issue, preparing reports. Today, what do you promise to solve the Kurdish issue? Do you have a new initiative?
The most crucial social consensus document is the constitution. You can’t solve the Kurdish issue by drafting and imposing a constitution like Erdoğan did. That’s why we say, let Parliament convene or assign tasks, and let’s all seek social consensus. Sitting down at the table isn’t about discussing what’s unacceptable. That’s why, when this commission is established, everyone should offer solutions to the core of the issue. First, perhaps Parliament should conduct an extensive study on what the Kurdish issue is. Does it exist, or not? That’s one method.
Do you think there’s an attempt to push society into a corner, similar to the “yes but not enough” experience, with the new constitutional change being discussed?
We witnessed this during the last election and the constitutional change. There is a Parliament and a judiciary under tutelage. Drafting a constitution requires a freer process. There are concerns that this new constitution could be worse than the previous one. I told him, “If we’re going to draft a constitution, we demand full compliance with the current one, but we don’t see that.”
Has the idea of appointing trustees to municipalities been reconsidered after July 15? Have you considered addressing a legislative change?
I proposed it in Diyarbakır. We need to take confidence-building steps and a clean start. I suggested that the first job should be to correct this article in Parliament with unanimous agreement.
How did you hear about Bahçeli’s call for Öcalan? What was your first reaction?
I was working in Parliament on the group speech. I saw it in the subtitles. Only Mr. Devlet could get involved in such surprising things.
Would delegating the solutions for the Kurdish issue to the parliament discard CHP’s accumulated knowledge?
It wouldn’t. CHP also said it wouldn’t present its own draft when drafting a constitution. If you’re seeking social consensus, even if you are the founding party and received 38 percent of the votes in the last election, you can’t impose a consensus upon society. At such a critical stage, consensus will be achieved through joint proposals from parties, not individual party suggestions. If CHP were only CHP voters, a different formula might apply. With the rise of the far-right worldwide, which threatens both democracy and the economy, social consensus is crucial for Turkey. What I’m proposing will create the least turbulence for Turkey’s economy and politics.
Mr. Bahçeli’s solution proposal offers no benefit to the process. In both political science and law, method takes precedence over substance. In my opinion, the method is Parliament. We have plenty to say on the essence, and there’s much time for that. But first, we need to agree on the method.
Why do you think Erdoğan is silent?
There’s a 90 percent chance he’s letting Bahçeli say these things. If he had said it himself, there could have been objections from MHP or the nationalist base. Instead, he had Bahçeli speak.
You associated the steps on the Kurdish issue more with domestic politics. But isn’t there a foreign policy aspect as well? Aren’t you concerned about how regional developments could impact Turkey?
Of course, I am, but my biggest concern is if Erdoğan continues to direct Turkey’s foreign policy. His decisions are personal, not institutional. Erdoğan is playing a major game in foreign policy as he has up to now. But this time, he’s moving forward by depleting resources, not by gaining. And there is a serious sense of being cornered.
We’re now in the first year of my chairmanship. If you asked if ‘The CHP chairmanship is difficult?’ one of our previous leaders who served many years ago said the first ten years are hard. In the fourth month of my chairmanship, we came in first. I promised we would come in first in the next election, too.”
(English version by Ayşenaz Toptaş)
