Turkish politics is highly dynamic, vibrant and receptive to change, with paradigm shifts and significant political developments often occurring almost overnight.
Just last week, Devlet Bahçeli, leader of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), made an unexpectedly bold move on Türkiye’s Kurdish issue. He stated that, for terrorism to end, the PKK terrorist organization’s imprisoned leader, Abdullah Öcalan, should be allowed to speak in parliament and formally declare the dissolution of the PKK.
In Türkiye, liberal perspectives on the Kurdish issue vary from support for certain democratic rights to advocating for a degree of autonomy.
Conversely, the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) and conservative circles have their own perspective on the Kurdish issue. In 2015, the AK Party proposed an ambitious framework for the resolution process to end terrorism. However, this vision remained incomplete when the terrorist organization withdrew from the process midway.
Meanwhile, the country’s main opposition party, the Republican People’s Party (CHP), frequently produces commentary on major national issues but rarely proposes radical or substantive solutions, often relying on rhetoric rather than concrete action.
On the other hand, the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) harbors ideas that are partially concealed yet partially aligned with the ambitions of the PKK. They present these ideas with a somewhat socialist or communist slant but often echo the rhetoric of PKK without contributing much original political thought. Although they use appealing language – social-democratic phrases and leftist jargon – on closer examination, they fail to offer substantive solutions to critical issues.
In contrast, nationalist parties staunchly defend a unitary state structure. They approach issues such as democratization and the Kurdish question with extreme caution and carefully oppose initiatives like the solution process. Due to their firm commitment to radical nationalism and a unified state, these nationalist parties appear to be the hardcore, representing the most substantial stance against the Kurdish issue in Türkiye.
Paradigm shift steps
Bahçeli made such an important speech in the parliament. This speech actually had some preliminary steps.
In his opening speech to the parliament, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan talked about the tense atmosphere globally, global risks and that World War III was knocking on people’s doors. Considering the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, the Israeli-Palestinian war, Syria’s lacking state power, the disorganized structure of Iraq, the situation in Lebanon and the possibility of a confrontation between Israel and Türkiye in the long run, he made an important speech about the preservation of an inner fortress in Türkiye and the establishment of a consciousness and culture of brotherhood in these dangerous days when the heat of World War III is felt.
After this speech, Bahçeli shook hands with DEM Party members, which was almost the first time in the history of Türkiye.
Then, Erdoğan gave a historic speech to the parliamentary group. First, he said that this hand extended by the state, Bahçeli, and the government should be held tightly. He emphasized that the Republic of Türkiye was embarking on a remarkable development, growth and expedition in its second 100 years and that Kurds and Turks should build this future together.
On the other hand, by comparing the struggle between Salahuddin al-Ayyubi, better known in the West as Saladin, and the Crusaders and the Israeli occupation of today, he made an impressive statement saying, “When the Republic of Türkiye confronts Israel tomorrow, will our Kurdish brothers do as Saladin did and side with the Muslims like that day or will they side with Israel?”
In light of experience
In a way, in his 22nd year in power, Erdoğan saw the problems and mistakes of the unfinished solution process of the Kurdish issue that had been ended, especially with the efforts of international powers to undermine this process.
Instead of taking a step back or accepting the theses of the West against the events developing in the region, he underlined that it is only in this way that one can fight against imperialism, or global imperialism, by following and strengthening one’s own internal integrity.
In a way, the fortification of the inner fortress, that is, the rapprochement and fraternization of Turks and Kurds, is also a challenge against global threats.
Those who develop politics in the world, including the leader of Türkiye, Erdoğan, who has become a global actor, know that no state can attack the Republic of Türkiye from the front and that there are no armies in the world today that are as capable of fighting as the Turkish army, as it is equipped with new technology.
Everyone realizes that fighting a country of the size of Türkiye would turn into World War III.
However, we know that the YPG, the Syrian branch of the PKK nestled in Syria – or whatever you want to call it – is going to be pitted against Türkiye at the behest of Israel or the United States. Bahçeli said, “Let Abdullah Öcalan come out and announce that he has renounced terrorism and will return to democratic politics.”
Erdoğan has drawn a more encompassing, comprehensive, defiant framework that he will not bow down to any attitude of the imperialists or global powers after ensuring internal unity.
Precisely after this high perspective put forward by Bahçeli and Erdoğan, the terrorist organization PKK staged an attack in Ankara and martyred five people.
Shifting global balance
In a recent television commentary, I said: “20 years ago, when a matchbox-sized story appeared in a U.S. newspaper, politicians in Türkiye would have been shocked and alarmed. Erdoğan has now gotten the world and the Turkish people used to this: If the Economist and Der Spiegel were to publish pages of stories one after each other against Erdoğan and Türkiye, as they did before the Turkish elections, no one would take them seriously anymore, let alone a matchbox-sized publication.” Of course, this is a sign of their declining media influence and a radical change in the global balance.
In one of my articles, I also used an expression: “Türkiye is fed-up with these messages and indifferent to those who attempt to convey threats through terrorism.” Erdoğan echoed this sentiment: “We tore that message up and threw it in the trash.”
Erdoğan’s statement underscores that Türkiye, as a regional power, is a nation that such global threats cannot constrain.
Bahçeli has opened an important door, and Erdoğan has put forward an intellectual and political framework. Of course, even though both the terrorist organization and the arrest of the mayor of Esenyurt are on the agenda these days, Bahçeli’s and Erdoğan’s vision on the Kurdish issue is critical.
The conditions are better compared to the previous periods when southeastern Anatolia was lagging with the lack of education, and urbanization problems in the cities were frequently mentioned.
The AK Party governments have brought Izmir in the far West and Diyarbakır in the southeast to an equal footing – economically, culturally, in the approach of state institutions and in terms of infrastructure. As of today, with Izmir and Diyarbakır standing on equal footing and the Kurdish issue nearly resolved, this discourse of brotherhood, unity and building a shared future will gain even more significant influence. Once again, Erdoğan has managed to challenge global ambitions by strengthening the unity within Türkiye.
