By Hakkı Yukselen
Turkish President Erdoğan has said that the country is going through a process, with a “Turkiye without Terror” being the beginning. Supposedly, this “process” is continuing and will reach its conclusion very soon! “Supposedly”, because no one knows what is actually happening except the parties directly involved! At the very least, there must be some negotiations between factions. This is a basic, logical assumption.
Otherwise, we would have to believe that the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) unconditionally surrendered after forty-odd years of struggle and tens of thousands of deaths without gaining anything in return, and that the state also accepted this surrender without any further action. Such an outcome would only be possible in the event of a decisive defeat for one side and a decisive victory for the other, in which case there would be no need for any “process”. But this is not the case today, despite all the unequal power relations between the parties. Of course, the image that the state in particular is trying to project is completely different: The spokespersons of the regime, especially Bahçeli (Leader of Nationalist Movement Party-Alliance of Erdogan), the “architect of the process”, want the PKK to immediately dissolve itself, surrender all its weapons and seek refuge in the compassionate arms of Turkish justice! Otherwise… In other words, the illusion they are trying to convey to the public is essentially “There is not the slightest concession. We are not giving anything, the ‘terrorist organization’ will surrender unconditionally”.
Abdullah Öcalan’s statement that the Organization should dissolve itself on the grounds that it had completed its “historical lifespan”, and that it should give up all its demands regarding the essence of the problem, coupled with the organization’s leadership’s announcement that it would respond to this call, strengthened this illusion. But, it is clear that things will not be that easy! Indeed, there are strong indications to the contrary. First of all, there are some points regarding the “law” of the matter that Öcalan mentions in the “extra-textual” annex to his call for unconditional dissolution. The DEM (the Kurdish party represented in the parliament), which is ostensibly acting as a mediator for the “process” to move forward, its insistent admonitions about the “law” and its public dialogues with the Minister of Justice, as well as the demands of the PKK’s central leadership regarding the conditions for the convening of the dissolution congress, may seem like “technical” issues in one sense, but when their “implications” are taken into account, they show that the process is not as “unconditional” as it is said to be.
At the moment, public statements have only concerned securing Öcalan’s ability to preside over the congress, whether he’s referred to as“Mr. Öcalan” (for the DEM) or “Leader Apo” (for the PKK), the scope of the “negotiations” is likely to be much broader. This is also typical. After all, the cross-border-regional dangers that mobilize a chauvinist nationalist like Bahçeli for a “historical” peace with the Kurds, the questions of “survival” that may be caused by these dangers, the fact that the constitutional amendment necessary for Erdoğan’s lifelong presidency is only possible with the support of Kurdish political factions, at least under the current conditions, make the goal of building a “Home Front” (as described by the regime’s leading spokespersons) not so easy. On the surface, there is a “strategic” need for the regime. This is also the reason why the Kurdish political movement, which has been subjected to systematic repression by the state and the regime for a very long time, is trying to remain hopeful despite all its concerns about the process. Except for the sections of Turkish fascism that are currently disguised as opposition (Zafer Party, İyi Party, etc.) and sworn anti-Kurdish enemies among the “nationalists”, no one wants to be the ones to break the Kurds’ hopes. For all these years, the Kurds have suffered so many losses and endured so much pain with resilience, they have felt alone many times and have been abandoned to a large extent, and they have always been blamed.
But true friendship also requires frankness. First of all, let us state the following: There is no guarantee that this strategic move by the state (as it is said to be a project of the state) will lead to a lasting peace just because it is strategically convenient. Due to the highly “volatile” and “fault-line-ridden” nature of the region in which we are located, we cannot know what tactics, subtleties, reversals and other alliances that strategy will lead to! Moreover, there is also the Syria-Rojava problem. A few days ago, we learned once again from both official and unofficial sources how the Syrian Kurds’ efforts for national unity and their demands for self-rule within the territorial integrity of Syria, which have been under threat and fire for years, are mortal threats to “our national interests”! In this situation, it is necessary to think about what consequences a military operation against the Syrian Kurds could have on this side of the border if they do not submit to the reactionary HTS regime in power and insist on their demands. The “Kobane Incidents” of 2014 are an unforgettable example in this regard, with consequences that are felt to this day. We can add to this the bloody period in 2015 after the “Dolmabahçe Consensus” was torpedoed by the government for obvious reasons. Peace is one of the values that the Turkish state can give up most easily!
When it comes to the “democracy” dimension of the issue, the path that the PKK and the Kurdish political movement took nearly fifty years ago with “Marxism-Leninism” has today led to “anarcho-liberalism” or “radical democracy”. The fact that the “leadership” declares that the organization it founded has completed its “historical lifespan” and thus it no longer serves any purpose, that the PKK leadership accepts this immediately and without objection, and that all elements of the movement are in favor of a “democratic republic” in no way automatically makes the triumph of democracy or a “permanent” democracy possible in Turkiye (much less under conditions where it is clearly stated that the process is a state-led project “out of necessity”!)
Of course, one can fight for what one wants in the ways one wants; that is one’s own business, but whatever is being done, one must be realistic. In our opinion, the possibility of a “socialist republic” in Turkiye is much more realistic than the possibility of a “democratic republic” in the long run, even if it seems unbelievable to many today. This reality has been proven time and again in Turkiye with the most negative examples. Therefore, it is of great importance that hopes, expectations and alliances on such a vital issue are based on correct and solid social-class foundations. Finally, let’s talk about the oft-mentioned goal of a “Terror Free Turkiye”. Considering the real sources of terrorism in Turkiye, the arbitrariness and scope of the concepts of “terror” and “terrorism” and, most importantly, the fact that under the new regime they are used to define almost any kind of opposition, let us not forget that the goal of “Terror Free Turkiye” can also mean “Turkiye without Opposition”. Therefore, at the intersection of the recent developments in the region and the course of the regime, the attempt to bring the Kurds into line with a “state project” and a “home front” in which those who remain outside are defined as “traitors” all go hand in hand.
