“Denying the Kurdish question would set the country back 50 years”

Nergis Demirkaya / Newspaper wall

Turkey discussed possible scenarios for the resolution process of the Kurdish question last month.

Last week, Devlet Bahçeli, chairman of the government ally Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), who surprisingly shook hands with members of the pro-Kurdish People's Equality and Democracy (DEM) party during the session opening of Parliament, “upped the ante” 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 group meeting in Parliament. “If he shows this resolve and resolve, then may the path to the ‘right to hope’ be wide open,” he said.

The chairman of the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP), Özgür Özel, also joined the debate, saying: “I offer the Kurdish people a state – a Turkish state where all Kurds who do not feel not fully belonging can find true belonging as owners of the Republic of Turkey.

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan remained silent, while Bahçeli's Republic Day message declaring “There is no Kurdish question” drew criticism.

Özel answered questions from correspondents of several newspapers, television channels and news sites, including Gazete Duvar, on recent developments.

Bahçeli said in his Republic Day message: “There is no Kurdish question.” What do you think of Bahçeli's position, who seems to accept Öcalan's release on the condition of “putting an end to terrorism”?

Bahçeli made a similar statement in a previous speech, which I criticized. Neither letting Abdullah Öcalan speak, nor releasing him, nor making the constitutional changes desired by Erdoğan will solve the problem. This is not a personal question but a social question.

Apart from Bahçeli and his group, almost everyone recognizes the existence of a Kurdish question. There are perhaps one or two far-right parties that do not do this. Even before Bahçeli spoke, I declared that we want a Turkey where all Kurds feel equal, and for this we offer democracy, nothing else. If we want to follow this path, then, instead of waiting for our government, if others are willing, let us solve Turkey's democratic problems together in Parliament.

We must follow the method used around the world to resolve conflict processes and terrorism-related problems: transparency, mutual trust measures, accountability and, most importantly, achieving social consensus. I summarize it this way: we will not support any solution without looking the families of martyrs and veterans in the eyes.

The most essential element of social consensus lies in the conduct of this work in Parliament, with the participation of all political parties. We must involve all civil society organizations that political parties wish to include in the process.

Since the tenure of former President Turgut Özal in the 1980s, Turkey has made progress and made the right choice in recognizing the existence of the Kurdish question. To deny it now would set the issue back half a century. During periods of denial, terrorism emerged. If you say there is no Kurdish problem, then release Öcalan and watch another organization, whether the PKK or another group, surface. This is not a good approach. We need to solve the root of the problem. On a global scale, no conflict has been resolved without democracy, negotiation and social reconciliation.

In your opinion, what is the Kurdish question? When the CHP says, “There is a Kurdish problem,” what are you talking about?

Turkey needs a democratic constitution. Without touching the first four articles, many articles could be rewritten to be more democratic and inclusive. This might make the Kurds feel better, but constitutions are consensual texts and there is currently no environment in Türkiye conducive to constitutional amendment. If Mr. Erdoğan tries to bring us to a table aimed at making constitutional changes, we will not be there.

In democratic countries, it is the citizens facing the problem who decide whether the problem exists, while in autocratic countries, it is the autocrats or dictators who decide. Today, Bahçeli displays a dictatorial attitude. Many people in Türkiye say there is a Kurdish problem, but he says that is not the case. Saying this won't make the problem go away. Thus, what they call an openness is neither democratic nor inclusive; it is dictatorial and autocratic. If they call it a process, it is not democratic but authoritarian. We cannot accept the process in this form. Those who say the problem does not exist need to come out and talk to the 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 is missing? »… The inhabitants of other provinces elect their mayor, but the inhabitants of Diyarbakır (with a Kurdish majority) cannot. They elect, then the government appoints an administrator. How can I tell these Kurds that they are equal? The Constitution affirms equality, but the state does not act that way.

We need to discuss what Kurds express as reasons why they feel unequal. We should address the commonly cited grievances of the Kurds. They will express the problem, Parliament will express the solution and, at some point, we will reach an agreement.

The CHP has done a lot of work on this issue, preparing reports. Today, what do you promise to resolve the Kurdish question? Do you have a new initiative?

The most crucial social consensus document is the constitution. You cannot resolve the Kurdish question by writing and imposing a constitution like Erdoğan did. This is why we say: let Parliament meet or assign tasks, and let us all seek social consensus. Sitting at the table is not about discussing what is unacceptable. This is why, when this commission is created, everyone will have to propose solutions to the heart of the problem. First, Parliament should perhaps carry out an in-depth study on the Kurdish question. Does it exist, or not? It's a method.

Do you think there is an attempt to push society into a dead end, similar to the “yes but not enough” experience, with the debate on the new constitutional change?

We witnessed this during the last elections and constitutional change. There is a Parliament and a judicial power under supervision. Drafting a constitution requires a freer process. Some fear that this new constitution will be worse than the previous one. I told him: “If we have to write a constitution, we demand total respect for the current one, but we don't see it. »

Was the idea of ​​appointing municipal commissioners reconsidered after July 15? Have you considered changing the legislation?

I proposed it to Diyarbakır. We must take steps to restore confidence and get off to a good start. I suggested that the first task is to correct this article in Parliament with unanimous agreement.

How did you hear about Bahçeli's appeal 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 solutions to the Kurdish question to Parliament discard the knowledge accumulated by the CHP?

That wouldn't be the case. The CHP also said it would not present its own draft when drafting a constitution. If you seek social consensus, even if you are the founding party and received 38 percent of the vote in the last election, you cannot impose consensus on society. At such a critical stage, consensus will be reached through joint party proposals, not individual suggestions. If the CHP were only CHP voters, a different formula might apply. With the rise of the far right around the world, which threatens both democracy and the economy, social consensus is crucial for Turkey. What I propose will create as little turbulence as possible for the Turkish economy and politics.

Mr. Bahçeli's proposed solution does not bring any benefit to the process. In political science as in law, method takes precedence over substance. In my opinion, the method is Parliament. We have a lot to say on substance, and we have a lot of time to do so. But we must first agree on the method.

Why do you think Erdoğan remains silent?

There's a 90 percent chance he'll let Bahçeli say those things. If he had said it himself, there might have been objections from the MHP or the nationalist base. Instead, he made Bahçeli speak.

You have more closely associated the steps on the Kurdish question with domestic politics. But isn’t there also a foreign policy aspect? Are you not worried about the impact regional developments could have on Turkey?

Of course yes, but my biggest concern is whether Erdoğan continues to lead Turkey's foreign policy. His decisions are personal and not institutional. Erdoğan plays a major role in foreign policy, as he has done so far. But this time he advances by exhausting resources, not by winning. And there is a serious feeling of being cornered.

We are now in the first year of my presidency. If you asked if “Being president of the CHP is difficult?” one of our former leaders who served many years ago said the first ten years were difficult. In the fourth month of my presidency, we came first. I promised that we would also come first in the next election. »

(English version by Ayşenaz Toptaş)