It appears that the Kurdish initiative will not receive any backing from the main opposition parties. The latest debate in Parliament last Friday showed once more how some politicians approach the initiative as an opportunity to fan the heat of Turkish nationalism instead of contributing to the solution of a long-standing problem of the country.
This is a pity, but also reality. What is left in Parliament are the governing party and the Democratic Society Party (DTP). It is certain now that these two political parties alone will work together to find a solution to the Kurdish question.
Anyway, it is not realistic to expect anything positive from the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), whose leader, speaking in Parliament, declared democracy a threat to the existence of the Turkish state. So with the ultranationalists, who do not accept even democracy as a decent ground to address a question, what can be expected?
For that matter, the main opposition party is no different. Deniz Baykal equates any solution of the Kurdish question to a concession made to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). Again, it was the deputy leader of this party who applauded the Dersim massacre of 1938 in his speech in Parliament. With the Kemalists, who are still suggesting Dersim-model massacres to “resolve” the Kurdish question, what kind of cooperation can be established? They would always argue for what they know and do best: oppression.
Thus the responsibility falls on the ruling party and the DTP (and or for that matter the PKK) and on all the progressive forces of the country in and outside Parliament.
The solution cannot be sudden, it will take time and progress as the public’s confidence and support are continuously being built.
The government seems committed. Democratic reforms, some of which were outlined by Interior Minister Besir Atalay, will be introduced by the government, which has a parliamentary majority and executive power. On these, no help is needed except a positive public opinion.
Yet this is only one aspect of the question and the solution. The second part involves disarming the PKK. Unless some positive developments emerge on this side, it may be hard to keep up the momentum for democratic reforms for long, given the need for at least some degree of public support, which will only come through if the PKK seems to be disarming.
This must materialize. The PKK, whether willingly or unwillingly, in contact with Turkish government agencies or not, should contribute to this process if it claims to be a party in the Kurdish question.
The first thing the PKK should do is denounce violence and declare its intention to engage in nonviolent political struggle. Second, it should surrender its arms, for example to the UN authorities in Iraq or the Iraqi Kurdish administration, in a gesture of goodwill. Such surprising gestures of goodwill would certainly help democratic reforms pursued aggressively in Turkey and win over the support of the overwhelming majority of people in Turkey.
The question, of course, will emerge: why should the PKK act like this? My answer is very simple: If the PKK rejects claims of being an organization of self-interest-seeking people and feels responsible for the well-being of the Kurds in Turkey, it should not torpedo the process but be constructive.
In short, while on the one hand the government should be pushed for bold democratization initiatives, on the other hand, the PKK must be continuously pressured to lay down its weapons. These two must be synchronized in order to carry on with the process successfully.
The friends of the Kurds and the Turks, and those who think that the region and the world would be a better place without the Kurdish question, cannot refrain from contributing to the new Kurdish initiative. Otherwise, neither the democratic rights of the Kurds nor peace in Turkey and its region will be forthcoming. This is a scenario in which the mindset and policies of 1925 and 1938 will prevail, destabilizing the entire region.
16 November 2009, Monday
This is a pity, but also reality. What is left in Parliament are the governing party and the Democratic Society Party (DTP). It is certain now that these two political parties alone will work together to find a solution to the Kurdish question.
Anyway, it is not realistic to expect anything positive from the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), whose leader, speaking in Parliament, declared democracy a threat to the existence of the Turkish state. So with the ultranationalists, who do not accept even democracy as a decent ground to address a question, what can be expected?
For that matter, the main opposition party is no different. Deniz Baykal equates any solution of the Kurdish question to a concession made to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). Again, it was the deputy leader of this party who applauded the Dersim massacre of 1938 in his speech in Parliament. With the Kemalists, who are still suggesting Dersim-model massacres to “resolve” the Kurdish question, what kind of cooperation can be established? They would always argue for what they know and do best: oppression.
Thus the responsibility falls on the ruling party and the DTP (and or for that matter the PKK) and on all the progressive forces of the country in and outside Parliament.
The solution cannot be sudden, it will take time and progress as the public’s confidence and support are continuously being built.
The government seems committed. Democratic reforms, some of which were outlined by Interior Minister Besir Atalay, will be introduced by the government, which has a parliamentary majority and executive power. On these, no help is needed except a positive public opinion.
Yet this is only one aspect of the question and the solution. The second part involves disarming the PKK. Unless some positive developments emerge on this side, it may be hard to keep up the momentum for democratic reforms for long, given the need for at least some degree of public support, which will only come through if the PKK seems to be disarming.
This must materialize. The PKK, whether willingly or unwillingly, in contact with Turkish government agencies or not, should contribute to this process if it claims to be a party in the Kurdish question.
The first thing the PKK should do is denounce violence and declare its intention to engage in nonviolent political struggle. Second, it should surrender its arms, for example to the UN authorities in Iraq or the Iraqi Kurdish administration, in a gesture of goodwill. Such surprising gestures of goodwill would certainly help democratic reforms pursued aggressively in Turkey and win over the support of the overwhelming majority of people in Turkey.
The question, of course, will emerge: why should the PKK act like this? My answer is very simple: If the PKK rejects claims of being an organization of self-interest-seeking people and feels responsible for the well-being of the Kurds in Turkey, it should not torpedo the process but be constructive.
In short, while on the one hand the government should be pushed for bold democratization initiatives, on the other hand, the PKK must be continuously pressured to lay down its weapons. These two must be synchronized in order to carry on with the process successfully.
The friends of the Kurds and the Turks, and those who think that the region and the world would be a better place without the Kurdish question, cannot refrain from contributing to the new Kurdish initiative. Otherwise, neither the democratic rights of the Kurds nor peace in Turkey and its region will be forthcoming. This is a scenario in which the mindset and policies of 1925 and 1938 will prevail, destabilizing the entire region.
16 November 2009, Monday
