Solve or just discuss? Turkey’s “Kurdish question”

0

Kemal KılıçdaroÄŸlu, the main opposition chairman of the Republican People’s Party (CHP), has launched a new debate on the “Kurdish question” after his remarks on the People’s Democratic Party (HDP). This decision was obviously aimed at gaining the support of the HDP before the 2023 elections. This party, which faces a closure file, had asked the CHP and the Good Party (IP) to put an end to its marginalization. These “warnings” have taken the form of reminding everyone that “we have helped you win the local elections” and thinly veiled threats such as “we stand an equal distance from the two alliances”.

The main opposition leader’s decision came before the HDP could release its position paper. Saying that he sees the HDP as a “legitimate counterpart” to resolving the “Kurdish question”, KılıçdaroÄŸlu has demarcated a major rhetorical area for the 2023 campaign. The CHP president may think he succeeded in setting the agenda political (for now) by making a statement HDP voters might find appealing. Indeed, he can assume that he positioned the debate safely by saying that he did not view Abdullah Öcalan, the jailed PKK leader, or the PKK military leadership, as a counterpart – despite HDP objections.

However, KılıçdaroÄŸlu cannot be expected to control the debate on the “Kurdish question” that he has launched. This task has nothing to do with holding frequent bilateral meetings with the leaders of opposition parties. Going forward, Turkey will discuss at length whether there is a Kurdish issue – and, if so, what are its dimensions, who should participate in the talks, and how each of the many aspects could be addressed.

For the record, the conversation may not even end there. As the HDP leadership clearly identifies its demands, there will be questions about Turkish identity, citizenship, native languages ​​and Unitarianism / autonomy. The CHP and PI will only be affected by these discussions.

Legitimate counterpart?

Let us not overlook the HDP’s swift response to KılıçdaroÄŸlu’s comments that there were other counterparts, including Öcalan. The party leaders may have referred to “other actors” (instead of naming Öcalan and the PKK military leadership) so as not to end the conversation before it even started. However, the critical question remains: at what level could the recognition of the HDP as a “legitimate counterpart” answer the “Kurdish question”?

History teaches us that the PKK regards the HDP as a dependent organization and therefore does not listen to the leaders of the HDP. There is also no reason to expect the PKK to end its presence in Iraq and Syria at the behest of the HDP. Other than that, HDP leaders could not utter such words. Indeed, no one in their right mind would take seriously anything the HDP leaders have to say about the PKK’s terrorist acts inside Turkey’s borders.

In my opinion, the last decision of the CHP president could perhaps contribute to the empowerment of the HDP, but it will not yield any other result. Ultimately, it’s no secret that the PKK, too, will breathe a sigh of relief. So the question is: do the voters of the CHP and the IP agree with the outcome of the box that KılıçdaroÄŸlu has just opened – in particular, the radical demands of the HDP? Will they support “education in two mother tongues” and “autonomy”? How will they respond to the assertion that “the Kurds are a founding element” which opens the debate on Turkish identity? This is the box that the main leader of the opposition has just opened. He has entered rhetorical territory, where the slightest debate could hurt him.

“No such problem”

Asked by journalists about this debate, President Recep Tayyip ErdoÄŸan gave a clear answer: “There is no such problem in Turkey. We have already addressed, overcome and ended this matter. These words should be read in conjunction with his July 9 speech in the southeastern province of Diyarbakır, where predominantly Kurdish lives. There, the president declared that he had not changed his position since 2005. In other words, he redoubled his efforts to face the mistakes of the past and solve the problems of the Kurdish community by “more than democracy, more citizenship, more law and more well-being ”. Closing the door to the maximalist demands of the Kurdish nationalists, ErdoÄŸan stressed that it was “the other side” that had ended the peace process, not himself, and accused the HDP of harming the Kurds.

As I have written in the past, ErdoÄŸan believes he has kept his promise by implementing the most comprehensive reforms in the history of the republic regarding the rights of citizens of all origins.

Ultimately, the CHP and the PI can face two problems at the same time. Not talking about autonomy or teaching in the mother tongue would wedge them between ErdoÄŸan’s speech in Diyarbakır and the demands of the HDP. Discussing the issues related to the reconciliation process would put the CHP and IP, and not the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party), in a difficult position.

Share.

Leave A Reply