Role of civil society in addressing PKK issue in Turkiye

By Turgay Yerlikaya

Since the early years of the Republic, the perception of the Kurdish issue, which progressed through a kind of reform projection and was concretely observed in ?smet Pa?a's report, has shown significant changes over time. The report written by Celal Bayar in a relatively liberal tone and the political emphasis on Kurds through T?P in the 1970s did not transform into a meaningful strategy. The issues, which entered a different phase with the 1980 coup and became more complex with the presence of the PKK, came back to the agenda with Özal's government and the SHP report at the end of the 1980s.

Özal's approach to the issue prioritized democratic principles instead of reflecting the state's rigid reflexes and emphasized the role of civil society in solving the problem. Although significant steps were taken during Özal's period to address this issue, which became a subject of civil society, absolute success was not achieved. Until the 2000s, the economic and political motivations of the issue, which were approached with a partially security-oriented perspective, were addressed with a liberal approach during the early periods of the AK Party government, facilitating today's process.

It is clear that the steps taken in various fields until 2013 played an important role in forming the basis of the solution process. The work of the commission established within the parliament at that time, as well as the involvement of NGOs, academia, and policymakers who could contribute to the process, produced significant outcomes. Through field research and interviews, perspectives on the definition and solution of the issue were brought to the agenda, and efforts were made to reach a solution with the support of broad masses.

One of the important discussions supported by empirical data in this process was the examination of international examples and comparisons. Although they occurred in different contexts, the processes of fighting terrorist organizations and their self-dissolution, which came to the agenda through similar motivations, were instructive for Turkiye, and lessons were drawn to avoid the same mistakes.

International Examples and the PKK's Stance

International examples in this regard facilitate comparative analyses of the process of dismantling terrorist organizations. Experiences from countries like the UK and Spain serve as examples for the attitudes of the actors involved in the process. As seen in these examples, the attitudes of actors who engage in politics under the tutelage of the organization are also quite decisive in shaping the process.

In the Turkish example, the stance of the DEM delegation, which is a stakeholder in the process, will be influential. If some actors within the organization resist laying down their arms following a possible call from Öcalan, the support of DEM politicians for Öcalan's call will eliminate the reason for the terrorist organization's existence. The IRA example should be remembered in this context. Recall that the British government made an agreement with the IRA in 1998, and despite this agreement, the organization resisted disarming for a long time, trying to sabotage the process. At this point, Sinn Féin, the political wing of the IRA, insisted on the organization's dissolution, and the organization, which lost its social and political legitimacy, had to disarm. Although the political structures' influence over the organization differs in the IRA and PKK examples, it points to an instructive process for a solution.

The ETA example also ended with a similar process of dissolution. The Spanish government's insistence on resolving the issue on a democratic basis in the 1980s was effective in the positive outcome of the process. ETA's resistance to the trend of democratization and its refusal to dissolve eliminated its social legitimacy, and eventually, ETA was dissolved. Turkiye's historical experiences, especially the 2013-2015 process, undoubtedly show how this path should be walked. Considering both these examples and Turkiye's concrete experiences, it is seen that the organization has no second option and that its dissolution is a necessity. Referring the process to commissions, the organization's resistance, or the sabotaging behaviors of actors who engage in politics on behalf of the organization will mean missing the historical opportunity ahead. Therefore, the experience between 2013 and 2015 shows that it is not rational to spread the solution to the issue over the long term and that the PKK's disarmament is mandatory as a unilateral call made to the organization in a very short time.

In light of all these indicators and experiences, October 22 marks a milestone that lays the groundwork for a new process in Turkish politics. The initial anxiety felt by the masses after the first day of the call gradually turned into excitement, and the idea that an absolute solution to the terrorism issue concerning Turkiye's future is possible has been embraced. It is hoped that this historical opportunity will be seized and that the dream of a Turkiye without terrorism will be realized in the Turkish century.