The MHP and the Kurdish issue

Thus, the MHP is one of the important sides in Turkey's “Kurdish issue” (or as the MHP puts it, 'terrorism issue'). If the MHP does not accept the proposed solution for this issue, then a permanent solution cannot be achieved. The reason I stress the role of the MHP is not to remind it of its power but of its responsibility. As a matter of fact, the MHP's decisive power is ready for action, not as a constructive but a destructive factor. If this issue can be settled through political means, not via the use of weapons, the role of political players will be decisive. Recent developments imply that the Turkish military (or the state) -- as a political player -- and the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) on one side and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) on the other are close to a “political solution.” All of these players must be part of the process, but this is not sufficient. For instance, the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) carries no weight in this process. This is because the MHP's approach to the Kurdish issue is largely represented by the military. As the parties are making progress toward a settlement, the MHP has the potential to throw its weight about and disrupt everything. For this reason, the MHP is considerably important as a side in the settlement.

The MHP's position with respect to recently taken steps toward settlement, too, is important. How does the MHP view the Kurdish issue and the recent developments?

MHP's Kurdish perspective

MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli dedicated the majority of the speech he delivered during this week's meeting of his party's parliamentary group to recent developments on the Kurdish issue. For some time, the MHP leader has only given his political messages in these meetings. He carefully reads aloud the text prepared for the meeting and takes pains not to deviate from the speech, the text of which is prepared by the party's senior officials.

 Overall, the language Bahçeli uses concerning the Kurdish issue is moderate and careful. Yes, but will such language suffice for the settlement of this issue?

There are serious problems in the terminology the MHP has developed concerning the Kurdish question. There are clichés repeated out of habit without much consideration of their meaning. One of these clichés is the "politicization of the PKK," which the MHP advertises as a great danger. What does the politicization of the PKK mean? Let us take it at face value. If a terrorist organization decides to lay down arms and be politicized, i.e., pursue political means to achieve its ends, should we take this as a good or bad development? Another cliché: "political separatism." If there is really such a concept, then there must be a non-political version of it. How can we describe Bahçeli's words, "politicized separatism's efforts to socialize its acts," in a way understandable to everyone?

The Kurdish issue is so serious that it cannot be allowed to remain as an area for polemics among parties. For this reason, in analyzing the latest developments in a constructive light, the MHP leader accusing the government of being in "ignorance, indecision and hopelessness" makes no contribution to solution. Lastly, he first expressed condolences for 10 soldiers killed in a PKK attack last Monday but then complained about the government's "record of concessions," which is a provocative style. If Bahçeli was not talking rhetorically when he said, "It is high time that we end the struggle against the separatist terrorism that has been going on for about 25 years," then he should announce the solution he has found. Indeed, the two options, i.e., "either full destruction of the terrorist organization, or the transferral of its surrendered and disarmed members to our justice system," are no different from what the military has been suggesting for the last 25 years. What additional suggestions does the MHP have about the terrorism? Does the MHP's insistence on describing the political leaders in northern Iraq as "clan chiefs," a phrase the military has long stopped using, make any contribution to the search for a solution?

Solution proposed by the MHP

Does the MHP have a proposed solution for the Kurdish issue? Or more correctly, does the MHP have a Kurdish policy? In his speech Bahçeli offers us two options: "to destroy the terrorist organization, or to transfer it to justice." Taking these two options seriously means turning a blind eye to the past 25 years. Bahçeli's words reek of populism. Nevertheless, we should not do injustice to the MHP. The MHP is not creating political opportunities out of this issue nor is it provoking the Turkish side or inciting society against the Kurds.

However, the last local elections have shown that there is a close correlation between the electoral support of the MHP and the Kurdish question. The MHP was unable to increase its votes in Central Anatolia, dominated by a core Turkish population. But its votes surged in western provinces receiving a significant inflow of Kurdish migrants. These provinces are reactionary against Kurds, mostly for economic reasons.

There are contradictions between the MHP's political mission and its party interests. Turkey has entered a new era in the settlement of the Kurdish issue. Around 40,000 people have lost their lives. The Turkish flags seen on tombstones in Anatolian village cemeteries represent the soldiers and police officers who died among this 40,000. These flags are symbols of a hatred that will be hard to forget. The same applies to the Kurdish side. But trying to wash out blood with blood will do no good for this country and its inhabitants. It is nonsensical to argue that another 40,000 may die just because in the past 40,000 people have died. From an ideological standpoint, MHP members tend to regard themselves as the true owners of the state. But states do not pursue blood feuds. Until now, the MHP has not based its politics on the exploitation of the Kurdish issue; yet, it has not made any contribution to its settlement. Now, it must take one step forward and make this contribution by dispensing with its image as a party that does not want this issue to be solved.

Other parties to the settlement

The Milliyet newspaper has been publishing the observations of Hasan Cemal, the doyen of the Turkish press, made during his visit to the PKK's headquarters in the Kandil Mountains. Cemal tells us that the PKK and its executives are edging toward a solution. Murat Karayılan underlines that they are not "separatist" and they do not seek an independent state. "We just want Kurds to enjoy their own culture freely," he adds.

The PKK still has the capability to conduct attacks. There is a cease-fire in place that is supposed to continue until early June or for some time later. For this reason, Karayılan's words must be evaluated in light of recent developments. The winding up of the PKK has been decided with the US pullout from Iraq. The PKK is trying to manage this process.

The military has realized that the issue cannot be settled through military means and sees the US pullout as an opportunity. The government cannot take assertive steps but continues to reinforce its overall policy in the region. It is ready to undertake the settlement process if it sees it as a manageable burden.

At this point the MHP stands as a real barrier to a solution. The MHP is the only force that can persuade Turks to calm down in the face of a solution. For this reason, any solution that the MHP does not accept, though unwillingly, cannot be implemented.

Senior MHP executives have not been able to develop a comprehensive discourse on the Kurdish issue; however, if they can be convinced that the solution is accepted by the state, then they can quickly develop a profound and constructive language.

Until now the MHP has not made any contribution to the settlement of the Kurdish issue. But it has also refrained from any move that would complicate the issue.