Both Mr. Gül and the government, led by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, are sending signals that we are on the eve of an initiative that would facilitate settlement. However, the negative attitude, discriminatory style of politics and animosity-breeding rhetoric adopted by some political players when we are so unexpectedly close to settlement of the Kurdish issue are creating serious concerns about the smooth progress of this process.Let us start our evaluation with the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party), which has emerged as the driving force of the process. As it is the only party that has the courage and will to deal with problems that have long been considered taboo and complicated issues that have become gangrenous, the only thing that we can do is applaud the AK Party. In the final analysis, as it has in many cases, the AK Party has been a pioneer as regards the settlement of the Kurdish issue. Yet, this does not automatically imply that the AK Party is doing everything correctly and properly. In the first place, during the process of resolution of an issue that concerns so many people in this country and dates back to a time when the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) did not exist -- the resolution of which would boost the country's performance in many areas and the lack of settlement of which would bring another 30 years of shadowy uncertainty -- the AK Party should show that it is ready to accept all sorts of contributions, provided that these do not entail a diversion of the process. We cannot say this has been at the desired level until now.
Those who visit the Southeast know it. The local people complain most about the indifference of the Kurdish deputies of the AK Party toward the Kurdish issue and the problems in the region. They say this leaves them with only one option: the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP), which is regarded as the only party that acts as an advocate of the Kurds, though sometimes in faulty style. And their perceptions are not without merit. The 20 deputies of the DTP are incomparably more active than the 70 Kurdish deputies of the AK Party. Some recent developments have shown that the AK Party's fainthearted behavior is attributable less to the Kurdish deputies of the AK Party and more to the dominant personality and repressive character of Mr. Erdoğan.
Frankly, it is unacceptable to restrict the freedom of speech of the Kurdish deputies of the AK Party when DTP deputies can speak their minds freely on every occasion. In this regard, even if this is intended to create homogeneous discourse across the party during this critical process, Mr. Erdoğan's remark that some statements may cause trouble for those who utter them is unacceptable. In this process, everyone, and the Kurdish deputies of the AK Party in particular, must be part of the process with their ideas and approaches, providing their well-intentioned contributions for settlement of the issue.
On the other hand, the attitude adopted by the nationalist opposition party, the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), is hair-raising. The discourse MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli has been using with never-before-seen harshness at the frequent rallies he holds should never be regarded as a civilized style or political language of peace. The cheap political pragmatism blended with strict chauvinism may bring about a small and transient increase in popular support for Mr. Bahçeli's party, but these manners will never make any contribution to peace or stability in the country or to the welfare of the nation. The MHP, as represented by Mr. Bahçeli's discourse, is seen as being afraid of becoming part of the settlement, thereby opting to become part of the ongoing problem.
At this point, having in a great upset secured half of the vote in the region during the most recent local elections, the DTP, too, should make up its mind. Does the DTP see itself as a party that feeds on the problem and therefore as a party that is part of the problem, and wants to remain so, or does it intend to be part of the settlement of this complicated, gangrenous problem? In this regard, the DTP should make its final decision without any trace of doubt. The DTP, too, should realize that pursuing extremely pragmatic or opportunistic policies at this time will not do any good to the settlement of the Kurdish issue or to the democratization of the country. Many of our Kurdish citizens regard the DTP as their representative. However, many of its supporters consist of Kurds who vote for the DTP out of a lack of any alternative, and they do this despite their dislike for the PKK. Nevertheless, the DTP opts to turn a deaf ear to the demands of its voter base, acting instead as the mouthpiece of the PKK. It forgets that its mandate comes from the voters and tries to represent the militants.
There is more. Even though it may be acceptable for the DTP to represent part of the PKK's demands, it is unacceptable for the DTP, which we regard as a legitimate political party due to our respect for the electoral support it derives from a segment of society, to fail to represent its voters. Yet, during the process of resolution, it is working hard not to act as an interlocutor. Instead, it suggests that the PKK and its leader, Abdullah Öcalan, should be regarded as the legitimate addressees. Instead of representing, albeit illegitimately, the interests of the PKK and Öcalan in addition to the demands of its voters, the DTP insists that its own will be represented by the PKK and Öcalan. Of course, this is never a reasonable or acceptable attitude with respect to legitimate democratic politics.
Yet all groups in Turkey are going through a test of sincerity. For this reason, Turks and Kurds who sincerely seek the settlement of the Kurdish issue must lend their support to the process. They should no longer allow the DTP or the PKK or the MHP to lay waste to this process for transient political interests. Neither the PKK's efforts to give the impression that this process is the outcome of their work -- the so-called roadmap for a solution which Öcalan is preparing to announce on Aug. 15, the 25th anniversary of the first terrorist attack by the PKK, is one such effort -- nor the racist Kemalist militarist discourse should be allowed to undermine this process.
The domestic political atmosphere created by the Ergenekon investigation and the favorable international conjuncture offer a historic golden opportunity to Turkey for the settlement of the Kurdish issue. In this critical process, political players will be recorded in history for their positive contributions or as infamous inciters of enmity. These are the only available options both for the DTP and the MHP and for other players that may make positive or negative contributions. The choice is theirs.
