The domination of a culture of conflict made a discussion of reforms impossible, and in such an environment, emphasis upon freedom or rights was perceived as treason. In this era, the small number of attempts to resolve problems and attain peace were mainly shaped by conservative and nationalist rulers and administrations simply because more liberal administrations were fairly impotent in dealing with the exploitation of recognition of further rights by nationalist opposition. However, in case of realization of reforms by nationalists, the chance for the success of the project was greater because no opponent remained.The idea suggesting that the promotion of the rights of minorities in Turkey by conservatives is more realistic has attracted a great number of supporters for years. As such, it was even argued that the Kurdish issue may be resolved by a political party relying on the promotion of Turkish identity. For this reason, it was assumed that there was a great chance for a probable and viable resolution at times when the far-right Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) was in power.
However, Turkey never attained any solution in those times; political administrations in such eras have contributed to the escalation of violence. For this reason, the dramatic change in the mindset of the world should be taken into account when one tries to understand the surprising move by the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) administration. It is not possible any longer to postpone or repress democratic demands relying on the pretext of external threats. Besides, we now see democracy as a new mental attitude that goes beyond the classical liberal framework. Therefore, we are in a process where nationalism is the reactionary ideology of the losers. This is the source of the strength for the political and psychological mobilization led by the AK Party for a final resolution of the Kurdish issue. The second factor contributing to this process is the fact that the military, one of the strongholds of nationalism, has been set aside from the political sphere owing to the undisputable evidences publicized in connection with the Ergenekon investigation. Now the AK Party enjoys a flexible sphere of action that no previous administration did.
This provides the AK Party, which is able to distance itself from nationalism to the extent that its Islamic sensitivities allows it to do so, with great opportunities because the Islamic movement has become less attached to Turkish identity due to its strong emphasis on Islamic identity. Maybe they do not feel less Turkish, but they hold that ethnic identity is not a core and that this has been created throughout history. For a substantial portion of Islamists, Turkish identity is a precondition for the liberalization of this nation; even so, obviously, it is not the only condition. For the religious people of Turkey, Turkish-ness is something that meets the needs of this era; for this reason, it is not possible for them to accept an ethnic approach that rejects the ability of religion to unite people.
This points to a great advantage for the AK Party government; but it also points to the limits of this party. As implied by the prime minister in his remarks, religious motives hold the ability to bring Turks and Kurds together and unite them. He is talking about sharing the same faith and worshipping the same God. This approach reflects the genuine and candid feelings of most AK Party supporters; it also has a tactical power and strength because the majority of Kurdish people are religious, and for most of them, Islam comes first.
It is not possible to ignore the limits of this pursuit of democratization, which relies on religious motives. Above all, there are many Kurds who are distant from religion and religious symbols, and it is simply impossible to carry out the struggle for further democratization by relying on religious themes alone. But there is a graver problem as well. The prime minister counts a number of ethnicities in his remarks where he stresses the importance of brotherhood. He includes in his list not only Kurds but also Circassians and Bosnians. However, this list does not include non-Muslims. Apparently, the natural reflex and reaction of the prime minister is inherently ready to limit brotherhood to Islamic identity.
The resolution of Turkey’s problems requires the adoption of a new approach. The ancient and chronic problems of Turkey point to one single fact: a citizenship shaped by a democratic mentality is strongly needed. It seems that the government has taken action to do this, but they should not expect to advance without dealing with their mentality first.
