The reason for this is that for the first time a state minister has said the public is way ahead of the state in solving the issue, thereby referring to democracy and to the knowledge and prudence of civil society.This approach seems exceedingly radical for those who still do not understand what the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) is all about. Those anticipating that the ruling power would take a step back were probably not expecting civil society to be referenced. When you start looking for a point of reference in society, it means you truly want to solve the Kurdish issue. We should bear in mind that the side clashing against the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) is the “state” and that this systematic polity was never debated in the public. Indeed, the “state” knew that the only way it could legitimize conflict politics was through psychological techniques and therefore used soldiers' funeral ceremonies as a mechanism to replenish confidence. In other words, if there is a desire to really solve the Kurdish issue, then it must be freed from state hegemony and be opened to public debate. Otherwise, the ruling power will remain a ruling power that is being pulled back to the red lines and will eventually be confined to the scope of official state policy.
A social debate could introduce incredible solutions that were previously unthinkable or regarded unlikely. On the other hand, social debates inherently have two risks. The first is the government's unwillingness to support the suggested solution paths or for the government to be left standing alone on this path. But it is clear that the AK Party is ready to take on this risk, and it is actually this courage that takes everyone by surprise. The second risk is that a social debate may trigger a clash and result in deadlock. It is obvious the AK Party is ready to take on this risk as well because it reckons this is a very low possibility.
In brief, the real question is why would a party that seems unrivaled for the time being and that appears to be successfully managing the economic crisis take steps that will jeopardize its power to solve the Kurdish issue in spite of the opposition's harsh assault? Would anyone have said anything to the AK Party if a solution to the centuries-old problem was delayed for another five or 10 years? Wouldn't it have been more reasonable to wait for the issue to naturally dissolve and for the PKK to become meaningless on its own, especially considering that under current conditions, the global situation is very conducive for this.
If the AK Party shared the same mentality as the “state,” it would have certainly selected the path mentioned above. But the AK Party does not think like the state, and the reason for this is its Islamic sensitivity, which is actually the exact point that boggles the mind of the secular segment. Secularists reckon that being sensitive to Islamic values means a state dependant on Shariah. However, this sensitivity is predicated on a vision of a society that places the religious identity at the center; however, the state of this society is not ruled by Shariah. The term “secularism” may sound odd, but the AK Party's social vision is a country managed by democracy because in order for religious identity to be at the center of society, democracy is a precondition. Perhaps the AK Party isn't afraid of the potential risks of publicly debating the Kurdish issue because it is very self-confident.
It is right about this because an important portion of its base is more sensitive to democratic issues than the party. On the other hand, initiatives that pose a risk for other parties are not as risky for the AK Party. The reason for this is that, unlike other parties, the AK Party represents a new type of politics in terms of it bearing the marks of Anatolian culture and Ottoman heritage. For it, the red lines of the republic are not taboo because it has a much broader perspective from which it can act.
It is for this reason that it has more trust in the public and finds its legitimacy in the people. If we look at the issue from a different perspective, we can also say that change is so rapid in segments that are sensitive to Islamic values that if the AK Party isn't reformist enough, it may become meaningless for its own base. When you go to rapidly developing cities in Anatolia, you will hear people coming to the same conclusions. All these factors, combined with the appropriate domestic and foreign conditions, are presenting a special opportunity to the ruling power.
The AK Party intends to seize this opportunity and is very sincere about this issue. But I think the really interesting issue is that if it was not to take the Islamic identity as a reference, it would not be pursuing this initiative. In order for Turkey to become a democracy, it had to democratize the religious identity and make an impression on politics. And step by step that is what it is doing.
