Constitutions are time-bound codifications that reflect the exigencies and conditions of particular times and the state of being of a society at that period in history. So, they change in time; partly or wholly. To state that a code cannot be changed or their alteration even considered means putting time, reason, social reality and human volition on hold. Is this possible? Maybe only ideologically and by force. There are individuals and institutions who are determined to resist a constitutional amendment that will render this country's administration more democratic and in harmony with the rule of law. Not only do they deify the existing system, but they also want to cling on to their privileged places in it. Both are harmful to the national unity they value so much and to the peace and order they vie for.
Opposition party leaders are in the same category as the chief of general staff that resists a constitutional change whereby the definition of citizenship will no longer rest on ethnicity and the nation will not be conceived as a uniform entity with no cultural, denominational and ideological differences managed centrally by an authoritarian bureaucracy. Indeed, this corporatist structure is presented as the “unitary state,” which has been the cause of unceasing conflict between the favored citizens, namely Turks, and the rest and political instability caused by a couth state trying to make things happen mainly by use of force.
Does this mean that political violence and authoritarianism will go on and the liberalization of politics and law will be postponed to another time? Can Turkey afford the time lost and still remain intact? Will the establishment find a supportive public to send their sons to an unnamed war within the country and bear the consequences of pauperization due to exorbitant spending on an unending strife, the purpose of which cannot be explained rationally except by the terrorism of traitors?
Everyone knows that terrorism is a symptom of discontent, the existence of a major social problem and the lack of other effective means to make dissatisfaction publicly known by an underprivileged group. So far, the real causes behind the terrorism have not been properly analyzed and shared with the people. Instead, the problem has been reduced to an armed struggle between the Turkish army and the Kurdish irregulars. In a very hypocritical way, people found it expedient to conceive of the problem as a local conflict between the unruly Kurdish elements (bandits) and the army. The Turkish media has played a valuable (sic!) role in this artificial conceptualization that has helped people clear their conscience by avoiding the responsibility of stopping the political violence and taking part in the solution process.
In the void of public wisdom and participation that could shape the situation and pave the way to an understanding and a resolution process, the truncated political scene was filled by the armed forces of both sides. Of course, this was an asymmetrical relationship, but each side's armed force monopolized power and trivialized civilian actors on their respective side. When actors in a social conflict are armed, the language of the discourse becomes violence, as it has been, and resolution follows the defeat or submission of one side. So far, although the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) has not been defeated completely, it is under great strain due to the concerted pressure of the Turkish army, the American military apparatus in Iraq and global circumstances that have led Turkey to become an energy hub, which requires it to be stable and reliable as a safe business environment.
Given these facts, it is obvious that the solution to Turkey's Kurdish problem is squeezed in between two armed forces that dictate the terms of engagement and disengagement. A solution is only possible when the matter is salvaged from the monopoly of these two militant actors which can never be reconciled. Each side wants victory and that victory to be its alone. So they raise the stakes by demanding unreasonable outcomes. In fact, no one should either triumph or lose in this debacle, which has taken so much away from Turkey.
We need civilian actors, a civilized language and manners that will allow an inclusive and reconciliatory discourse. Military or militant actors are not equipped with such capacities. Furthermore, there are political parties that have adopted a militant stance, which makes it even harder to attain social peace. In short, a difficult matter is made even more complicated because of the nature and attitude of political actors who have aggravated it in the first place.
