During this time, the government has changed the name of the initiative a number of times, and then it considerably minimized its targets, which were initially set at a high level. The most critical issue for Turkey is the Kurdish issue. This bitter truth has imposed itself on us.
For some, the Kurdish issue is the result of the “clan structure” in the region. As Turkey progresses further in its efforts at modernization, this obstacle will be eliminated. As urbanization, commercialization, education, welfare and integration with the West improve, this issue will be solved as the clan structure and the web of traditional social and cultural relations disappear in this process. What enslaves the Kurdish people are the clan leaders, “feudal chiefs,” “the sheiks who lull them with false promises,” in sum, rigid traditional structures. This progressive and pro-enlightenment perspective fails to acknowledge that the “identity issue” and the related separatist demands may also be seen in welfare societies. The cases in Italy, Belgium, Spain, France and Canada can amply show that such a thesis is very flawed. Sometimes, the rich and “developed” segments of society want to secede from the poor or underdeveloped. What can be said about it is that the identity issue is the basic problem not of traditional societies but of modernity and modern societies.
According to another perspective, the issue is a purely “economic” one. Compared to other regions, the regions where Kurds live are characterized by poverty. Lack of sufficient production, the region's low share in national income, higher birthrates, unemployment, falling employment rates and several other factors have rendered the region economically weak. Actually, everyone is only seeking their subsistence. A person who is not hungry and who can earn money will not become a terrorist. Thus, sending aid in kind such as coal or foodstuffs and money to the region will solve the problem. One can suggest that this “solution” is considerably favored by the current government. While it is obvious that the “economic” factor plays a great part in the problem, the foregoing examples are sufficient to show that this is not a full-fledged explanation as to the case of the problem. Even a profound examination will reveal that this perspective is a bit “humiliating.”
There are some who think that the Kurdish issue has emerged because of a weakening in the religious sentiments and that “Islamic fraternity” can solve this problem. This is particularly how conservatives and rightists view the issue. It is no doubt that “religion” is a decisive factor for solving the problem, but tackling it in an abstract framework may mislead us. Indeed, a conceptualization of fraternity, which is not well defined with legal norms of rights and which generally is advantageous only to one side, will not work. If the legitimate demands of every group are fulfilled, then “Islamic fraternity” may provide a sound common denominator.
Finally, there are those who claim that the issue is basically an “ethnic” one and that problems arise as Kurds face obstacles in their identity-related demands. Although the main body of the Kurdish people tends to view themselves less as an ethnic group and more as a “Muslim nation/people,” the secularized Kurdish intellectuals and politicians argue that the issue is essentially an ethnic problem and therefore, voice their demands with an ethnic orientation.
In this setting, why has the government failed to act resolutely for settling the issue radically and permanently? Because the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) has not expressed any conviction or idea that apart from the foregoing perspectives, the issue can be settled by utilizing Islamic references and the historical experiences of Muslims. If Turks and Kurds as well as other ethnic groups lived together peacefully and without any ethnicity based on fights or wars, then this must have a meaning that sheds light on the entrenched crises we experience today. Fearing that it may be labeled as “pro-Islamic,” the government has refrained from uttering the words “Islam” or “Islamic history” during the “initiative process,” as if there were no such historical experience. Moreover, they have carefully avoided consulting intellectuals who tend to treat the issue from this perspective.
