“Amnesty” is a general pardon. But the official definition of amnesty in Turkey is “forgiveness.” It is more personal and one dimensional. It is more like remitting a penalty that is deserved. The generous state forgives the criminals it has prosecuted before. The irony of the matter is that the state forgives crimes against other citizens but not against itself. Thus the state protects itself from offenses committed against its existence but is not as sensitive concerning its citizens. In other words, the state sees no harm in pardoning the murderers, rapists, arsonists and thieves that have harmed other citizens but stands firm and tall against crimes that are very arbitrarily defined.I have always found the one-sided pardon of my thief, murderer and rapist very unsavory by an authority without my consent, although I have never been the victim of those crimes. I always thought that no authority had the right to do so without the consent of the victims. Furthermore, it has been substantiated that more than half of those pardoned criminals return to prison in a matter of two years. So amnesty has not worked as a mechanism for social peace or as a second chance for good conduct for those who readily pretended that they had repented. Rather, amnesty was used as a political tool without any rehabilitation purposes.
This brings us to the concept or phenomenon of repentance. In our official mentality, forgiveness is associated with repentance. If the wrongdoer repents, then she or he deserves a pardon. Repentance is a form of submission rather than a chance to cleanse the soul from sin or criminal intent. This is very much in tune with how we deal with terrorism. The terrorist must repent, and the almighty state may pardon. But simple repentance is not enough; it has to be “active repentance.” This must be the genuine brain child of official Turkey to be found no where else. Through active repentance, the repentant person must give away all the details of the organization she or he belongs to and reveal her or his past history as well as of the organization. If the terrorist does not do this, she or he does not deserve a pardon. It is ironic that no one admits the fact that if these people were to repent and disown their cause, they would not have gone to the mountains to risk their lives in the first place.
Needless to say this logic does not serve well the intention of building peace through reconciliation that can only be achieved by drawing a line between the past and the future to be lived together. Reconciliation can be reached between parties that are legally equal or politically equalized. In the case of the peace effort carried out by the government today this equation is not observed, not even considered. Those terrorists that came down from the mountains were expected to crawl on their knees, look beaten and beg for forgiveness. And they did not. As a consequence, the 34 members of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) who surrendered a week ago raised more controversy and anxiety than joy and relief.
The nationalist sentiment aroused by the political culture based on the primacy of the state over society and the absolute obedience of the citizens saw something less than surrendering and begging for forgiveness. The interrogation process following their surrender that ended without arrest (as promised, provided that they had no criminal record) was interpreted as a weakness of the state (of course, weakened by the incumbent government!). The joy expressed by welcoming crowds as they advanced towards their hometowns was interpreted as a march of triumph as if they were the victors of the ongoing civil strife.
Public opinion soured to the degree of ending the peace initiative until an indefinite time. This decision, needless to say, has been motivated by the sharp decline of public support for the “democratic,” or “Kurdish,” opening. According to a reliable polling company, A&G, public support for the initiative fell from 70 percent in June to 30 percent in mid-October. Of course, spectacles like removing and throwing away artificial limbs by disabled veterans or the returning of medals of valor by veterans to authorities and the vociferous lamentation of the parents of fallen soldiers contributed much to the sentimental atmosphere that overshadowed the democratic opening. The government felt obliged to halt the trail of surrenders by the PKK, this time expected from Europe.
Going back to earlier years and observing what the officials in uniform or civilian clothes had said during the funerals of the fallen soldiers who we call “martyrs,” one can understand what we are reaping today. Almost in every speech delivered as a eulogy, the officials promised that the blood of the deceased would not remain on the ground. They wanted blood in return for blood. Now the public is waiting for revenge, not peace.
