However, the debates that began after the welcoming of the group showed that the two sides had different sensitivities. On the face of it, the government side said the slogans and symbols used during the welcoming ceremony legitimized PKK violence and bothered the segment of the society that emphasized the Turkish identity. As for Kurdish politicians, they claimed the inability of the government to show tolerance to a simple and natural welcoming had led to disappointment among Kurds and incited the feeling that the government did not really want to find a solution. In other words, both sides were highlighting the sensitivities of their constituents.But as time passed, it became evident that the real sensitivity was related to a different area. The sensitivity that would essentially inhibit the problem and the Kurdish issue from being solved was related to who would manage the process. In short, there is an implicit power struggle between the government and the PKK -- or put more concretely, between Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan. Erdoğan wants the issue to be solved, but he wants to solve it by stretching it out over a long period of time and keeping control in his hands without damaging his long-term ruling power in the eyes of the Turkish nationalists.
In return, Öcalan is aware that the prolonged process has ended his life, and he most likely estimates that the PKK will not be able to sustain its current power and function for much longer. Therefore, he is taking tactical steps that will invite conflict for the sake of accelerating the process, that will show that he is the main decision maker and that will enable him to remain on the agenda. For example, when the government announced that new arrivals would be suspended after the first group arrived in Turkey, Öcalan declared that additional arrivals had been completely cancelled to show that the process was in his control.
When the power struggle became visible, the government put a temporary hold on the “democratic initiative.” This decision also implied a threat for the Kurds. It implied that if there was resistance to the government’s control of the initiative process, then progress would not be made. The government did not have trouble taking this step because there is no definite pressure on it from inside the country or from abroad. This situation also indicated the freezing of Öcalan’s political activity, and it was inevitable that Öcalan would attempt a counter move. After all, a prison cell crisis erupted last week. According to the spokespersons of Kurdish politics, Öcalan’s new prison cell was half the size of the older one. The PKK leader told his lawyers that he was unable to breathe fresh air and that he felt as if he were living at the bottom of a pit. Acting on the belief that this situation disturbed Kurds, the government called for the respect of “social sensitivity.” According to DTP co-chairwoman Emine Ayna, Öcalan’s inability to breathe fresh air meant “suffocating the Kurdish problem.”
After the public was occupied for a few days, it became clear that the real critical factor was not the difference between the old and new prison cell. That is because Ayna said that “the problem is not how big or small the room is. We want him to be addressed. Öcalan will play a role in a solution.” In short, the real sensitivity came out. In other words, Öcalan wanted to be part of the process, to continue his leadership role in the process and to consolidate his rule. In a message he gave by way of his lawyers, he highlighted that no additional peace groups or anyone else from the Makhmour camp would come because they also had “sensitivities.”
In this way, the essential content of the word “sensitivity” was determined. The issue was not about obtaining peace and meeting the identity-related demands of the Kurds. Of course, these issues were important and were among the goals of the PKK’s struggle, but the slightest implication of a change in ruling power in Kurdish politics could justify a halt in finding a solution and create the threat of returning to an atmosphere of conflict. We are at a difficult point today. The government does not have the intention of being more courageous than necessary in the “democratic initiative.” As for Öcalan, he seems to have no plans to allow any initiative that does not consolidate his leadership. In this way, the opportunity at hand is being wasted. The rhetoric of “social sensitivity” is turning into a cover for sacrificing the people for the ruling power’s sensitivity.
