In the stage the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) has come to today, there is no harmony between the method it has chosen and its goals. It is expressed at every opportunity that weapons are not needed for the goal of democratic autonomy. They also accept that. They want disarmament. According to them, the path to disarmament will be possible when they are taken as an addressee and the democratic political channels are opened.But they cannot find anyone to take such a structure as an addressee. While the state says, “First give up your weapons,” the PKK says, “I will not give up weapons before getting some assurances.”
When the problem of trust is added, they apparently see coming down from the mountains as the same as being destroyed. Then, is the current situation so desperately serious as to create this mistrust? I do not think so. Beware, the spokespeople of the (now-defunct) Democratic Society Party (DTP) have recently met with criticisms suggesting that they act in their own self-interest on almost all platforms. The question, “Why do you always have to talk by relying on someone?” was directed to the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) spokespeople in Arbil recently. Really, is there not anything else to rely on?
I think that the lack of trust partially stems from the choice of mistrustful methods -- the choice of methods which do not create a conscience. Because violence is not defined by weapons alone.
With the methods it has applied from the very beginning, the PKK has followed a Stalinist line and created its response in culture. Today, the violence of the things spoken of in many weapon-free platforms is worse than the violence brought by weapons. Thus, an armed PKK commander, Murat Karayılan in Kandil, may make more moderate statements than now-defunct DTP co-chairperson Emine Ayna. The question of why Kurds cannot develop an opposition among themselves is a good one. However, the question of what destroys the grounds for opposition, which is a requirement for democratic culture, takes more precedence and is more meaningful.
The PKK’s methods of violence dressed the daily language with violence as well. Today, whoever tries to speak out in the Kurdish community will immediately be labeled a traitor and betrayer. Many of them may prefer remaining silent in order not to be labeled.
The other reality is that the current process shows a clear confrontation. While the Turkish public understands that there is a deep problem, the PKK sees it as though they were struggling for freedom and honor, and the instruments they use do not evoke the conscience of the Turkish public. This is the problem. That is why Abdullah Öcalan has never become a Mandela… The PKK has just realized that in its struggle, which it claims it is waging for idealistic goals, it has not been able to win any approval from the Turkish public.
You realize the despair it causes when you talk to people -- those you can talk to -- within the PKK. I guess they now care about the question of how it is constantly possible that they aren’t accepted or understood. Any awareness, if it happens, will come out of this question. Previously, they related everything negative to the denial of their legitimacy by the state. Now, looking back at their behavior, they have just realized how inhuman it is not to tolerate criticism and to spread the culture of violence they created to all spheres of life. The need for opposing views within the group stems from this. In fact, this desire is known to be spelled out behind closed doors. But the problem is that the sacred people, who can dispel even the most reasonable and consistent criticisms, take a dominant place within the PKK. For example, a politician harshly criticizing another politician from within their circle has to stop speaking when the person he/she criticizes is supported by their leaders in İmralı or Kandil.
It is not difficult to see that pluralism will appear in the course of time. If only we could see that the problem is not just guns but the discourse of violence, which makes things worse.
