In some coverage, the army is on the point of eradicating the PKK, the latest attacks being the terror group’s last throes. According to others the PKK is on the very cusp of victory and there is no other option but to agree to their terms and conditions. There was even a panicked call for emergency rule in the Southeast -- a type of rule for which the people paid very dearly in the past and which is one of the causes of our current problems.But isn’t the root cause of our troubles right now the same for all “sides” in this conflict? On neither side can the leaders be held accountable.
The government has no operational authority in military operations and yet is ostensibly responsible for the circumstances. Meanwhile, some in the armed forces high command pass their time concocting coup plans and plots instead of putting forward solutions to the conflict. If any doubt the advantages for the terrorists from the officers’ pastime, why has the PKK opposed taking military personnel into custody during the Ergenekon probe?
Still, to some, the government is guilty simply because it is under the tutelage of the deep state embedded in the military and judiciary. But this seems like blaming the victim. If such critics want to bring the military under the control of the government, what are their proposals for concrete steps to achieve this?
From the other angle, the PKK speaks as if it were the sole representative of all Kurds and Kurdish issues. However, while the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP), the political wing of the PKK, has 23 deputies in Parliament, the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) has 75 deputies of Kurdish origin. Many Turkish citizens of Kurdish origin do not want separation from Turkey. More Kurds live in the West of Turkey than in the Southeast, and this group has not voted overwhelmingly for the BDP.
Take the latest threat from the BDP to their “own” Kurdish community. They are “‘telling” all Kurdish people in the Southeast to remain in their homes and not go out at all on the day of the referendum. In other words, the BDP does not trust their “own” people to vote as the party tells them to. So, if Kurdish people dare to leave their homes, will the BDP mark, intimidate or kill them?
It seems the BDP is offering the Kurds a choice between a Turkish deep state or a Kurdish deep state, a new deep state or the old deep state. Not much of a choice, many Kurds will think.
Is it any wonder that the PKK is being described as a “subcontractor” of foreign powers, the deep state and the Ergenekon gang? These, too, have shown a very similar distrust of referenda and civilian rule.
And how will the Turkish state guarantee its citizens’ safety to come to the ballot boxes and vote? Do we need something like the Australian solution to voter intimidation, in which all are obliged to enter the polling booth and vote? Spoiled ballot papers or “none of the above” gauge the voters’ dissatisfaction with politicians’ efforts.
Other polarizing elements at work are the Kurdish parties’ insistence on Abdullah Öcalan as the sole decider and arbiter of the conflict, while they give little or no importance to the banning of their party from Parliament, and the arrests of members of the Kurdish Communities Union (KCK), which seems to be an urban reorganization of PKK. The attitudes and commitment of all these involved in these events to the democratic values of peaceful dialogue, justice and the rule of law will eventually become clear.
Many “solutions” and policies are being suggested, from professionalizing the military, extending more cultural rights to the Kurds and establishing further dialogue. Ninety-nine civil society organizations in the Southeast have united to call on the PKK to stop its use of violence as this only brings the Kurdish issue to an unsolvable point.
It is essential now to interact without resorting to “otherizing,” demonizing and killing the children of Turkey, whether Turkish or Kurdish. We need proposals for viable solutions that the state and civil authorities can implement, proposals from a greater variety of voices, proper discussions and valid arguments, especially from the Kurdish people and civil society leaders, regardless of intimidation. The overwhelming majority will support them to solve a problem that has gnawed at us for decades.
Solutions need to be comprehensive, practical and based on socio-political projects for the future of all peoples of Turkey. They should be institutionalized so that whoever comes to power in the future must support them. The first topic could be “How are we going to save ourselves from the tutelage of both the Kurdish and Turkish deep states?”
