In yet another intense, loud address, emphasizing “our nation,” he left the floor with a lot of unanswered questions and with disappointment. Falling short of an apology, sufficing with condolences to the victims’ families, he said an inquiry was ongoing. He thanked, in his own words, “my chief of General Staff, despite the media.”
A large portion of his attacks were directed at “parts of the media” that he said were whipping up divisions. At one point, he even responded to a reporter from the Taraf daily, whose reports alleged that the National Intelligence Organization (MİT) bore the main responsibility for the “operational error.” He concluded that he knew of “some facts,” without explaining them.
This address -- in the parliamentary group of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) -- sheds light on the path of the “war on terror” and is filled with clues about the year which began. The key words concealed in Erdoğan’s words are “security” and “stability.” The first highlighting the approach to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), the latter revealing the determination to maintain the 50 percent plus vote.
The blurred picture emerges once more with how the AK Party sees the PKK and the Kurdish question. Although Erdoğan a couple of times returned to the term “democratic path,” he was not clear enough whether or not his government would treat separately the PKK issue and reforms regarding the Kurdish segment of society.
It would be unfair to say that Erdoğan in yesterday’s important speech took a step “forward to the past” (it will remain to be judged by the further results of what he aims to do), but nevertheless it will strengthen the view that the “military solution” will be very dominant in -- at least -- the coming six months. He is no longer the prime minister who had in 2005 declared the “Kurdish problem is our problem”; his rhetoric yesterday was even full of reproach for those who mentioned the Kurdish identity of the 35 killed in the so-called “operational error.”
Nobody denies that the political climate has been severely poisoned since the incident. On the political level, judged by Erdoğan’s attacks against the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP) -- the political wing of the PKK -- and the Republican People’s Party (CHP), the address may escalate the self-esteem of the AK Party side, but the reports by independent journalists from the area point to increasing “mental divisions” between Kurds and Ankara. Although the AK Party in the words of Bülent Arınç, the government spokesperson, promised the families compensation, the road is once more wide open for the PKK to restore its capacities, socially and militarily. Armed units of the outlawed organization may have been encouraged by the “error,” and those who desire the terror to continue -- as an instrument to slow down democratization -- among the hard-liners across the political divide in Ankara here see a new window of opportunity. In other words, the “political minefield” is as large as before; and the situation is as vulnerable to other similar tragedies and further loss of life.
The second element hidden in Erdoğan’s speech is “stability.” He is keen that nobody rocks the boat, as he prepares himself for the presidency and his party for the next elections (due in 2014). But, here is the question: Has the AK Party already overtaken “the state,” which resisted it by any means? Not as such, but it is now in control in its key posts. This obviously drives the new policies, and the 50 percent vote is both an advantage and a trap.
The AK Party’s adventure so far has marked a victory in many of its battles to consolidate its power; but the Kurdish question is different. You cannot “tame” an entire (large) ethnic group without granting it its rights and by ending its suffering. Let us hope that the AK Party has not lost its element of surprise, its trademark that defined the 2002-2007 period, in the name of democratization.
