The crisis also reminds us of the need to restructure MİT, the most shadowy institution of the state. Almost always led by military men, MİT has never been under the control of the political leadership. As such it served as an extension of the military establishment. One does not expect transparency from an intelligence agency but some degree of accountability is a must at any rate in order to maintain a minimum level of respect for the rule of law among the members of the organization. This resulted in numerous cases of alleged misconduct by MİT personnel, none of whom was truly investigated or brought before a court.
With the appointment of Hakan Fidan as the undersecretary less than two years ago it was expected that the old structure that saw itself as being above the law would be subjected to more civilian oversight and gradually be subdued. Part of this strategy was to refocus the activities of MİT on international espionage instead of national espionage, which MİT used in a domestic power struggle.
The main concern of the supporters of the idea of more civilian oversight of MİT is that the recent crisis may put off this process of restructuring within MİT. In fact, the old guards within the organization and their supporters in the media have been trying to divert the support of the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) for Fidan to MİT as a whole, despite its past record. I hope Fidan, in search of an alliance within the organization, does not side with the old guard but uses the current crisis to clean up and restructure MİT.
The recent crisis also demonstrated that a state dialogue with the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in order to resolve the Kurdish question is no longer a taboo. At the heart of the MİT crisis were the meetings of MİT officials with Abdullah Öcalan and representatives of the PKK. Some time ago, records of one of those meetings were revealed and the government declared that the state and the PKK could meet to end the violence. This revelation and the recent debate have not caused a public outcry against such meetings. All these events have in fact normalized those meetings and even negotiations with the PKK. So this may be an opportunity to start a new dialogue with the PKK on the part of the government.
Such a move of course requires the ruling AK party to be more courageous. I think there is no reason to be anxious of the modes of solution to the Kurdish question. People seem to be willing to accept a solution produced by the AK Party, which received 50 percent of the vote. There is no stronger political actor who can address this question, a question that is the main obstacle to stability and order as well as democracy and the rule of law in this country.
The AK Party should realize that the fact that these talks with the PKK came out did not result in any significant political cost to the AK Party. Thus, the government can be more assertive both by engaging in further dialogue with the PKK and by taking new initiatives on the democratization front. If the ruling party really realizes that it needs to solve this problem, it has to be transparent. It cannot sustain a public policy that appears to be prioritizing a security-oriented perspective while engaging in talks with the PKK. The Kurdish problem cannot be resolved only through secret negotiations with the PKK. A public debate in which a constructive attitude of the ruling party and its leader prevail is also necessary.
