Regardless of the reason for this state of irresolution, the Kurdish question will apparently remain unresolved for a long time unless we change our approach to it. If we closely review this problem, we can easily conclude that the first option is actually out of question because we have been living in a space of possibilities and in this space, many opportunities have been made available to us to resolve this problem. In this case, we have to consider the second option. This problem can be resolved; but for some reason, the issue still remains unresolved.
In this regard, three primary reasons may be offered:
1) Methodical mistakes committed for years: Methodical errors are about perspective. The primary error in regard to approaching the issue is reducing the issue to the level of a mere economic issue; in other words, the conviction that “the issue will be resolved if we feed the Kurds” has met with great acceptance. Those who seek a resolution in policies based on feudal/tribal structure and authoritative modernization have maintained a strong blockage to resolution of the issue. Another error in approaching the problem stems from the insistence of those who reduce the issue to the “terror and destructive activities of actors seeking to divide the country.”
2) To take the issue out of its natural and current context and connect it to the monolithic national identity designed in the first quarter of the previous century. The Kemalist state and modern state ideology have reduced the official identity to a Turkish identity by changing its etymologic, religious and historical content; the official ideology in particular created a Turkishness by which non-Turkish Muslim communities migrating from the Balkans and the Caucasus solely identify themselves. During this process, the identity of the Islamic nation created by the Ottoman state was transformed into the identity of the “Turkish nation”; the said transformed identity referred to two major changes in the content. In its real form, Islam is more comprehensive than the Turkish, Arab, Kurdish or any other ethnic identity. Therefore, when the supreme identity is Islam, it encompasses all races. Under its meaning, as used by the Ottomans, “nation” referred to the beliefs and lifestyles of Muslim communities instead of a group of people. In other words, Muslims were inherently members of the Muslim nation. As Muslims, members of different communities were able to express traditions inherent to their tribes or groups; however, when the supra-identity became Turkishness, individuals were forced to abandon their traditions and languages.
The project of building a Turkish nation by replacing Islam with Turkishness and in the definition of “nation” replacing “religion and lifestyle” with “a numeric group of people” was adopted by communities migrating from the Balkans and the Caucasus as well as Turks and Arabs in Turkey. However, this project was rejected by the Kurds, who constituted the second largest ethnic group. At the current point, the common demand of all Kurds regardless of whether they resort to violence or promote peaceful means to achieve their goals is the recognition of the Kurdish identity. We may call this broad agreement and consensus of the Kurds. The acknowledgement of this request and demand is viewed by the central bureaucratic centers and their supporters within society as a serious compromise from Kemalism and a threat to the unitary state; instead of recognition, these circles prefer repressive means to deny the existence of the problem.
3) Eagerness of those who engage in politics over the Kurdish question to block every attempt to resolve the problem in an attempt to secure some economic, political and strategic gains. For those who seek an authoritative and antidemocratic regime, the Kurdish question offers a great opportunity. Terrorism, which makes an appearance every time democratization steps come to the fore, leads to the withdrawal of bold reform packages on the grounds that there is no room for liberties where there is no safety and security. During such times, propaganda is spread to stress that democracy and security cannot coexist at the same time and in the same place in an effort to extend the survival of the status quo.
