The introduction of stability to this region is not only important for energy routes and integration, but it also will directly decrease the “foreign policy costs” of the US. The world's mental approach, too, is suitable. We have a world of meanings where dialogue, looking into future together and persuasion are regarded as more legitimate. We see that the nation-state attitude, which can be described as pro-conflict or at least ready to bargain, is no longer deemed acceptable. The approach to the Kurdish issue entails a new stance as it has cross-border characteristics.Moreover, implementing a “soft” strategy toward neighbors but denying the same toward one's own citizens cannot be easily explained. This is particularly so when the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) is trying to preserve strict adherence to the new vision it implements in foreign policy. However, the real factor that has made it possible to freely talk about the social demands regarding Kurdish identity is possibly the Ergenekon investigation. This is because this investigation has largely decreased the influence of the pro-statist approach that is imposed by the military and limits and leads the government. As the prime minister's definition of what had been done to non-Muslims as “fascism” implies an atmosphere of relative freedom, the existence of such an environment is needed for taking seriously the premises concerning Kurdish identity. The Kurdish deputies in Parliament are making a more advanced analysis. For them, if the Ergenekon case had not been opened, it would not have been possible for the government even to discuss the Kurdish issue. This is because this case has not only given the given the government a psychological upper hand and legitimacy, but also brought to the light of day some evidence that explains why the Kurdish issue has been a never-ending conflict.
There is also the other side of the story and it seems that that side, too, is tilting toward settlement. The calls by the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party (DTP) for peace and dialogue combined with Karayılan's emphasis on territorial integrity open the door for satisfying the ethnic identity demands on the basis of citizenship. In sum, there are currently not many reasons why this issue cannot be settled now. Thus, the government is capable of making great progress when it translates its good will to action. The objections raised by the opposition parties do not have a significant social backing. If the government follows a strategy that would convince the military, then we can assume that the opposition's influence on the media will decrease. As an AK Party deputy said during a conversation, the opposition had made harsh remarks concerning the state-owned Turkish Radio and Television Corporation's (TRT) newly introduced Kurdish language TV channel, TRT 6, but when the military pointed out that they found that channel to be “useful,” they could not proceed any further with that issue.
In short, it is considerably natural for us to expect conscious, consistent and pro-settlement politics with respect to the Kurdish issue. However, it seems that the fulfillment of these expectations will not be easy. The government does not intend to act in a sound manner, as is expected of it. Even, it endorses a wave of detentions that can be seen as a development to the contrary. More than 100 DTP members that are not deputies are under arrest because of their ties with the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). Moreover, although it was postponed for some time, the judiciary is extending its hand to the Parliament and there is the possibility of some DTP deputies being arrested. However, this should already be clear: In the region, it is really hard to find a Kurd who does not have family or ideological ties with the PKK, and the Kurdish politics largely feed on the troubles people suffer due to their PKK ties and on the experiences they acquire in this way. For this reason, it will not be possible to find an “addressee” that does not have a connection to the PKK.
But this is where the AK Party is cornered. This is because the AK Party is neither ready for democratic politics nor is fully aware of what these politics entail. Similar to its general strategy in the elections, it thinks that it can solve the problems of the country at time they deem as being right and through the “favors” it drops from high above. While this patriarchal attitude can be understood from a cultural perspective, its political price is really high. The AK Party is eager to settle the problems but without “addressees.” But this approach is pushing every issue into a deadlock. Today, as you cannot solve problems by issuing commands with the typical authoritarian nation-state mentality, you cannot solve them with the patriarchal “compassionate protectionism” either. Today's issues demand a democratic approach because otherwise those offered as “solutions” cannot be legitimate or permanent. Such an approach urges you to talk to your addressees. In other words, you have no choice even in selecting your addressees, let alone ignoring them.
The state tradition is having a hard time in absorbing this. Nevertheless, the only chance we have is that the AK Party makes swift progress in accepting the Kurds inside the government with their identities. This is because when you look at the mentality of the military or the opposition, you realize that there is no way out other than the maturation of the AK Party.
