On the one hand, it seems absurd that a prime minister should decline to meet with a democratically elected deputy in the Parliament in which he serves. Not to do so implies that Ahmet Türk is guilty of such heinous beliefs or such odious acts that it would be an embarrassment to appear with him in the same photo opportunity. Anyone who has met Türk would not think that he fits that particular bill. He may tread a hard line, but he is an intelligent and dignified politician. Like Mr. Erdoğan, he has paid for his political convictions by serving time in jail. Though their definition of solution differs greatly, like Mr. Erdoğan, Mr. Türk is trying to bring an end to the country's long-standing Kurdish problem. Like Mr. Erdoğan, he is in charge of a party which the courts are trying to shut down. Like Mr. Erdoğan, he tries to survive opposing pressures both from within his own camp and between his own party and those who hate his guts. And like Mr. Erdoğan, he and those whom he represents have been the victim of no end of dirty tricks by a state establishment that has declared him an anathema.You would think Mr. Erdoğan and Mr. Türk, therefore, would have quite a lot to talk about. The other curious thing is that Mr. Erdoğan, throughout his political career, has been cold-shouldered by other politicians. His party's choice for president was for a long time ostracized by the principal opposition party in a way that seemed both petty and undemocratic and just rude.
On the other hand, the DTP, which Mr. Türk leads, is reluctant to denounce the often-violent methods of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). Mr. Erdoğan explained in various interviews that it was not that he had ruled out of court meeting with a fellow party leader but that it would be unpropitious to do so in the aftermath of mines laid by the PKK which killed Turkish soldiers. Inasmuch as the DTP refuses to label the PKK as terrorists, they were making things more difficult both for themselves and for him, the prime minister said. The problem, he confessed, was that he would face a great deal of opposition if chose to speak to Türk at a time when there was so much public anger.
In a previous column I reported a conversation I had with Turkey's commander-in-chief, İlker Başbuğ, in which he complained that the Turkish press was inciting public opinion by the manner in which it reported the deaths of his soldiers. He also made it clear that while there should be Kurdish cultural rights, there should be no political accommodation to those who used violence. “No negotiating with terrorists” is the post-Sept. 11 maxim.
By extension, however, should there be “no negotiating because of terrorists” -- i.e., should the government be rewarding those who use violence by allowing them to control the political agenda and decide with whom one should or should not be talking? Although one can sympathize with Mr. Erdoğan's decision not to stick his neck out at this particular moment, he should not be a slave to public opinion whose fickleness he is all too aware of, nor be held hostage to sensationalist headline writers whom he himself often attacks.
An argument the DTP might make is, why should it renounce violence when it has itself been the victim of violence? I recall writing back in June 1994, at the time when Mr. Türk had his parliamentary immunity stripped and was arrested for treason along with other members of the Democracy Party (DEP), that 11 party officials died in mysterious circumstances; the figure reached as high as 70 if you added those killed from the People's Labor Party (HEP), the party it succeeded and which was closed by the court the previous year. Mr. Türk's brother, a deputy from the conservative Justice Party (AP), was killed in the 1970s. Being a democrat is not as easy as all that. While there is no excuse for violence, there is no excuse for the violence perpetrated against you.
Of course, whether or not to take tea with Mr. Türk is not the whole dilemma. Rather, the question is, how does Turkey achieve some reconciliation with the violence of its immediate past? Talking to one another does not seem like such a bad idea.
