After years of protracted conflict and heightened polarization, the appearance of the first green shoots of peace inevitably raises great hopes. But these seeds will need careful nurturing before they bear fruit, and they will remain vulnerable to the political and social elements for a long time to come.So far, so good. The long-delayed meeting took place, the world did not stop turning and Turkey has neither collapsed nor broken into pieces. But no concrete elements are yet on the table and already the two opposition leaders, Deniz Baykal of the Republican People's Party (CHP) and Devlet Bahçeli of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), are spewing political venom and accusing the government of selling out.
No two conflicts are alike, and the government is right to state that a uniquely Turkish solution is needed to solve the perennial Kurdish question. Nonetheless, all peace processes share common traits: They begin at a time when the powers-that-be on both sides perceive there is more to gain by reaching a compromise than by pursuing war. Winning over public opinion, changing the perception of “the enemy” and creating political consensus around the need to come to an agreement with erstwhile foes are among major challenges that peacemakers face in each case.
Among the various stakeholders, the media have a special, and crucial, role to play. Lining up the building blocks of peace is a slow endeavor. Beyond the much-awaited political handshakes, peacemaking tends to be rather boring business from a media perspective. Journalists and editors often have to maintain a delicate balance between their hunt for scoops and their professional mission to find and enlighten the public, and the need to give the various players time to develop their positions and allow enough room for protracted negotiations behind closed doors to produce concrete results before they come under public scrutiny. The degree of sensationalism in the media determines how the inevitable setbacks and provocations designed to torpedo the peace process are reported.
An interesting study published by the US Institute of Peace compares the role of the media in the Oslo process between the Israelis and the Palestinians and the situation in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, the research shows, many journalists were writing for readers on both sides of the communal divide and where therefore careful in the language they chose to cover the process as well as deadly incidents. In Israel, however, terrorist attacks led to a “marathon of mourning with 24-hour call-in shows, constant hours of sad music and lurid coverage of the funerals” that made terrorist attacks seem like full-scale war.
Anyone who has watched Turkish newscasts in the aftermath of Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) attacks that kill Turkish soldiers will recognize the pattern and the danger. In the case of provocations, media editors need to cover setbacks responsibly, but “the greater the frequency and severity of crises which affect the peace process, the more likely it is that the media will play a negative role.”
The interaction between political parties and newsmakers, the level of political consensus in the country and, to some extent, commercial considerations will determine whether the focus will be on positive breakthroughs or on the angry faces of opposition leaders condemning diplomatic moves.
When it comes to pro-peace policies, the study shows, media organizations take their cues mainly from political parties and “the greater the level of elite consensus, the more likely the news media are to play a positive role in implementing such policies.” Building that consensus and sustaining it over the long haul is the biggest challenge that will face the government.
