And he is doing his best to avail himself of this opportunity. His most remarkable statements during only the last month, which contain a high dose of self-criticism, are as follows:
“We have thus far not been able to engage ourselves with our people. We did not listen to their problems sufficiently. From now on we shall work for our people. … We are opposed to all coups, whether military or civilian. … We will embrace all citizens, whatever their religious beliefs. We shall not discriminate against anyone. God’s most precious creation is the human being.” (Delivered in the predominantly Turkish town of Yozgat on Aug. 7.)
“We shall solve this [headscarf] problem on the basis of freedom. A group of our friends are currently working on this issue. In this way or another we shall lift the obstacles for those concerned to continue their education.” (CNN Türk, Aug. 23)
“In what democracy other [than Turkey’s] can extra-judicial killings take place? We promise that we shall investigate all extra-judicial killings and uncover those responsible. … I appeal to the prime minister: You are the government, you are the prime minister, you need to take into consideration the sensitivities of the [Kurdish] people. Don’t give the name of a person [a deceased four-star general] who executed 33 peasants without any investigation or trial to a military barracks. Please change its name. I beg of you…” (Delivered in the predominantly Kurdish town of Van on Aug. 24.)
“Vote ‘no’ in the referendum and the road to freedom, brotherhood and general amnesty through consensus from east to west and north to south. We shall embrace all social segments. We shall embrace peace. We shall put an end to terrorism and war between brothers and sisters. The will is in your hands. Bring that war to an end.” (Delivered in a speech he gave in his place of birth, the predominantly Kurdish-Alevi town of Tunceli/Dersim, on Aug. 24.)
“The state may engage in such contact [with Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) leader Abdullah Öcalan]. Such contact can surely take place if there is a chance of it bringing terrorism to an end. … We know that the Ministry of Justice and the intelligence services hold such contacts. There is nothing wrong with that.” (In a statement to the Hürriyet newspaper, published on Aug. 25.)
“We stand firmly behind our party’s report [on the Kurdish question] that was prepared in 1989. The blood of brothers and sisters has been shed for the last 30 years. The problem of terrorism cannot be solved by purely military measures; it has social, cultural and economic aspects. … We respect all ethnic and religious identities. … We have already said that blood cannot be washed away with blood. The state cannot nurse a grudge against anyone. It must implement those measures that will bring peace and tranquility to society.” (Delivered in a speech made in the predominantly Kurdish town of Bingöl on Aug. 25.)
Judging on the basis of the above statements and many others of the same character, one can conclude that Kılıçdaroğlu is endeavoring to put an end to the CHP’s identification with the bureaucratic tutelage regime and its image as the “party of the state” or the “party of the military.” What he is saying in effect is that the CHP under his leadership will try to connect with the people, pay attention to their problems, oppose military interventions and respect all ethnic and religious identities. He is saying that the CHP will help solve the Kurdish problem, and for this he is prepared to call for a general amnesty, presumably for rank-and-file PKK militants, on the condition (remarkably) that the people vote to reject the constitutional amendments initiated by the governing Justice and Development Party (AK Party).
That the new CHP leader is facing society with a discourse that is entirely distinct from that of the party’s previous leader must surely be welcomed by those who would like to see the consolidation of democracy on European norms in Turkey. There is no doubt that Turkey can put an end to the bureaucratic tutelage regime and solve its problems most effectively through consensus and cooperation between its two major political parties. Kılıçdaroğlu’s discourse, however, raises many questions.
Is Kılıçdaroğlu only trying to win votes for the “no” camp in the upcoming referendum, or is his going to honestly pursue his new discourse? Will he stay loyal to this discourse even if the people approve the constitutional amendments, and even after the referendum? Why is he unable to keep his word, backtracking from his promises to solve the headscarf problem and to declare general amnesty when he finds out that his party does not stand behind him? If he is to remain loyal to this discourse, is it not necessary for him to distance himself from the authoritarian reading of Kemalism that is the ideological backbone of the bureaucratic tutelage regime and which stands for the restriction of religious freedoms and the suppression of ethnic identities? Is there enough support within the CHP’s ranks for the kind of ideological transformation Kılıçdaroğlu is suggesting? We shall wait and see.
