I know this is my Platonic spirit speaking out. The realities in the world in which we live are different. Plato once said the fact that the soul is in the world is a good thing for the world but a horrible trial for the soul. Ramadan is a month of rising above our petty egos and nourishing the soul so that we can learn to live “normal” lives. But the timing of the referendum this year was such that we experienced an unusually political Ramadan.
On Sunday, that’s only three days after Bayram/Eid, we will go to the polls to vote on the constitutional amendments. The polls suggest a victory for “yes” votes. I am one of those who believe the current amendments will improve Turkey’s democratic credentials and pave the way for reforming the judicial and political system. More importantly, it will open the door for a new constitution. During the campaign, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has declared that he will launch a new initiative for a new constitution and the opposition leader, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, welcomed the proposal. After the Justice and Development Party’s (AK Party) failed attempt in 2007 to write a new constitution, AK Party leaders seem ready to start a new process to include all parties and civil society representatives. Will the rough edges of Turkish politics allow this to happen? This is the key question awaiting us after the referendum.
Besides the new constitution, however, a more urgent problem is awaiting us, and that is the Kurdish issue. The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) has declared that its unilateral cease-fire will end on Sept. 20 and it is likely to restart its terrorist activities in the big cities by the end of September and October.
The PKK will not give up its arms until, and unless, they are offered some sort of an amnesty. During the referendum campaign, we witnessed heated debates about a general amnesty for the organization, revealing once more that neither the government nor the Turkish public is ready for such a move.
The PKK and its political branch, the Peace and Democracy Party (BDP), know that. But there are also other dynamics at work here.
Over the last two weeks, I visited Diyarbakır and Urfa and both visits gave me a chance to observe the “other” Turkey, the Turkey that we hardly see from Ankara or İstanbul. In Diyarbakır, I felt the poison of politics and what happens when a whole nation becomes so politicized and polarized over an issue. It is neither the “logos” of the Greeks, nor the wisdom (hikmet) of Islam that shapes political attitudes here. It is the worst aspects of politics that win the day: ideological blindness, manipulation, machination, threat, self-victimization, mistrust, hopelessness, hatred and cruelty.
The fact that Diyarbakır has become a symbol of the Kurdish issue in itself is a problem. Why should Diyarbakır be any different from other cities? Yes, the pains and agonies Diyarbakır went through should never be forgotten. But this should not form the identity of Kurds or shape the attitudes of Turks towards Kurds. Diyarbakır should be a “normal” and “ordinary” city just like any other. The more we talk about Diyarbakır as the “symbol” of the Kurdish issue, the more we postpone the process of normalization for people in Diyarbakır and the region.
Drive about 100 miles southwest of Diyarbakır and you reach Urfa, known throughout history as Edessa. One of the most ancient cities in the world, Urfa is home to Biblical prophets, including Abraham, and several saints. Today Urfa feels more Arab than Turkish. But it is also mixed, with a Turkish and Kurdish population, and is one of the most successful examples of ethnic coexistence. To this day, Islam remains the most important bond enabling people to overcome their ethnic and cultural differences despite decades of state policies of denial and oppression. Urfa is relatively affluent and benefits from a healthy agricultural sector and border trade. Can Diyarbakır one day become like Urfa or Antep, another prosperous city in the region?
As we approach the PKK’s self-declared deadline of Sept. 20 only a week after the referendum, we face the same problem again. My view is that the PKK has become an entity independent of the Kurdish issue. It is wrong to assume that once the causes that have produced the PKK have been addressed and erased the Kurdish issue will be resolved. This is not the case at all. Even if we have the most democratic and liberal system in the world, the PKK will remain an independent problem. The organization’s only concern at the moment is itself. What will happen to Abdullah Öcalan? What will happen to other leaders and their militants, to their supporters and institutions in Europe? Will they be given amnesty? Where will they live? Will they be allowed to participate in the political system in Turkey? Will they really give up their arms once and for all?
These questions require more urgent answers than the long-term steps of democratization.
