What is the DTP’s stance on the solution?
by
HÜSEYİN YAYMAN*

In 1990, 10 Social Democratic People's Party (SHP) deputies embarked on a political journey to set up a more left-wing party than the SHP. Today that journey continues with the Democratic Society Party (DTP). The HEP line set up and closed down a total of seven parties, including inactive parties, in the last 19 years and changed their leader and executives several times. These parties wanted to conduct legal politics over the Kurdish issue but they could not decide whether they wanted to be Turkey's party or a Kurdish party. Unable to fully comprehend the meaning the society has attached to it, the DTP is losing its credibility by constantly complaining like a child about growing up and becoming big. Turning into the PKK and slipping toward a militant line hinders the DTP from contributing to the solution.

Although the DTP won more than 2 million votes for the first time in the March 29 elections and its weight over Kurds in the Southeast cannot be denied, the DTP's political influence over the entire Kurdish population is weak. The DTP views itself as the representative of only the Kurds in the Southeast and perceives the majority of Kurds that did not vote for it as assimilated or lost Kurds. The party's multi-headed leadership and internal power struggles not only undermine the specific weight of messages they communicate but also prevent them from reaching the proper addressees. The factions within the DTP don't allow it to act independently from the PKK and Abdullah Öcalan.

DTP failed to prove independence

Even without the ideological and theoretical debates, it is possible to understand the structural problems from the multiple party formations and closures and a plethora of leadership changes. Although the HEP-DTP line is occasionally described as the “HEP tradition,” in actuality there is no tradition or continuation at all. As those who closely follow Kurdish politics know, we are facing a party that has failed to prove its independence and is therefore facing a serious identity crisis and internal power struggle. The DTP cannot abandon the PKK and create its own political language. If the DTP does not change, then it will not be able to get rid of the cloud over it.

The DTP is considered a political party that cannot end dilemmas within its own organization, propose concrete solutions aside from forcing Kurds to vote for it like it did in the most recent local elections, conduct class analyses although it claims to be a left-wing party or pay attention to society's economic demands. It is a party that prefers using the magic of rhetoric instead of assuming the responsibility of solving the problem. The DTP is a party that was formed with the aim of solving the “identity problem” in the country, yet it is a party that is facing a serious identity crisis itself.

    Following HEP's experience in the 1991 elections, the DTP won seats in Parliament with its independent deputies for the first time in the July 22, 2007 elections. But its performance in Parliament over the last two years has been poor. Criticisms that were most recently addressed by Aysel Tuğluk constitute the crux of this debate. The DTP was expected to reverse the party's contraction, change the ideological rhetoric and contribute more to solving the Kurdish issue. But the DTP is handling matters so slowly that it is almost as if it is denying its existence and program. Instead of conducting modern politics, the DTP identifies itself with PKK politics and cannot make progress. It has increased the dose of its provocative language, which initially started prior to the local elections, gained momentum in its aftermath and became especially profound in the recent past with the debate on the “historic initiative” on solving the problem. DTP supporters need to know that the tone and language used in workshops in Mersin and Diyarbakır, the demands put forward (adopting a provincial administration system, using natural resources, making Kurdish an official language, implementing the Scottish model if not the Basque one) and especially the references to Öcalan and the PKK as the addressees for solution not only attract reaction but also deepen social separatism. In the final analysis, the DTP must propose a feasible formula that supports a peaceful and modern world. It must decide if it wants to be the cause of the problem or a part of the solution.

This may sound a little harsh, but the DTP is a movement that hasn't been able to develop its own political language. Party leaders don't have consistent language. They say one thing when they are together and another when they are in front of the public. Not only is the DTP under PKK tutelage, but neither does it want to fulfill the responsibilities of becoming a modern party. When Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan denied DTP leader Ahmet Türk's request to meet and the chief of general staff did not participate in Parliament's opening ceremony because the DTP was present, DTP deputies justly criticized these actions and argued that they were being ignored. But they only validate the charges against them when they point out Öcalan and the PKK as the only way to solve the problem when they are asked to take the initiative and make a contribution to solving the problem. Most likely, it is exactly for this reason that Erdoğan will not meet with the DTP. In fine diplomatic fashion, Erdoğan is actually saying: “You have no will power. You are an extension of the PKK, and for this reason, I will not meet with you.”

Unable to offers a clear answer to the question “is the DTP or the PKK the addressee in the Kurdish initiative?” the DTP must take off its hat and start a process of self-critique. The DTP must first take itself seriously before expecting the prime minister and chief of general staff to grant them an appointment. Until the DTP abandons its provocative and hard-line rhetoric and understands the psychological thresholds of the issue, resolving the problem will only become harder with every passing day. At the current point, there is an expectation of a solution that exceeds the DTP. If the DTP ignores this fact and persists in not resolving the problem, then this will abandon the DTP to find a different route for itself.

DTP has Kandil syndrome

From time to time, the DTP even falls behind Öcalan and the PKK in solving the problem. What is the explanation of a will that wants the state and the ruling power to change but is reluctant to change itself and insistently ignores the whole picture in Turkey? This stance, which sparks concern and doubt over whether the DTP really wants to find a solution in people who closely follow the issue, criticize the state's bad practices, and who sincerely want a solution, can lead to long-term risks that may not be visible right now.

In an interview with Milliyet's Hasan Cemal, PKK commander Murat Karayılan said: “First guns will be silenced, then a dialogue will start. The place for a dialogue is İmralı. If that is not acceptable, then we are the right addressee. … If that is not acceptable, there is a politically elected group, the DTP.” It's inconceivable why the DTP would point to İmralı as the address and be adamant about this. Does the DTP have no political thought independent from Öcalan? If the DTP preferred reconciliation to a showdown and creating a formula to using slogans, it would contribute to solving the problem more.

In its party manifesto, the DTP states that ensuring social peace and creating a democratic, transparent and participatory administration are among its basic priorities. It highlights that the party believes it will find a contemporary approach to solving the Kurdish problem by building on the historical brotherhood and friendship between Turks and Kurds and that it believes denialist and separatist approaches will not resolve but will instead make problems worse. It also asserts that it will defend the equal, liberal and brotherly union of Kurds and Turks. So while the DTP clearly explained in its manifesto how it would solve the problem, it is being unfair to itself in indicating Öcalan as the addressee for a solution. Can a political party make such a suggestion? Can this kind of a stance have any contribution to the development of a solution and a pro-negotiation political understanding? If the DTP response to this and similar questions is yes, then let's close the DTP because there is no need for it when there is the PKK.

Our basic criticism against the DTP is its lack of a responsible, constructive tone and style that will contribute to solving the problem. The DTP must stop objectifying itself and get rid of the “Kandil syndrome.” The DTP must take more initiative during this historical period, manage the process correctly and deliver more soft-toned messages. The DTP has the ability to make the path to solution long and difficult or fairly short. The DTP must show that it can resolve the Kurdish problem without using weapons or Öcalan's power and consequently prove that it has become independent.