Resolution of Kurdish issue depends on DTP, MHP reaction
by
HATEM ETE*

However, the public lost its interest in the initiative because none of these two requirements was met in the past five months. In such an environment, Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) leader Abdullah Öcalan announced that he would offer a road map in mid-August; this was perceived as an attempt to take the initiative. Öcalan's involvement in the process via this announcement raised discussions on who would be sitting on the other side of the chair discussing the issue.

The solution process, after stalling for five months, gained new momentum after a statement by the prime minister, who said he authorized the interior minister on the administration of the process, and a subsequent meeting led by the interior minister.

It is not too late to invoke the dynamics and measures that should have been used so far in an attempt to keep the process alive. The closing gap between international dynamics, diverse public actors and the circles promoting the Kurdish cause is the greatest assurance of a probable solution in the near future. The political administration should use this opportunity to make sure that the process moves forward smoothly by including all the stakeholders that will extend help and support to the resolution of the problem.

It is obvious that the parties and stakeholders will have the most difficult time in discussing who should be recognized as a legitimate negotiator. The emergent disagreement between the Democratic Society Party (DTP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), two major actors that have a lot to say about the issue in political terms, shows that the success of the ongoing process depends on the balance between these two extreme and diverse actors. The DTP argues that the problem will be resolved only if the actor they are pointing to is recognized as a legitimate party to the discussions whereas the MHP holds that this will simply be treason. It seems that neither of these parties is willing to agree on an interim solution that will refer to a political consensus in which all parties will join. This makes the procedure to be followed more important than the issue itself.

Turks actual party to the issue

Since the beginning, the public has made no distinction between the PKK and the Kurdish issue. The PKK is both a product and a part of the Kurdish problem. To this end, it should be noted that the issue existed before the PKK and that the PKK will continue to exist even after the resolution of the issue. Therefore, the fate of the PKK should be discussed with reference to its disarmament whereas the Kurdish issue requires a larger and more comprehensive framework. To this end, Öcalan's role should be determined more correctly.

Öcalan's role should be considered as long as it relates to the PKK and the relationship between this organization and the Kurdish issue, and his role may be taken into account to the extent of his share in the problem. There may be some rationale in seeking a party with respect to the issues related to the PKK as it is an organization. Therefore, some thinking may be done to determine what role Öcalan may play in the disarmament of this illegal organization. For instance, in the announcement he is to make in mid-August, Öcalan may call on PKK militants and its leadership to remove their presence from the country, and this may work as a first step in a long-term disarmament process. However, it should also be noted that the Kurdish issue cannot be limited to Öcalan's involvement since it is a problem of all who have been victimized by it. This makes the search for a party irrational. To this end, it is neither required nor realistic to look for a party to resolve the Kurdish issue.

Looking for a party is not necessary because the perception that there is a table and two parties sitting around this table in the resolution of this issue will hurt the relationship between the state and its citizens. The state does not need a party or a mediator to negotiate the interests of the people when protecting their rights. For this reason, looking for a mediator is not necessary. It is not realistic either because, above all, there is no legal and legitimate mediator. The actors likely to be effective are not legitimate and the actors likely to be legal are not effective mediators. Besides, no possible mediators or actors have the capacity and capability to represent the victims of the Kurdish issue in its entirety. For this reason, seeking a mediator is not realistic. And for this reason, the attempts to find a mediator should be ceased. If necessary, the citizens will serve well as mediators and negotiators considering the fact that they are the victims of this issue. In other words, the actual mediator and negotiator are the Turkish people.

Political administration's duty

Even though there is no need to search for a suitable negotiator and mediator, it is essential to make sure that all parties to the issue contribute to the process. This should be paid particular attention in order to avoid serious setbacks and resistance; to achieve this, the important difference between the pursuit of a mediator and the ability to attract the participation of all parties should be considered. Some circles have acquired a special place and have been recognized as legitimate actors during this long period of irresolution, and these circles have further become pretty influential over the relevant parties. In this process, where administering the perception of a possible resolution constitutes an important part, these circles should be asked to participate in the process in order to avoid resistance and to address the concerns of the actors having to pay a price for serving as the advocates of this cause.

To this end, even though it is not politically rational for the Kurdish political movement to point to Öcalan as a legitimate mediator and negotiator for the resolution of the Kurdish issue, this should not serve as a legitimate reason to ignore the DTP in the process. This party has an overwhelming impact on the perceptions of the masses victimized by this issue. To this end, to make sure that the recent constructive moves take root and achieve social coherence and peace, proper measures should be taken for the involvement of the DTP in the process. The cost of this involvement may be observed in the initiative whereby the Kurdish language TV station TRT Şeş was launched. In this initiative, the DTP felt it was ignored; it even assumed that the state would pioneer similar moves to weaken its status and influence over its voters. Based on this assumption, this party acted to make sure that the TV move would not be influential over the local people. In the end, despite the fact that one of the most important issues feeding the Kurdish problem was solved by the state and the right of local people to have TV broadcasting in their own language was recognized, the expected results were not obtained. The same could happen again, but subsequent moves might not be fruitful. For this reason, it should be recalled that psychological relief is a major part of the conflict resolution process; this says the DTP should be involved in the process because an initiative considering who will play what role may not lead to relief even if it corrects unlawful practices.

MHP, CHP must join initiative

Similarly, it is also important to make sure that political parties such as the MHP and the Republican People's Party (CHP), which may deliberately exploit the good faith of the relevant actors playing a role in the resolution of the issue by focusing on certain sensitivities, will join the initiative. The MHP may have visible influence over a substantial share of Turkish voters; in one way, its role is comparable to the role of the DTP over the Kurdish voters. A resolution package rejected by the MHP may leave the country with a Turkish problem. It should be recalled that every new move may provoke nationalist sentiments and fears of partition; for this reason, the MHP's role as an actor that will address the concerns of a certain group of people in Turkey should be recognized. The best way to make sure that the recent bitter statements by its leader, Devlet Bahçeli, who delivered a message reminding the government of the repercussions of its moves, will not turn into a concrete policy of opposition to the entire process and block the initiative is to ensure the participation of Bahçeli and the MHP in the process. The best way to ensure that Bahçeli's current statements do not turn into clear provocation and calls for more radical reactions by his followers and that the recent move is not subjected to a test of nationalism is to devise a comprehensive communication strategy. Bahçeli's recent political record shows that he may be convinced to serve as a moderate and reasonable political actor who acts responsibly for the sake of the country's future. It is not possible to think that the MHP, convinced that the current state of irresolution in the Kurdish issue is the biggest obstacle before Turkey's further growth, would sacrifice the country's future to its election success or the realization of its policy goals. Therefore, what needs to be done first is that the ruling party should take action and convince the MHP that the recent initiative actually seeks to unite the country rather than divide it.

In essence, the fate of the process largely depends on whether the two opposing parties, the MHP and the DTP, which represent fairly distinct and different political views, are engaged in the process. The political administration should seek ways to achieve such an engagement if it wants to make sure that the process generates positive results.