[Bifurcation of freedom]
Did ‘sacred’ policies over Kurdish problem ‘fail’?
by
ŞENOL DUMAN*

If not fully inclusive and encompassing, no single policy package should be labeled as “sacred.”

Millions suffered due to wrong definition of Kurdish ‘problem’

Our generation inherited the Kurdish “problem” from our ancestors years ago, and our leaders have failed to come up with reasonable solutions so far. As a result, more than 30,000 people have died and millions have suffered due to terror since the 1980s. It is of course an embarrassment for all of us to have experienced such horror and terror even though we have lived together for many centuries in peaceful co-existence in the region and other parts of Turkey.

In fact, Turks and Kurds have been in interaction with one another, building families together, doing mutual trade and commerce, fighting against enemies in cooperation and most importantly sharing many common elements such as the religion of Islam, history of togetherness, shared geography and the most obvious: the government we built together.

Magic Kurdish (democratic) initiative: agree to disagree

The so called “Kurdish (democratic) initiative” proposed by the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) demonstrated such an example to such “policy perplexities” in a complex environment where every developed and implemented action by the ruling elite thus far has been viewed by the general public of Turkey as sacred and absolutely irrefutable.

This problem has never been addressed by the political elite in this manner before; until today, the Republican People’s Party (CHP) and Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) have avoided committing to a problem-solving process due to difficulties defining the problem itself. The AK Party rulers are also to act their facilitator roles in working with the CHP and MHP towards “formulating right or approximate problem definition” of the problem we must resolve.

In my view, the AK Party has to keep up with the local, national and global realities of the problem in Turkey. In the bloody realm of politics, I believe that there must be no black and white political perceptions to solutions for complex problems. In utilizing the gray-area views of the CHP and MHP, government leaders have a critical role: to formulate the problem and develop a common sense of resolution. Neither AK Party leaders nor CHP and MHP leaders must miss the opportunity to work on this together. To what extent are the elements of the “Kurdish (democratic) initiative” open to policy stakeholders? All parties have every right to agree to disagree. This is a national matter at a global level.

As in Walter Lipmann’s observation, “To every human problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat and wrong,” we have failed to conceive the nature of the problem through a series of policy mis-formulations, a misguided set of policy actions and most of all an ill-defined policy of the wrong medicine to treat the wrong illnesses.

We have developed incorrect definitions of the problem. We have never asked “why?” We have implemented one-size-fits-all solutions to an incorrectly defined problem and we have asked everybody to be bound within the same demographic circle we draw. Most of the time, we labeled our solutions as “sacred” and did not encourage anybody to challenge it. These solutions were left unchallenged for years.

‘No boundaries’ approach instead of ‘red lines’ approach

We have always believed that there was only one solution to the problem, but we have never successfully defined its boundaries. We haven’t even bothered to consider whether it even consisted of boundaries. We never considered a “no boundaries” policy approach.

In the general public view, we’ve been thinking over the years that the terror arises from economic illnesses. We presumed that the extreme poverty in the southeastern part of Turkey produced a so-called “source for terror.” Some also pushed buttons by pouring millions of dollars for economic welfare into the southeastern part of Turkey in the belief that this was going to solve everything. This very idea drew the ire of nationalists, who cited examples of even poorer regions of Turkey located in parts other than the Southeast.

Acts of terrorism have risen in numbers over the years, and have hit our major cities as well. Policymakers were upset and were unable to evaluate the major reasons behind this increase since data and reports coming to policy headquarters were inconsistent, invalid and confusing. Most of the time, policy analysts were not even allowed to discuss their own recommendations for the problem outside of the “red lines.” Today, we are at least talking about solutions with unbounded wisdom, drawing looser boundaries around the problem definition.

No particular theory or policy modeling approach is adequately defined, so we must contemplate operational methods, a series of plausible solutions and rival explanations to determine what the problem is. Vigorous adaptive strategies from all stakeholders in Turkey (inclusiveness is vital) on these plausible solutions for the future to the problem will provide practical actionable options for decision-maker(s) to consider.

That is why the AK Party leaders must not only contemplate ways to include CHP leader Deniz Baykal and MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli in their “solution package” for the problem but also discover ways to share their “complete package of solutions” views to encompass the spectrum of problems that feed terror. People must hear about the solutions offered to the problem.

When trying to understand reactionary behaviors towards Turkey’s Kurdish problem, one sees that small issues have accumulated over the years to make a difference today. I call this “the earthquake effect.” Any little things we have ignored over the years on this problem have really hurt us in the long run. For example, we would have been in a better policy position if such critical initiatives like TRT 6 and Kurdish as an elective language in the schools could have been implemented earlier, like 20 years ago. Thus, nothing should be ignored at all during the process for solutions to be worked on. I go even one step forward by simply thinking, “let’s think outside the box and become receptive to the edgy issues.”

We know today for sure that a little change in the system really bothers the opponents of democratic perspectives for the Kurdish “problem.” If we all do not act responsibly now on such timely proposals or ideas for change in the issue, we will be unable to control the course the issue will take.

It is a great responsibility for us to move beyond the sacred and ancient policies that have become the status quo. A do-nothing or “stick to the status quo” approach or policy behavior is not the medicine we’ve been looking for to treat this 30-year illness. If no move is made in the process, our nation will fail and eventually die from this cancerous impact. As a country, as a nation we all have to try to untangle whatever lies ahead of us and we have to do it fast. Like they say, sometimes you have to run before you can walk.

What we ought to seek today is not order in disorder. Let us build harmony in multiple realities. All parties must seize the opportunity to define the problem properly and come up with well-thought solutions to the problem.

Being aware of social changes

Social changes will always be ahead of us. We must constantly adapt our research tools to specific conditions in spite of unresolved debates or determinations. We must understand the problem, which is dynamic and constantly changing, and develop constantly improving solutions. We must come up with specific suggestions towards living with “the other.” In real life, we all live with the perception of “the other.” Being in the shoes of “the other” creates opportunities for us to understand different perspectives. Since the Creator created us as self-expressed human beings, we cannot control or be equal in how we look like each other. However, we can attempt to be equals on our rights, including both human and democratic ones, which are most critical to understanding the problem.

People’s choice will prevail: philosophy of change

In this century, the dominance of “force” is undoubtedly changing towards the power of “influence.” Governments who rule by force are losing against governments who rule by influence. We know that nothing will stay as it is used to be. Any changes will garner some reactionary behaviors, no matter what we do. However, it is very important to understand the notion of “change.”

In our attempts to understand the need for change, one would think of the notion of “context” for change. Once there is a context for change, people would make it happen. Thus, Turkish policy stakeholders must act responsibly to take on their claims through the genuine interpretation of context within the policy area. They should look into the eyes and hearts of their followers. No distortions of words or gimmicks would be permissible in this perspective.

In Ziauddin Sardar’s own words: “Real reforms begin with understanding the world as it is. Only then can you change it.” We must grasp where we are now; then we can attempt to do more to alter the things we aim for. Finally, the solutions must not only be built by AK Party leaders, but the CHP, MHP, DTP and all other parties representing competing solutions also ought to come to the table and work on the encompassing package over the Kurdish initiative, especially its peripheral features with regards to local, national and global perspectives.  The more this would be inclusive, the less this will create unresponsiveness.

People make their choices through democratic elections. It is now time for their representatives to act responsively to those who have elected them. People are eagerly asking for peace and the resolution of the Kurdish problem. The job of their representatives is not to make it harder to accomplish this. They must attempt to ease the entire policy process through eager participatory political behaviors.

Just to make an idiosyncratic analogy to Shakespeare’s song in his play “Henry V,” “There’ll always be an England,” but the people of England during and after the Churchill years did not care much about the next line, “England will never be the same again.” I am hopeful here to say that through this Kurdish (Democratic) initiative, Turkey will be always here in the region but it will never be the same again.

If the Kurdish initiative comes to fruition, we will surely be more democratic and we would no longer be exhausted by our internal problems. Our energies will be vested in our development of relations with our neighbors and the wider world. I would not even count the economic and military impact of the initiative, if successful, in large numbers.

This is exactly where we will start seeing a government that governs by influence. Turks will find the best resolutions for all of their problems without even sacrificing their freedom and rights. In my view, neither of them can be bifurcated at all.