Time for concrete steps (1)
by
HATEM ETE*

As might be recalled, the ruling party, since the very day it expressed its intention to achieve a viable resolution, has emphasized that a historic opportunity is at hand, that there is consensus between public institutions and that the international dynamics are suitable for a resolution to the Kurdish problem. The primary justification and rationale for the government’s effort to promote the initiative is the fact that the Kurdish problem has been shaped by different dynamics during the republican era and that for this reason, it has created diverse sensitivities among different groups. The concerns are that facing a long-standing issue may be costly to a political party. The best way to calm such concerns over the course of the process is by achieving a consensus inclusive of the will and contributions of different political and institutional actors.

What does the plenary session mean?

The ruling party initiated the process, arguing that there is institutional backing for the initiative and that the international conjuncture was right. The missing element to a consensus being reached which would minimize the risks was the support of the opposition parties. For this reason, the administration strived to schedule appointments; when it became evident that meeting with the major opposition parties -- the Republican People’s Party (CHP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) -- was impossible, the ruling party asked for a plenary session in Parliament. An open session remained the only option when the opposition parties declared they would not be part of a conspiracy that they argue would be plotted in a closed session.

Above all, it should be noted that the recent plenary session was a first in Parliament whose indirect agenda was to discuss the Kurdish problem even though it seeks to establish practices for further democratization. The political parties represented in Parliament emphasized this fact during the sessions on Nov. 10 and 13 confirming that this was a historic event. The sessions also underlined that Parliament is the best venue for the resolution of the Kurdish problem. As you may know, the Kurdish issue has been reduced to an issue of terrorism due to the violent attacks by the PKK since the mid-1980s and was transferred by the political administration to the security forces. The security departments have drawn attention to the complicated nature of the problem since the early 2000s, adding that security measures have fallen short of resolving the problem. As it has become evident that coercive measures alone would not suffice to adequately address the problem, people have developed high expectations from political institutions. To this end, holding a plenary session Parliament with a special focus on the Kurdish issue symbolizes the political will to resolve the chronic problems.

It appears that the opposition fails to appreciate the symbolic importance of the plenary session. The speeches by the CHP and MHP speakers show that they have ignored the military’s suggestion that coercive measures alone would not suffice. Actually, there is an ironic and even tragic situation in terms of political establishment. While the security forces are calling for further involvement by politicians in the process to contribute to the resolution, the politicians are asking the security forces to put a stronger emphasis on coercive measures. The security forces underline the importance of democratization whereas the politicians refer to the role of security measures in maintaining democracy. It should be noted that there are similarities between the attitudes of the Democratic Society Party (DTP), criticized for looking elsewhere to resolve the issue, and the CHP and the MHP; in the end, all these three parties have failed to play their expected roles and assume the responsibility of contributing to the process.