‘BDP's entry to Parliament likely to marginalize supporters of violence'

“The end of the BDP boycott will not make guns go silent because the BDP ended its boycott despite supporters of violence. The BDP has shown courage. However, the BDP entry into Parliament will marginalize supporters of violence,” writer and commentator Muhsin Kızılkaya has said.

Following a party council (PM) meeting held in the predominantly Kurdish province of Diyarbakır on Wednesday, the BDP announced that it would be in Parliament on Saturday, the day Parliament resumed following the summer recess.

The party has been boycotting Parliament in protest of the imprisonment of six of its deputies. Thirty-six independent deputies supported by the pro-Kurdish BDP were elected in the June 12 elections. However, six of them are currently under arrest as part of the Kurdish Communities' Union (KCK) trial. The BDP decided to boycott Parliament after the Supreme Election Board (YSK) stripped Hatip Dicle, one of the six jailed BDP deputies, of his mandate after the June 12 vote because of a prior terrorism-related conviction.

However, the decision to enter Parliament by the BDP, which acts as the extension of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in politics, did not stop PKK violence as it continues to perpetrate attacks.

The PKK has escalated violence in the country over the past months, and on Friday killed two soldiers and injured three others by firing on a military unit patrolling near the Beytüşşebap district of the southeastern province of Şırnak.

Answering our questions, Kızılkaya elaborated on this issue and more.

What is your evaluation of the BDP ending its boycott of Parliament? What is the significance of this decision?

The end of the BDP boycott is important. First, the BDP will be able to participate in the commission for making the country's new constitution. If the BDP was not in Parliament, then the constitution would lack a serious contribution since it would be created by parties that have Kemalist, Islamic and nationalist tendencies. If the BDP participates in the commission to draft the constitution in Parliament, then it will make significant contributions to the solution of the Kurdish problem. This is important because the BDP is sensitive to some issues, for example, how citizenship should be defined. It is not about removal of statements involving an ethnic emphasis on “Turk” and replacing it with “Kurd.” This is about not having an ethnic reference in the constitution in line with universal standards. In addition, the constitution consists of several other restrictions in regards to closure of political parties and basic rights and freedoms. These are quite important to the Kurds of the country as well as many other citizens.

Should we expect and end to acts of terrorism soon with the BDP's entrance into Parliament although there are still terrorist attacks occurring?

The BDP's ending of its boycott would not make guns go silent because the BDP ended its boycott despite the supporters of violence. The BDP has shown courage. However, the BDP's entry into Parliament should marginalize supporters of violence.

What do you think about the [Abdullah] Öcalan factor in relation to the BDP's entry into Parliament? Do you think he has been supporting it?

Right now, we don't know what Öcalan [imprisoned leader of the PKK] is thinking. He has been at times supportive of the BDP's boycott, other times not. But we have seen that Murat Karayılan [a senior PKK leader] has softened his approach; he is not one of the hawks, and supporters of violence do not like him.

Is it going to be possible to solve Kurdish issues at the table?

There is always a possibility for this, even though I don't see that happening in a short period of time. Unfortunately, there is no tradition of reconciliation in the history of the Turkish Republic if there is an uprising against state power. The state has always been right, mighty and powerful. Does anybody know where Said Nursi's [a dissident who was a respected Kurdish-Muslim scholar born in eastern Turkey in 1876] grave is? Dissidents Yılmaz Güney and Ahmet Kaya had to live in exile. There are so many examples. But at this time in history, things are changing, especially during the government of the ruling Justice and Development Party [AK Party].

‘Damn with that freedom!'

Would you elaborate on this idea? How is the paradigm changing in that regard?

Before, you would unable to criticize the army anywhere in Turkey. But today those who made or planned to intervene in the democratic system through military coups have been questioned. However, some of the dissidents have not been able to read this change, and therefore, remained cynical. In that environment of no reconciliation, the worst things happen: Young women, police academy students, pregnant woman and children are killed.

Even if the PKK has not been able to read the situation of change in Turkey, as you put it, are they still unable to understand that Turkey is not the same place after all those civilian deaths?

The PKK has been drawn into using violence in towns. This is a tactic used by state powers to fight with the PKK and marginalize it. I am not saying that the state has been contributing to those massacres, but what I am saying is that this is a questionable tactic.

Are you trying to say that there might be deep state powers involved in this?

Especially after the June 12 elections, it is hard to say that the present government is unable to control the situation in the country. The government has been successful in its campaign against terrorism because there is big reaction against the PKK, which is targeting civilians. But the government has been willing to swallow a bitter pill for a while. However, the government has been mistaken in its decision to arrest hundreds of civilian politicians for their relations with the KCK [Kurdistan Communities Union, KCK, the urban arm of the PKK] because this is an action that increases the number of Kurdish youths who join the PKK.

Recently, civil society groups have been raising their voice against violence, especially civil society organizations in the country's Kurdish-dominated regions. This is a different phenomenon that we have not seen before, right?

Most of the Kurds have been in deep sorrow in the face of civilian deaths. This is the first time that I've been ashamed of being a Kurd. How can I be a free person if a baby dies before she or he opens her/his eyes to the world? What would I do with that kind of freedom? Damn that freedom! Long ago, I called on young people joining the PKK that it is not right for them to die on my behalf. I am 50 years old, they are 20.

‘State, PKK changed roles'

Is there, then, a change in support for the PKK? We know that the Kurds have long supported the PKK and saw PKK members as guerillas fighting for the freedom of Kurds.

They have been supportive of the PKK because souvenirs were made out of their dead children's bones; they have been supportive of the PKK because soldiers posed for photos with the cut-off heads of dead PKK members; they have been supportive of the PKK because Kurdish villagers were forced to eat stool; they have been supportive of the PKK because they have been subject to all kinds of humiliation by the state…

What's changed exactly?

This is not happening anymore. The state is not the same state that did those horrible things in the 1990s. In those years, Hakkari was governed by a general, but now the Hakkari governor is the best man in the world. That's what the PKK has not been able to see.

Okay, the PKK has not seen it, but what about the BDP? They are living inside this society.

They are not allowed to see it because in such an organizational structure only one person sees, and that is the person who makes decisions on behalf of everybody. This is an important characteristic of totalitarian regimes. Other voices are considered harmful.

Is this changing as well?

In the past, the state would burn 10 villagers in a minibus and would cast the blame on the PKK. There have been many of those examples. Now, the PKK performs similar acts. This has created a feeling in the public, like they've seen this movie before. But the roles are reversed now. Unfortunately, this is a curse because it is a war.

Why is this happening in such an environment that is moving toward more democratic development and not totalitarianism?

It has been said this is because of demands for democratic autonomy and education in the mother tongue. Obstacles preventing making those demands a reality cannot be removed by an armed struggle. Those obstacles are in the constitution. And changing the constitution cannot be achieved through an armed struggle. The only armed group that can make a constitutional change is the army because it can execute a military coup. For the PKK to make a constitutional change, it should start a revolution. However, revolutions happen without guns nowadays. The Arabs have shown that. There is no longer support for Stalinist revolutions. Therefore, democratic demands should be expressed through democratic means. The only reason to use arms in that case would be the struggle to keep the PKK as it is, make it survive.

‘How are PKK leaders going to give up the enormous power that they have?'

Turkish authorities talk about “finishing off” the PKK. Is it possible for the PKK to survive without an armed conflict?

The PKK has had two arguments. One of them was that the government was not talking with them. The voice recording [a 50-minute-long voice recording that allegedly reveals secret talks between representatives of the Turkish government and the PKK organization in Oslo] showed that the government has been talking seriously with the PKK. Therefore, this argument is no longer valid. The other PKK argument was that the government has been trying to eliminate the PKK. Everyone should know that such organizations cannot be easily eliminated because it has a wide-ranging structure with its mayors, civil society organizations and branches around the world. Its revenue approaches $2.5 billion. This is a large amount of money. How is it going to be shared? How are the PKK leaders going to give up the enormous power that they have?

How?

It's hard for them to give it up. They want to govern their own region, but the state will not allow a separate entity. However, when Turkey moves toward decentralization, there will be an opportunity for autonomous governance. This would be possible only after a constitutional change. But then those who desire to be in leadership positions would have to fight for them in elections; they would have to appeal to the electorate. That poses a problem for PKK leaders because there is little possibility of them being elected.

Is there a possibility that Öcalan will be supported by the public?

If Öcalan is provided some free movement – maybe put under house arrest – then hard-liners in the PKK would be more isolated. Öcalan has a lot of respect from the public. The government should make use of Öcalan because there is no other way out of the conflict.

Do you think military operations should stop?

It depends on what type of operations they are. Most of the operations during periods of cease-fire were track and search activities. The real operations are now being conducted with fighter jets and bombs. If the PKK did not exaggerate the small-scale track and search activities of the military, there would probably be no big operations now. There are now preparations by the military to go to Kandil where there are PKK hideouts – most of those places can be pinpointed by the Turkish military. The government is now preparing to act with its professional forces – that means there will be a bloodbath. This should not be allowed to happen.

Government officials often say that they will fight the PKK until the “last terrorist” vanishes. Is that possible? 

The experience shows that this is never possible. The number of guerillas has never been lower than 5,000.

The prime minister recently said that there will be a “fight against terrorists but negotiations with politicians.”

This statement of the prime minister is important because the state has never talked about open negotiations with the PKK's political representative.

Is this Öcalan?

The prime minister is probably aware of the fact that talking with the BDP politicians would not end this war. It would make contributions to peace but not end the war. The PKK's political representative is Abdullah Öcalan. If there are still people who want to be involved in an armed struggle, who want to settle accounts with each other, then there are army professionals to counter them. But this settling of accounts should be done in places away from the public and not in the middle of towns, villages and cities among women and children.

‘Gov't empowered to solve Kurdish problem'

Do you think the government is engaged in talks with Öcalan at the moment?

It is quite likely that the government is doing that. Thanks to the voice recording [allegedly revealing secret talks between representatives of the Turkish government and the PKK organization in Oslo].

What was the benefit of that revelation?

First of all, it has shown that the government was talking with the PKK at the highest levels as opposed to the PKK's claims that it was not. Secondly, a MİT [Turkey's National Intelligence Organization] official was addressing Öcalan in an honorable way. This was surprising because there are hundreds of people in jails because of the honorable way that they speak when referring to Öcalan. In that case, either those people should be released or the MİT official should be arrested. In addition, the Turkish public – including Devlet Bahçeli [leader of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP)] -- has not been outraged because of government contacts with the PKK leader, and this empowers the government to find a solution for the Kurdish issue.

PROFILE:

Muhsin Kızılkaya

In his words: “I knew a few Turkish words when I was a child and always looked forward to the arrival of a guest who knew Turkish so I could show off my skills. Probably that's why my father registered me in a regional boarding school in central Hakkari. I never liked that school. It was cold, it was all concrete and its teachers were cruel. Until we learned Turkish well, they beat us. After two years there, I escaped to the school near our home in the village. I became a revolutionary in the fourth grade. In the fifth grade, I learned to read and write in Kurdish from the indictment against the Revolutionary Eastern Cultural Societies (DDKO). In my high school years, I read about the consequences of military coups in Turkey. In 1983, I started college in İstanbul University's public administration department. However, after graduation I couldn't find a public to administer, so I started in journalism in 1987. I was honored twice with the “Journalist of Year Award” -- in 1988, for my interview with [Massoud] Barzani and in 1991, for my investigation into the Kurds. In 1993, I reluctantly changed jobs and started to work in an advertising agency. I continued writing about my opinions in various publications. Since 2001, I've been working at the Beşiktaş Cultural Center. I have published 10 books. The latest one came out last year, ‘Açlığın Sofrasında' (At the Table of Hunger).