Let us bring ourselves to our senses
by
Naci Bostancı*

First, we must name the issue that is becoming increasingly amorphous behind these incidents: the Kurdish issue. Every issue makes other neighboring issues part of itself. For this reason, the Kurdish issue has devoured many structures, including its primary adversaries. Even a careful analysis of the incidents shows that it is hard to identify which ideas and actions serve which purposes. Those who rushed to the streets, setting cars on fire and seemingly attempting to lynch certain groups in İnegöl and Dörtyol, are they aware of the sad fact that they are actually serving the Kurdistan Workers’ Party’s (PKK) strategy? Although those groups who voice such ideas, saying, “We are against separatism,” or “Kurds do not want to secede,” are supposed to act in accordance with these ideas, they try to dodge their responsibilities in this regard, which proves the undeniable distance between theory and practice amongst these groups. One of the tragic aspects of such issues is that the ranks of alliance and hostility are often intermingled.

Opting to wait

As a social issue becomes complicated, positions get more and more blurred and the actors involved find themselves in places they had not intended to go. They opt for waiting instead of exhibiting resolute behavior at a crossroads where all sorts of options are possible. This act of waiting is the language of putting oneself inside parentheses and setting loose the chaos called “the course of events.” However, no event can develop spontaneously. And just sitting and watching these events is a sincere contribution to this chaos. So is the attempt to provide a rationale for rage.

Since 1984, the PKK has been pursuing a policy that is based on armed clashes and violence. While this is generally translated into such lofty phrases as “honorable resistance of a nation that is being subjected to attempted destruction” in the PKK’s political parlance, it is nothing, in reality, but an attempt to build a nation through bloodshed and violence, to unite Kurdish people around common political goals, to cast them into a nation on its own and to create “a modern nation” as a category acquired from the given form of sociology. A modern nation is a set of senses that clearly defines itself with regard to its own nation-state. A magical language that can replace violence and bloodshed, be effective for people and transform them is yet to be discovered. The PKK is resorting to violence in order to separate people who live together even though members of their targeted group come from different ethnic origins and suffer from certain problems among themselves. They claim, “The Turkish nation-state is assimilating and destroying Kurds, but we want to regain our identity and culture.” First, the state is modernizing everyone living in this land. Second, as a country becomes more democratic, and as politics starts to allow greater participation for the people, then issues of identity and culture can be discussed in their natural courses and solved without violence. The PKK feeds on the closed nature of Turkey and this isolation provides it with justification. But when an armed organization emerges and starts to launch violent attacks, then its raison d’être starts to transform and the organization loses its initial cause, redefining itself through bloody processes. This applies to the PKK, as well.

Even the people who are close to the PKK’s political parlance -- if they are not living in Kandil and if they do not think with the references of reason eclipsed by violence -- will know intimately the benefits of democratization. But as tension escalates and bloodshed increases, this reason is further blocked by the reason that relies on violence and the latter further legitimatizes itself in the eyes of masses. The reason I am saying these things is that some put the blame for today’s increased violence on the government’s “democratic initiative.” This problematic approach to analyzing developments will not make any positive contribution to a solution. The initiative offers every group an opportunity to abolish violence-based tension. Some claim that it offers nothing. This is unfair. The most important goal of the initiative is to create in people hope and belief in the possibility of a peaceful settlement. What project can we talk of without ensuring this? Can people conduct reasonable discussions about problems and their solutions in an atmosphere dominated by violence? A suitable environment for cool-headed and comprehensive reason from everyone must be found. Without that reason, any functional solution cannot be suggested, can it? It should be taken into consideration that the recent incidents have little to do with Turkey’s coming referendum. This is a very reductive approach. This is not the first time the PKK has resorted to violence. It just wants to accelerate the process, as the sands of time are running low for it. It seeks to derive the solution out of the most tragic social and political situation. The referendum is only an opportunity that gives it a functional ground.

Bringing an end to PKK violence

The most urgent step that must be taken for solving the issue is to ensure that the PKK stops its violence. As long as these attacks continue, statements such as “We do not want to be separate” or “Kurds do not want to live apart” will be meaningless. This is because, whatever your abstract ideas may be, violence divides. Violence takes everyone who adopts it to the same destination. How can PKK terrorism be brought to an end? There is not much choice. Finishing off the PKK through military methods: apart from debates on whether this is even possible, if this method can be successfully applied the deep scar it will create is itself enough to perpetuate the problem. The difficulty of combating terrorist organizations is the high alternative costs. To negotiate, it seems, is not possible or beneficial. The most practical way is for the PKK to remember that it is an organization established in connection with the Kurdish issue and to lay down its arms for a democratic settlement. An open attitude from the people with whom it is connected will be much more effective in forcing the PKK to cease violence than resorting to military methods. These people should be able to correctly analyze the chaos into which Turks and Kurds are being dragged, and they should refrain from paving the way for the reason of Kandil.

Moreover, any attitude that will justify the people’s rushing to the streets, as in İnegöl and Dörtyol, will imply nothing but an attempt to destroy the unity and welfare of the country. Only the state is entitled to combat violence legitimately. The state is the only organization that has a monopoly on violence. Civilian groups who claim to hold the state’s right to resort to violence will not only damage the state’s legitimacy, but also drive other civilian groups to follow suit.

Unfortunately, when the conditions are ripe for ethnic-based tension, even the most unrelated conflicts of interest may be repackaged in an ethnically based story. All sorts of contradictions may be given an ethnic twist. And people may act with an enthusiasm for the cause of their lives. Such a chain may grow so uncontrollably that the people who settle their small accounts via ethnic tension will be taken aback. This is like a small a cigarette butt setting an entire forest ablaze, as the leaves and trees are dry, ready to burn with the smallest fire.

In other words, every “individual” who wants to live together with others has a duty: not to just sit and watch incidents as they happen, but to emerge as an actor and exhibit the will and determination to create the conditions of coexistence. The first step is to ensure that the PKK is forced by civilians to stop its violence, and the second step is to discuss the Kurdish issue in all its aspects in a democratic environment and derive political results from this process. Other steps will surely follow.