Settling the Kurdish issue within a unitary state

The MGK is a high-level platform that gathers together the democratic government and the state's security units. The Feb. 28, 1997 process, or the last military intervention, was built upon the council's meeting on that date. Later, the composition of the council was altered by increasing the number of civilian members. Yet, the council continued to wield its former influence. For this reason, the power to determine the fate and course of the "democratization initiative" belongs to this council. In its last meeting, the council expressed its support for the initiative. By doing so, it sent a strong message to the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), which has been harshly opposing the initiative, and to the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP), which has been zigzagging in its stance toward it. The phrase "to cement the indivisible unity of the Turkish state with the Turkish nation," which was referred to in the brief statement as among the goals of the initiative conducted by the Interior Ministry, gives us important hints about future developments. First of all, this phrase determines the content of the "democratization initiative" and draws up the general framework of its limits.

    The "democratization initiative" relies, in the final analysis, on the concept of the "unitary state." It is as if the settlement of the Kurdish issue is pitted against the unitary state. By hiding behind this concept, CHP leader Deniz Baykal and MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli are resisting the solution of the Kurdish issue. It seems that with the democratization initiative, Turkey will go through a heated debate on the concept of a unitary state.

As in the case of restoring the former designations of some geographic locations, there is blind ignorance with respect to this concept. Even those who are meticulous about the use of Turkish words refrain from using the Turkish version of this word. I think that the people who try to protect the "unitary state" as if it were a sacrosanct entity do not know what is in that temple. "National state," "national identity" and "national unity," which are frequently used in collocations with, or as synonyms of, the "unitary state," as well as the phrases "national unity and territorial integrity" and "the indivisible integrity of the state with its country and nation" have considerable differences in meanings. The most ambiguous of these concepts is the "unitary state," but it is also the one which is most overburdened with meanings.

Phrases from political law always emerge as collocations. By referring to antonyms of these collocations, we can better make sense of them. The antonym of "unitary state" is "federal state." Being against a "unitary state" means advocating a "federal state." Being completely a constitutional phrase, "unitary state" implies the monopolistic use of sovereignty. The powers of sovereignty -- legislative, executive and judiciary -- will be monolithic. Laws will be passed by a single parliament and these laws will be implemented without exception all through the country. The judiciary, too, will be monolithic, and the same legal norms will be applied everywhere. As for the executive, while in principle there is a single executive power, the transfer of the executive power as per the decentralization principle does not violate the unitary structure of the state.

National state

As for "national state," Germany is a federal state, but it is at the same time a national state, which fact is hard to comprehend for the advocates of the unitary state. Those who advocate a unitary state should be explained the existing national state system in the world. There is a national state system in place around the world. For this reason, it is inevitable for every state to have a national character. It is for this reason that we call the political system in the world "international" and we call the most inclusive organization the "United Nations," not "United States." National identity (and other unique national symbols) is fostered by every state since these help to reinforce the national state. The question is about the differences in the definition of the attribute "national." Yet, what is reasonable is that every state has a definition of nation that is all-inclusive of the people living in that country.

Such a definition of nation also gives substance to the slogan "single language, single flag and single state." The state of the Turkish republic has been established as a unitary-national state. The phrase in the MGK statement is nothing but the repetition of the Constitution's "inviolable" third article, saying that the Turkish state is indivisible from its country and the nation. According to the third article of the Constitution, no one can advocate a federal state system or suggest that the unitary state structure should be changed. However, the emphasis in this phrase is on "state." This phrase lays down a principle relating to the state system, which is defined in an unchangeable way within the constitutional context.

 Interestingly, the "unitary state" structure is not only a pivotal concept that is being discussed and advocated with respect to the settlement of the Kurdish issue, it is also a common denominator on which everyone agrees. Kurdish supporters, particularly Abdullah Öcalan, reiterate frequently that they do "not intend to undermine the unitary state structure." It seems that the structure formulated by Öcalan as "democratic municipalism" is a solution that can be attained through local administration reform without tinkering with the unitary state. In the past, the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) had taken important steps to implement this reform, but the bill passed by Parliament had been vetoed by former President Ahmet Necdet Sezer. Now, with the democratization initiative, time is ripe to take further steps in this respect. It is possible to produce solutions according to the principle of decentralization without damaging the unitary structure. These solutions may eliminate quite a number of problems that Kurds complain about.

It follows that the settlement of the Kurdish issue entails secure progress within a labyrinth of concepts. Individual or emotional reactions risk turning this world of concepts into a quagmire. Concepts are occasionally used as ammunition.

Instead of creating a ruckus over these concepts, we need to bring about a rational and permanent settlement of the Kurdish issue. The concept of unitary state is not a tool for preserving the political values of a country, and it is never a pretext to hide behind. Will free expression of ethnic identities and paying respect to Kurdish and other languages in the public sphere reinforce or weaken the unitary national state? Baykal and Bahçeli, who oppose the introduction of the Kurdish language in the public sphere, should answer this question. Ethnic identity cannot be an antonym of national identity -- then it is your duty to enrich the national identity so as to include the ethnic identities. Can a "national identity" in which a Kurd cannot feel at home serve to protect the unitary national state? This is the question that we must answer in the first place.

The state of the Turkish republic was established on the ruins of the multinational Ottoman Empire. With fears of fragmentation and division, the founders preferred a unitary state over a federal state, which was the right thing to do at that time. Today, it is not practically meaningful to question their preference. The settlement of the Kurdish issue will be sought within the unitary state structure. However, this does not rule out decentralization. The transfer of some administrative powers from the center to local administrations is something that we must implement not only to solve the Kurdish issue, but also to provide effective and efficient public services.