The ‘Call for Peace and a Democratic Society,’ announced by Kurdish People's Leader Abdullah Öcalan on 27 February through an expanded delegation, has created a tremendous impact both domestically and internationally. Not only democratic and socialist forces but even those most ideologically opposed to Öcalan were influenced by it and expressed positive remarks.This call has been widely described as a manifesto, some have even called it the manifesto of the century or the era. It has generally been interpreted as the beginning of a new phase. Öcalan himself defined it as ‘the end of a 52-year process and the beginning of the era of a democratic society.’

The statement made by the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) Executive Committee on 1 March regarding Mr. Öcalan’s ‘Call for Peace and a Democratic Society’ has been largely interpreted as a complementary response to the call. Not only supporters of the PKK but also its opponents expressed positive remarks about the statement. Many noted that the declared ceasefire has paved the way for putting the call into practice and that the words expressing agreement with its content signify the expected support for Mr. Öcalan.

One of the most surprising voices expressing positive remarks about both Mr.  Öcalan’s call and PKK statement was the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) leader, Devlet Bahçeli. Regarding the ‘Call for Peace and a Democratic Society,’ Bahçeli described it as ‘beyond expectations,’ openly expressing his satisfaction. He even called the delegation that conveyed the call to the public to congratulate them. In response to the PKK Executive Committee’s ceasefire announcement, he used the phrase ‘pleasing’ and, referencing Öcalan’s call, described it as ‘supportive and complementary.’

Apart from a small minority of opposition from both the right and the left, the overwhelmingly positive response to the ‘Call for Peace and a Democratic Society’ shaped the atmosphere and debates in the ten days following its announcement. From within Turkey, nearly every political actor made multiple statements to clarify their stance. The media left almost no aspect of the call undiscussed. For the first time, mainstream media outlets, beyond the independent press, opened their screens and pages to the delegation that conveyed the call and to spokespersons of the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party).

The Turkish military's attacks on Kurdistan and the Turkish Defense Minister’s insistence on repeating old rhetoric have been the most disruptive elements undermining the positive atmosphere. The Press and Communications Center of the People's Defense Forces (HPG) reported that on some days, guerrilla areas were bombed 30 to 40 times by fighter jets and hit hundreds of times by helicopters and artillery fire. Now, during the ceasefire period declared by PKK, the total number of bombings is being counted in the thousands.

Furthermore, the Turkish Special Warfare Center, seemingly taking advantage of the ceasefire, has attempted to drop leaflets in guerrilla areas urging fighters to surrender. However, when these calls were met with gunfire, those behind them quickly fled the scene.

Clearly, what has been mentioned so far is already known to the public, as it has been widely covered by the media. Our goal is not to repeat these facts but to analyze the second and latest statement made by MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli, which, if we are not mistaken, was delivered on March 9. Bahçeli’s statement can be summarized as follows: ‘PKK declaring a ceasefire is not in line with the essence of the İmralı Call. This is not the proper response to the Founding Leader's call. The ceasefire is merely a tactic to stall and buy time. PKK must immediately hold its congress, dissolve itself, and lay down arms.’

How others reacted to this statement is unknown, but we could not help but meet it with a slight smile. Some around us immediately remarked, ‘Bahçeli is just stalling.’ What had changed for Devlet Bahçeli to make such a dramatic reversal? Just a week earlier, he had described PKK statement and ceasefire as ‘supportive and complementary’ and even called it ‘pleasing.’ Now, he was making a complete 180-degree turn, rejecting the very stance he had previously praised.

Of course, we cannot answer this question, only Devlet Bahçeli himself can provide the correct response. However, what is clear is that the views expressed in his latest statement had already been repeated multiple times throughout the process by the Turkish Defense Minister. In fact, just a few hours before Bahçeli’s remarks, the minister once again made the same statement to the public. This means that Bahçeli’s statement not only aligns perfectly with that of the Defense Ministry but was also issued immediately after it.

This situation brings many questions to mind. Is Devlet Bahçeli under pressure from certain forces? Does he only fully grasp what has been said and written after some time? Or is he deliberately making a U-turn? Is he consciously changing his previous stance? Regardless of which of these questions holds the answer, none of them reflect well on Bahçeli. First and foremost, such a shift undermines his credibility as a person of conviction and principle. If he is indeed reversing his earlier statements, it is clear that this severely damages his reliability and trustworthiness.

Regardless of the true reason behind his shift, Devlet Bahçeli’s response to Abdullah Öcalan’s call and PKK statement has tarnished his reputation. His abrupt change in stance has weakened his seriousness and consistency, making his position increasingly questionable.

Yet, Bahçeli was once recognized and valued for these very qualities. At a time when efforts to resolve the Kurdish issue and democratize Turkey are being intensified, what is most needed are serious, conscious, principled, and consistent politicians and intellectuals.

Of course,  Bahçeli’s opposition to the ceasefire declared by PKK could be interpreted in other ways as well. Could it be that Bahçeli, too, is among those disturbed by the ceasefire and prefers the continuation of war? Although we find this unlikely, we are compelled to consider it. Otherwise, why would anyone be uncomfortable with the declaration of a ceasefire?

There is also a clear contradiction in Devlet Bahçeli’s demands. He calls for the PKK to lay down arms, yet he opposes the declaration of a ceasefire. But how can weapons be abandoned without a ceasefire? Who would take or surrender a weapon while a bullet remains in the chamber? If, in the process of disarming, the trigger is accidentally pulled, what happens then? Would the bullet not strike its target?

It is clear that Devlet Bahçeli’s statements are not rational in this regard either. Without a ceasefire, not only is disarmament impossible, but even discussing it cannot take place. Call it war or not, in a conflict-ridden environment, even opening a different kind of discussion first requires the declaration of a ceasefire. From this perspective, the ceasefire declaration by PKK Executive Committee is neither an impulsive nor an incorrect decision. On the contrary, it is a well-thought-out, deliberate, and profoundly serious step. It signifies a sincere commitment to correctly understanding Mr.  Öcalan’s call, facilitating its implementation, and even taking the first concrete step toward it.

Of course, further steps, such as laying down arms or holding a congress, can only be taken by Abdullah Öcalan himself. For that to happen, he must be granted the conditions necessary to live and work freely. Regardless of what Devlet Bahçeli says, the real priority now is to ensure the physical freedom of Mr.  Öcalan, and the responsibility for this lies with the state and the ruling government.There is no need for contradictions or self-deception to obscure this reality or evade responsibility. Additionally, politically fixating on the insecurities of generals who, despite failing to achieve military success, still try to project an image of victory, serves no purpose. Instead of contradicting himself by blaming PKK, Bahçeli would do better to address these military delusions and Urge them to acknowledge the truth. If he is truly sincere and consistent, then he has the opportunity to play a role in resolving Turkey’s most pressing issue, the Kurdish question.