Mr. Abdullah Öcalan took a historic step by ending the existence of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and its armed struggle. He made this decision, which shapes the future of the Kurdish people and the transformation of Turkey, under conditions of imprisonment. As the leader and chief negotiator of the Kurdish people, Mr. Öcalan remains behind bars. This is not a normal situation. What is natural is for the parties to engage under free and equal conditions.

The alliance between the Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) should be confronting this historic issue with openness and courage, but they remain far from where they need to be. The MHP appears more eager and proactive in this regard. Statements made by Devlet Bahçeli are more positive, yet the AKP avoids taking steps and instead seeks to place the burden on Imralı. They are deliberately stalling the process through calculated tactics. On one hand, they claim the process must not be disrupted. On the other hand, they prolong it.

The AKP is in a more advantageous position this time. This is because, notably, the Republican People’s Party (CHP), along with much of the opposition, has expressed support for the resolution process. By including the CHP, the AKP could secure a broad national consensus. However, instead of doing so, it is trying to exclude the CHP from the process by subjecting it to political attacks and marginalization. These actions are increasing tensions and putting the process at risk. President Erdoğan claims the process is being handled with great care and sensitivity yet simultaneously takes actions that jeopardize it.

The intellectuals of Turkey and the forces of democracy are not embracing the process as they should. They remain under the influence of the dominant mindset and have not yet broken free from it. They are hesitant and fearful. The AKP government has suppressed them. It would not be wrong to say that they have not yet recovered and are unable to fulfill their role. In general, a stance of waiting and observing prevails. But it must not be forgotten that democracy and peace do not arrive on their own or through passivity. They require struggle and organization.

The stance of figures like Fatih Erbakan also serves the cause of war. If asked, Erbakan would likely say that he is not in favor of war. Yet nationalism and a dominant nation-state perspective seep from every word he speaks. He says things like, “Mr. Öcalan cannot be released. Approval from the mothers of martyrs must be obtained first.” But Kurdish mothers exist as well. Tens of thousands of Kurds have lost their lives. Thousands of villages have been burned. Prisons are filled with Kurds. Where do we place all of this? Are the mothers of soldiers the only victims? Moreover, this is neither a serious nor an honest political stance. It is merely shifting the responsibility onto others. Were those mothers the ones who turned their children into soldiers and sent them to the battlefield? The decision-makers in this war were not the mothers of soldiers. It was the ruling power and political authorities. Political structures must take responsibility, confront their role, and offer self-criticism. Fatih Erbakan and those like him must ask themselves what they have done to ensure that the Kurds obtain their rights. What struggle have they waged to stop the war and promote democracy? These are the real questions they must confront.

There are those who invoke the image of soldiers’ mothers in order to inflame a vengeful and conflict-driven atmosphere. But historical and societal problems cannot be solved this way. On the contrary, those who claim political leadership must take responsibility and enlighten the public. They must educate and prepare society for the development of peace and a democratic environment. The language and approach being used here are negative and problematic. Figures like Erbakan must present their programs for resolving the Kurdish question and explain to the public how they intend to achieve a solution.

Is it right to keep Mr. Öcalan imprisoned and use his captivity as leverage, as a hostage against the Kurdish people? This is a question that all political actors, both opposition and government, including Erbakan, must ask themselves. Would they agree to negotiate while their own representative and chief negotiator was being held hostage behind bars? Clearly, they would not. Yet when it comes to the Kurds, they defend exactly this. Such an approach is neither moral nor just. It still reflects a deep-rooted attitude of condescension toward the Kurds. It reveals a supremacist and arrogant mindset.

Those who fail to understand or feel the gravity and urgency of the Kurdish question continue to repeat their outdated narratives. They refuse to abandon policies that have been tried for a century and have produced no results. Some benefit from this impasse. But many others approach the issue without questioning it, and with a superficial mindset. Moreover, the legal dimension of the issue is ignored. Empty rhetoric dominates the discourse. Mr. Öcalan has already served the sentence handed down to him. Under normal circumstances, he should have been released. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on this ten years ago. It called on Turkey to recognize the right to hope through legal reform. The Council of Europe also warned Turkey on this issue and urged compliance with the rulings. Additionally, the Turkish Constitution states that international agreements to which Turkey is a party override domestic law. As is clear, Mr. Öcalan must be released on legal grounds as well.

If the Kurdish question is to be resolved and Kurdish-Turkish unity is to be achieved, what purpose does keeping Mr. Öcalan imprisoned on Imralı serve? Is the aim to resolve a historical issue or to exact revenge on an individual? All political forces in Turkey, both government and opposition, must approach this issue with greater seriousness. Keeping Mr. Öcalan imprisoned as a hostage against the Kurdish people cannot serve peace or resolution. One side cannot be allowed to act freely while the other is confined in a cell, restrained. This is not justice. This does not serve peace or resolution. Mr. Öcalan has already taken bolder and faster steps toward a solution than expected. Now, steps must be taken in response, and he must be granted the conditions to work freely.