The "Democratic Society and Peace Call" made by Abdullah Öcalan on 27 February is still being discussed. Despite this call, issued after the statements by Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) leader Devlet Bahçeli in October, and despite the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)’s decision to declare a ceasefire, the Turkish state has not yet taken any concrete steps toward resolving the Kurdish question.

The meetings held by the Imralı Delegation with the Justice and Development Party (AKP) leader and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, as well as the Peoples' Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) delegation's meeting with Minister of Justice Yılmaz Tunç, have been considered positive steps toward resolving the issue.

Professor Gençay Gürsoy, whom we interviewed regarding the matter, answered ANF’s questions.

Before discussing the peace and resolution debates in Turkey, it is impossible not to mention Sırrı Süreyya Önder. What would you like to say regarding his situation, as he continues to receive treatment for a heart condition and remains in critical condition?

Since we are talking about peace in Turkey, it is inevitable that we also talk about our dear Sırrı Süreyya Önder. It is often said that in history, the stance of the masses matters more than that of individuals, but this is not always the case. Sometimes, individuals become decisive elements that shape the future. Sırrı Süreyya has been one of the leading figures involved in the struggle for peace in Turkey, especially for Kurdish peace, since the early 2000s.

I have had a long-standing friendship with him. As a physician, I have also been closely following his health, and I am deeply concerned. I know that he is facing a very serious condition. However, trusting in Sırrı’s strength and resilience, I hope that he will once again take his place in the peace struggle. We also remember Sırrı from the beginning of the Gezi Movement. He is a politician who showed the courage and determination to stand in front of bulldozers uprooting the trees. I sincerely hope he returns to us soon, and I wish him good health.

We also hope he recovers soon and continues where he left off. However, Sırrı Süreyya Önder’s health issue has created a different atmosphere. People from all across Turkey and from many different segments of society have rallied around him. What does this widespread support for Önder tell us?

Sırrı Süreyya Önder is an intellectual politician who possesses a kind of likability that goes beyond popular standards. Moreover, he is a local politician. Although the concept of "local" has been devalued by the government’s rhetoric of "local and national," being local remains important. Sırrı Süreyya’s way of speaking, his talent for satire, even his body language, all carry the humor and spirit of these lands; they are not alien to the essence of this geography. Even if this particular incident is not directly related to the peace issue, the public’s stance toward it could potentially influence their approach to peace.

I sincerely hope that the sensitivity and emotional atmosphere created by Sırrı’s situation will contribute to peace. Because peace may not currently be the top agenda item in Turkey amid the ongoing economic crisis. However, it remains a vital issue, especially in the east of Turkey, in Kurdistan, where a conflict has persisted for decades. Since the founding of the Republic of Turkey, this problem has remained unresolved, and over more than a century, it has cost the lives of thousands of young people.

Even if it does not seem directly connected, has this issue not impacted all of Turkey's economic, social, political, and administrative dynamics? Are not the problems we are discussing in Turkey today the product of this anti-democratic mindset?

Absolutely correct. However, it is not the only reason. Certain characteristics of the ruling power must also be counted among the causes of the dark picture we are experiencing. If there had been a different government, one that was more egalitarian, more libertarian, and truly internalized democracy, the situation would have been different. The state of the peace issue would also have been different.

The so-called "terror problem" in Turkey, meaning the PKK issue in their words, may not be the sole reason for everything, but it is certainly one of the most significant and prominent causes. As I said, this is not a problem that has flared up only in recent times. Since the founding of the Republic of Turkey, administrations have failed to reach a rational, peaceful solution that embraces all societal values regarding the Kurdish question, starting as early as the 1925s and 1930s.

I recall and it deeply touches me that during the era of Atatürk, in 1930, in Soviet Armenia, a small minority of Kurds lived there, numbering less than a million. Because the Kurds in Armenia were granted cultural rights, the Republic of Turkey formally protested Armenia through the Soviet Union. Why? Because, they said, "If you grant these rights to Kurds there, it will set an example for Kurds here." This was an unimaginable and strange reaction.

Thus, a negative stance toward Kurds was almost ingrained into the very genes of the Republic. This attitude was passed down from generation to generation, persisting until the 1960s, when thanks to the development of a multi-party system and the broader dissemination of democracy, freedom, and equality concepts these ideas became more widespread. In the 1960s, the Workers' Party of Turkey (TİP), under the leadership of Mehmet Ali Aybar, of which I was also a member during my student years, brought the Kurdish issue to the parliamentary podium for the first time. This eventually led to the party’s closure. From that time onward, many parties that prioritized the Kurdish issue were formed and subsequently banned. Today, this chain continues without interruption with the DEM Party.

This is a sign of a determined struggle. It is the struggle for the Kurdish people in Turkey to enjoy, without discrimination, the same cultural rights, including education in their own language, that those of Turkish descent enjoy.

Since the founding of the Republic, just as the Turkish state has stubbornly resisted solving this issue, the Kurdish people, whether through intellectuals, artists, or community leaders, have persistently kept this issue alive. Today, the Kurdish question remains one of the primary causes of the problems Turkey is experiencing. Without resolving this issue, it will not be possible for Turkey to fully achieve democracy or to resolve the deep economic crises it faces today.

Last October, the issue came back onto the agenda following a call by MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli. Bahçeli’s call made the nature of this process a subject of debate and surprised many people. Were you also surprised by this situation? And what should be said about the character of this process?

To be honest, I was surprised, and I continue to be surprised even today. Despite his health problems, Devlet Bahçeli still occasionally brings this issue to the agenda and continues to make statements that surprise me.

However, to speak frankly, in my personal opinion, despite all his statements, I have not developed any sense of trust in Devlet Bahçeli or any belief that he is sincere about resolving the Kurdish question. Because people do not easily change after the age of seventy or eighty. When you look at this person’s and this political movement’s past and history, a series of horrifying events emerges one after another.

This is important, and there is concern about it within society as well. Moreover, calls are being made and promises spoken, but no concrete steps have been taken. What would you say about this?

No steps have been taken, only threats have been made, and fingers have been wagged. Even today, while Devlet Bahçeli expresses determination to continue the process, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his advisors are insisting that "the PKK must surrender, hand over its weapons, and dissolve itself." Nothing else is being said. There is no indication that any demands will be met, nor is there any sign that Turkey and the Kurdish issue will be resolved within a framework of democracy and freedom.

Regional developments are often pointed to in this context. What are your thoughts on this?

We all know that this step was taken due to the pressures of external dynamics and regional politics. It was not a decision made by thinking, "Let us finally resolve this issue, it has been too long." It is a situation they have been somewhat forced into. However, I also have concerns about this.

Among the peoples of the Middle East, if we think of a nation that has been subjected to injustice, it is undoubtedly the Kurds. Some religious minority groups have also faced injustice, but major powers have consistently used every opportunity against the Kurds' aspirations for an independent structure in the Middle East. As for the Turkish state, I am not certain whether it has brought this issue onto the agenda to serve the Israel–United States axis, or because it has been forced into alignment with that axis, or whether a process was initiated despite that axis. I believe it is necessary to closely follow developments, particularly in the Middle East, before drawing any definitive conclusions.

In any case, I believe that all sectors must do everything in their power to ensure that this issue is resolved in favor of democracy and freedom.

Following the call made on 27 February, which was seen as a preliminary agreement, it was stated that within a week steps would be taken, the isolation would be lifted, and Kurdish People's Leader Abdullah Öcalan would directly engage with society on the matter. Since none of this has been realized, how accurate is it to discuss the situation based solely on this preliminary agreement?

Yes, of course. In fact, when the text was announced, an additional oral statement was delivered through Sırrı Süreyya Önder. We should not forget that either. All of this inevitably raises questions in people's minds: were the missing references to democracy in the text a result of some form of pressure? Nonetheless, this call is an important step, and it seems that it has not been rejected but rather accepted by the PKK cadres.

I do not know how much we can prove this, but from what we follow in the media, it seems that the PKK is supporting this process. In that sense, it is a meaningful step. Even if nothing else happens, even if the cultural or sociological aspects of the Kurdish question remain unresolved, the cessation of war and conflict itself is a significant gain. Therefore, even if nothing else comes of it, it is necessary to support it.

Although the Kurdish issue resembles other examples worldwide, we must also remember this: in Colombia, thousands of guerillas of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) were killed after the guns fell silent. Thus, past experiences show that a peace process imposed through one-sided pressure without being embraced by the masses can create serious problems.

What would you like to say about the socialization of this issue?

Even the cessation of armed conflict alone would be a major gain for Turkey. In the last ten years, whether soldiers or guerrillas, the loss of lives has been immense, and preventing such losses would, in itself, be a significant achievement. However, this struggle must continue by being combined with the broader fight for democracy.

Today, the struggle for democracy in Turkey has already been embraced by the masses. Even high school students are taking to the streets, expressing their concerns about their future. University students are standing up as well. Public opinion polls show that the ruling power’s support among the population is declining. At this point, opposition forces must not stray from demands for early elections and mass mobilization to bring about a more democratic, more libertarian government in place of the current one.

How do you view the opposition’s attitude in this regard?

The leader of the Republican People's Party (CHP) is approaching this process very positively. This is important. It is essential to avoid steps that could alienate these two large social bases from one another. The Kurdish political movement, no matter what happens, must consider the feelings of these opposition forces and the masses pursuing a deeper struggle for democracy. Of course, just as the Kurdish side must be sensitive, the opposition in Turkey must also show similar care. So far, we see that politicians on both sides have acted with great prudence, and we are very pleased about this.

In terms of bringing the idea of peace to the broader public, we, along with many civil society initiatives, even if not through official associations, are doing everything we can to support the resolution of this issue. Yes, the economy is worsening, and inflation continues.

However, we must not forget that among all the problems requiring urgent attention, the Kurdish issue remains paramount. We must explain this to the public in a careful and appropriate language. As I said before, this language must not be provocative. It must not alienate the masses or inflame sensitivities. This applies to both sides equally.

Despite all the negative conditions, despite the ongoing imperialist interventions in the region and the continuation of Israel’s acts of genocide, I hope that Kurdish and Turkish politicians will act with wisdom and take steps to resolve this issue. That is our greatest hope. I would like to conclude by once again wishing Sırrı Süreyya Önder a swift recovery.