The process that began following Abdullah Öcalan’s “Call for Peace and a Democratic Society” on February 27 has now entered its seventh month. During this period, despite the Kurdish Freedom Movement taking steps in line with the call, the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has still failed to take the necessary steps.

Instead of advancing the process, the AKP has intensified its operations and attacks against the Republican People’s Party (CHP), which received the highest number of votes in the last elections, while continuing to avoid taking any meaningful measures. This has fueled discussions that the AKP is deliberately seeking to obstruct the process.

Hakan Öztürk, Chairperson of the Labourist Movement Party (EHP), spoke to ANF about the AKP’s approach to the process and the stance of the socialists.

AKP thinks no space should be opened for democratic progress in Turkey

Hakan Öztürk said that the AKP approach was shaped by its previous experiences during the earlier peace process. He assessed the government’s stance as follows:

“I believe there are two dimensions to this. The AKP has a certain way of thinking, and it draws on one of its previous experiences. During the earlier peace process, when a certain degree of democracy began to emerge, they thought that those who had been struggling for democracy in Turkey benefited greatly from it and advanced significantly. In this phase of the peace process, they decided to pay close attention to this and to prevent it from happening.

In one sense, the Kurdish question is very clear and very obvious; it needs to be resolved. International balances also require this. But while this was happening, they thought: ‘Let us not open a space for democratic progress in Turkey.’ Because the resolution of the Kurdish question is inevitable, but as a continuation of this, we can block the development of democracy in Turkey and pass it off merely by granting some rights to the Kurdish people. In my opinion, that is the interpretation they made in their minds. Accordingly, there has been a very clear intervention against the CHP. In doing so, they have both implemented their initial thinking and prevented an alternative government from emerging. In this sense, it has two dimensions.”

AKP thinks the new process would work against its interests

Hakan Öztürk stated that there is a conflict within the state, with one side wanting the Kurdish question to be resolved while another tendency resists this. He drew attention to the situation inside the state as follows:

“There are two sides to the matter. One side looks at it more objectively, on an international level, from a global perspective. This tendency within the state believes that a step on the Kurdish question is inevitable and that the costs will be lower. If they take this step, they believe the state will gain a more advantageous position in the region and in the world, and that there is no room left to retreat. Based on this, they think: ‘Let us take a step on the Kurdish question and try to bring it to a certain stage of resolution.’ In my view, its representative is Devlet Bahçeli of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP).

The AKP, on the other hand, takes the previous peace process as an example and believes: ‘This would work against my interests. If we take steps in favor of democracy in Turkey, it will work against me.’ For this reason, it is dragging its feet in the new phase of the Kurdish question.”

AKP cannot sabotage the process, the cost would be very heavy

Hakan Öztürk stated that the AKP cannot sabotage the process, warning that doing so would come with a very heavy cost. He emphasized that with the establishment of a parliamentary commission, the existence of the Kurdish question has now been fully acknowledged, and continued:

“In front of the entire society, at an international level, it was declared: ‘Let us address the Kurdish question.’ Even though they claimed to be addressing ‘terrorism,’ what does it mean to have a parliamentary commission on this? It means that there is such a social issue. It is an acknowledgment of its existence. Against the picture of denial that the Kurdish movement has spoken of for years, that commission stands as recognition. In one way or another, discussions have begun.

Now that this commission has been formed, this issue is being debated, and it has been said: ‘This is how it should be done.’ Abdullah Öcalan has become able to express opinions. Devlet Bahçeli said: ‘He should benefit from the right to hope,’ and ‘It should be debated in Parliament.’ After all this, to then say, ‘We are stepping back from this, we are no longer playing,’ would come at a very heavy cost. For this reason, they cannot do it easily. But if there is a tendency to drag feet and to obstruct the process, in my opinion, it is clearly the AKP.”

Fixing the economy requires creativity, it does not depend on political choices

Hakan Öztürk rejected claims that the AKP might try to end the process by linking it to Turkey’s ongoing economic crisis. He underlined that while a political choice could be made regarding the policies carried out against the Kurdish people, the economy could not be addressed simply through political preference.

Öztürk explained: “This is not such an easy matter. If we think in such absolute terms, it turns into nihilism. The economy is bad, democracy is weak, the Kurdish question is unresolved, then what will you stand on? Instead, there must be a more rational reasoning in the AKP’s mind. They must be saying: ‘At the moment, I have no chance of easily fixing the economy in the short term. I lack the knowledge and the capacity for this.’ The state and society as a whole may also have been thought of in this way.

Fixing the economy, making a breakthrough in production relations, is not easy; it requires great creativity. But if you say, ‘For years we have wronged the Kurdish people, now we are stepping back,’ that is something that can be done through a political choice. The economic field cannot be corrected by political preference. Here, there is an open door, and they can choose to take it.

In the past, the AKP could easily have promised a democratic environment. This depends on your political maneuvers, your political decisions. If you say, ‘Let there be some democracy,’ it can happen; if you say no, then you can prevent it.”

Öztürk also said, “So, what could have been thought of as a promise that can be made after careful consideration and debate? The resolution of the Kurdish question. And this is the foremost issue in terms of Turkey’s democracy problem. What does this mean? It means saying, ‘We are offering you democracy. At least the injustices suffered by the Kurdish people will be taken into account.’ This is the message, the promise, the announcement they want to make. But they also wanted this to be measured and approached with great caution, and that is what they are doing. In the economic sphere, however, they have no such chance. That is why it is normal that they have turned to this instead.”

AKP aims to force CHP out of the process

Hakan Öztürk said that the AKP aims to force the CHP out of the talks and sees this as part of its effort to derail the process. He continued:

“The foremost example of their foot-dragging and obstruction efforts is this. By constantly intervening in the CHP, they are trying to make it give up in frustration and say: ‘We are fed up. Such interventions cannot happen. While such anti-democratic circumstances persist, it is meaningless for us to be on this commission,’ and thus withdraw.

The CHP has become the party with the highest share of the vote, around 35 to 40 percent. Its withdrawal from the commission would cause serious damage to the commission itself. And what would suffer as a result? The new process, the new phase aimed at resolving the Kurdish question, would be harmed. I believe this is what the AKP has in mind: ‘Look, the CHP has withdrawn, the commission no longer has much meaning, and this process can also be derailed.’ But this too would come with costs. In this respect, nothing is easy.”

Recognition of the Kurdish question and Öcalan’s views boosted the social movement

Hakan Öztürk said that the AKP has been evaluating the experiences of the previous peace process and acting accordingly.

Öztürk also said, “Let me put it this way, tied to my first argument, which has once again proven itself. What had happened in the previous peace process? The Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) was able to receive 13 percent of the vote, the Gezi movement emerged, and the AKP lost its position as the sole governing party. Notice that as soon as the new peace process began to be discussed, at the stage where it was said that Abdullah Öcalan could express his views, when it was acknowledged, ‘There is a Kurdish question, let us discuss it, let a commission be formed,’ the overall social movement rose to levels never seen before. This should not be seen merely as Özgür Özel’s success, but rather as an objective reality.”

He continued, “On one hand, there was an intervention and a pressure operation against the CHP. But in response to this, socially and politically, the CHP became able to hold rallies everywhere, to resist everywhere. In politics, it gained the capacity to act and move far beyond the line of Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu. This has transformed into a dynamism similar to the social movement of Gezi, which at the time we had welcomed. In fact, what the AKP feared has once again returned to haunt it. Standing before it now is a CHP that is playing around 40 percent in votes, achieving this through vigorous political action, being on the stage every day, holding demonstrations every day, organizing rallies every day, challenging every day. Not just by giving speeches on Tuesdays.”

Socialists should welcome this process

Hakan Öztürk stressed that socialists must defend the rights of the Kurdish people and should not approach the process with excessive suspicion. He continued:

“Socialists are not as focused on this issue as the Kurdish Movement. Their habits in this matter are weak, but if we concentrate on it, we can achieve very good results. For one, we are discussing the issue again. A commission is being formed to address the Kurdish question, debates are taking place, and the matter is opening up to a certain extent. This should be welcomed. I am saying this against the attitude of rejecting it or showing too much doubt.

As people who generally defend democracy and the rights of the Kurdish people, we do not have the chance to say, ‘We will not be part of such talks.’ That cannot be said. Therefore, when we say, ‘Yes, let us talk, let us sit at the table,’ we must also focus on it. If discussions can take place, if a commission can exist in parliament, and finally, although this has not happened yet, if a concrete positive outcome emerges, we would reach a very good point.”

Öztürk also said, “Let us say that conditions arise where Abdullah Öcalan can present his political views to the public, or where Selahattin Demirtaş and other imprisoned individuals are released, or where the policy of state-appointed trustees is fully abandoned and elected mayors return to municipalities where trustees were imposed. Even if just one of these were to happen, it would greatly contribute to stabilizing the process and making it irreversible.

Right now, none of these steps have been taken, they are waiting. But if even one were realized, I believe a major change would emerge. For this reason, socialists should welcome the process. They should defend the position that the CHP must remain in the commission, and they themselves should also be part of it. They should strive for the Kurdish people to secure as many rights as possible.

At this point, I think a distinction should be made. Since we are already engaged in this, in general all problems of democracy should be resolved; yes, ideally, that is the case. But even if this does not happen, if some fundamental rights of the Kurdish people are secured, or if just one of the improvements I listed earlier is implemented, it would still be a major success for those who defend democracy. Because even the achievement of one of these would render the process irreversible. And we want the process to become irreversible.”

If the process collapses, the consequences will be bad, but a major field of struggle will also re-emerge

Hakan Öztürk stated that even if the process collapses, the Kurdish people will still take significant steps in the political arena. He concluded with the following remarks: “All of this shows that if it does not work out, it will not be an easy matter. This is the biggest issue in the Middle East. The Kurdish people are a large population and a politicized people; they have been able to create their own organizations and their own processes of resistance, and they will demonstrate this again.

We often say, ‘Let us do much in the political arena, let us do much in the legal arena.’ The Kurdish people are not inexperienced in the political sphere. They will also act strongly in politics, reaching the point of explaining this issue worldwide. Why? Because with this latest initiative of the state and the acknowledgement by the AKP, the existence of the Kurdish question has become very clear. They cannot return to the stage of denial again.”

Öztürk also said: “Let me put it this way: the MHP itself said that a delegation should be formed from the commission to meet with Abdullah Öcalan. It was not a socialist party that said this, nor was it the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party). It was the MHP.

From this perspective, when such words have been spoken, when it has been said that these matters should be resolved through dialogue, when it has been suggested that such a historic alliance should be put into practice, if they then say, ‘We are abandoning this,’ then I say this with reference to the AKP and to the state itself: the consequences for us will be bad, but a major field of struggle will also re-emerge.”