Politician Idris Baluken emphasized that the process carried out after the 'Call for Peace and Democratic Society', and the commission established within this framework, fell short of expectations.

Recalling that in past solution processes the political establishment’s support was much less than it is today, Baluken noted that at that time the MHP and CHP took a position either directly opposing or not supporting the process. He added: "Today, it is important to recognize that almost 90 percent of the political establishment, parties and institutions, support the process."

Despite this positive development, Baluken said that the most important deficiency of the previous process was the lack of socialization of peace politics. Despite the Kurdish side’s efforts, he stated, the government of the time avoided conducting the process transparently and failed to embrace it, creating a serious trust problem and preventing its socialization. He added that the government’s inability to overcome its anti-Kurdish stance, particularly in foreign policy regarding the Middle East and Syria, ended the process.

Commission's perspective is inadequate

Baluken said he valued the solution commission established in parliament with broad representation, noting that the expectation of solving the Kurdish issue on legal and political grounds arose with this commission. However, he stated that the commission’s current level of work, method, and perspective were inadequate.

He underlined that one of the commission’s most fundamental shortcomings was not meeting with Abdullah Öcalan. Baluken said the Kurdish side regards Öcalan as the chief negotiator and the architect of all processes, adding: "We are talking about a leadership that has marked the last 50 years of the Kurdish issue, a paradigm he developed, and a position that points toward a democratic, peaceful, and strategic path for the future of humanity. A commission that claims to seek a solution but has not yet met this expectation, that did not begin with such a step, can itself be defined as a problem."

Danger of reducing the issue to just weapons

Baluken noted that the commission tends to "confine itself to a very technical matter" and is limiting its work mainly to "the technical aspect of PKK’s disarmament," which he said is extremely problematic.

"The Kurdish issue existed before the PKK. It is a problem with a history of more than a century, essentially a matter of a people demanding fundamental rights and freedoms, especially language, identity, culture, and belief," Baluken said. He stressed that the commission must either demonstrate the will to solve the issue as a whole or establish sub-commissions.

He also proposed the establishment of a High Advisory Commission composed of politicians and academics to contribute to the building of a new democratic republic.

Ambiguity remains

Baluken noted that the government was influenced by international and regional balances in the first solution process, and that this situation continues today in different forms. He described the government’s approach as "an opportunistic one that follows conjunctural developments and acts according to its position," pointing out that in contrast to the Kurdish side’s clear and principled stance, the state has not responded at the same level.

"There is still ambiguity. We are talking about a state practice that holds different agendas depending on developments in Syria and the new balance in global politics," Baluken said, stressing that this situation also carries non-dialogue alternatives and is problematic.

Baluken said that the process is not at a negative point, observing that searches for a solution are surfacing, and red lines are becoming more blurred: "We must value these developments. However, it is also necessary that these efforts ultimately open a new page between the Kurds and Turkey through a relationship of recognition, with diplomatic reciprocity."