Kemal Öztürk
Let’s think about it this way: please suppose someone had said a year ago, “MHP Leader Devlet Bahçeli should call on Öcalan, should have him released from prison, and should let Öcalan to speak in the DEM Party’s assembly group meeting…” What would we have thought of this idea? Would anyone have even suggested that such a thing could happen? No.
We would have said, “If Bahçeli make such a statement, nationalists would revolt, the MHP would collapse, chaos would ensue, and the People’s Alliance would break up,” wouldn’t we?
Moreover, some would have said, “DEM would never support this, believe in it, or accept it.”
This is actually one of the most striking examples of the psychological barriers present in our minds.
The Mental Taboos
We all remember, don’t we? In the 1990s, when speaking Kurdish was officially banned, how many people would have believed it if someone had said, “One day, speaking Kurdish will not be forbidden; in fact, the state will broadcast in Kurdish on TRT and Anadolu Agency”?
If it had been said that there would be elective Kurdish classes in schools, Kurdish courses would open, and anyone could establish a Kurdish newspaper or television channel, I’m sure no one would have considered it possible.
Just like how, during the February 28 process, the idea of lifting the headscarf ban and allowing women in headscarves to become police officers, judges, or teachers seemed far-fetched to people.
At that time, there were taboos that seemed indestructible in people’s minds.
But during the AK Party government, the taboos and psychological barriers that everyone believed would never change were broken, and there was no chaos, no civil war, and the country didn’t fall apart.
In reality, the taboos weren’t in the minds of the people but in the minds of those governing the state. The nation had overcome the problem enough to have Kurdish-Turkish marriages, but the state saw speaking Kurdish as the threshold of the disintegration of the state.
While a woman in a headscarf and a woman without, could live together without any problems, the state saw lifting the headscarf ban as the first step toward bringing Sharia law to the country.
The state’s mindset and the people’s common sense have always worked differently, and throughout history, the people have actually had a more progressive mindset than the state.
Psychological Barriers in the Kurdish Issue
With his groundbreaking statement, Devlet Bahçeli actually broke down that psychological barrier in the minds of nationalists and right-wing conservatives. Don’t mind the dissenters; the majority believes that in an environment where guns are laid down, every issue can be discussed.
Just like the principle of “everything exists through its opposite,” psychological barriers in this issue also can be broken by the initiatives of opposing poles.
The statement of Bahçeli, who was the harshest opposition in all solution processes, that “Öcalan can be released from prison” was a game-changing statement towards the Turks, and it was met with a positive response.
Now, someone from the Kurdish side needs to make a similar statement, break ground, and dismantle the psychological barrier in people’s minds.
Just as the idea of the statists that “if speaking Kurdish is allowed, the country will be divided” was an unrealistic psychological barrier, a similar psychological barrier exists in the Kurdish community that is unrealistic concerns about losing Kurdish identity as well. That is the fear or taboo that says, “If the PKK lays down arms, we will cease to exist. If we tell the PKK to lay down arms, we’ll be labeled as traitors or even killed.”
In fact, there are many people within the DEM party or in Kurdish politics who are tired of the PKK’s tutelage, mindless policies, and use of violence and criticize them. But they cannot express this because of their mental barriers.
The Presence of Guns Hinders Talking
Does the PKK’s armed presence contribute to or harm discussions about the Kurdish issue? What is it that Kurdish politicians want to talk about but cannot due to the state repression, causing them to rely on the PKK’s arms?
Aside from an independent Kurdistan state, it is now possible to discuss and express everything, such as education in the maternal language and constitutional definitions of citizenship. Personally, I am as a journalist who voices on live broadcasts that we can discuss these issues. So, if we can talk about these on TV programs, what’s the need for arms?
The biggest obstacle to debating with a Kurd who advocates for education in their maternal language on TV programs is the weapons of the terrorist organization. Kurdish politics needs to see this reality.
For example, if a Circassian, Bosnian, or Albanian were to advocate for education in their language today, how would it be perceived? Naturally, the technical aspects, necessity, and pedagogical dimensions of the matter would be debated. No one would call these people separatists or accuse them of wanting to divide the country. Why? Because these people have no ties to terrorism, guns, or conflict.
Kurdish people can also reach the same position. But weapons are preventing us from talking and communicating.
We Need Courageous Kurds
Right now, a call for the PKK to lay down arms is more necessary for Kurds than it is for Turks. After all, the PKK has already been rendered incapable of carrying out operations within the country, and everything has turned against them in Syria and Iraq. It’s impossible for the terrorist organization to survive under these geopolitical changes and geographical conditions. Hiding in caves in the mountains is their only option left, and even that can only last for a while, as their logistics routes will soon be cut off.
In other words, the PKK laying down arms would primarily benefit those who want to engage in civilian politics in Türkiye, Syria, and Iraq, as well as those who want to discuss the Kurdish issue. After all, the PKK, in terms of organizational structure, founding philosophy, and ontological design, is an organization that resembles Ba’ath regimes in that it does not allow space for other ideas or voices.
Think of it this way, all of the mayors who are replaced by trustees today have an organizational crime in their past. Couldn’t DEM have nominated candidates without criminal records? Of course, it could. It has the human resources for that. But with its archaic mindset, the PKK insisted on making those people candidates, provoking the appointment of trustees, and thus desiring a conflict environment. It hoped to gather supporters by creating victimhood from this.
In other words, DEM can nominate candidates with clean records in both parliamentary and municipal elections, but the organization prevents this. The way to get rid of this tutelage will be the groundbreaking efforts of brave Kurdish actors. There needs to be a breakthrough that will dismantle their own psychological barriers and taboos. Every actor who takes responsibility will make a great contribution to the Kurdish issue and be on the right side of history.