A Historic Opportunity and the Fragility of Perception Management

Türkiye has reached a critical threshold at which it may be able to bring an end to a cycle of security and social trauma that has lasted for more than 40 years. The process moving forward toward the laying down of arms and the dissolution of the organization is not merely a matter of security; it is a multi-layered normalization process with legal, political, and social dimensions. For this reason, the work being carried out under the roof of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM) stands out as the strongest and most legitimate foundation for the process.

However, in such a historically significant and fragile period, it must not be forgotten that the language and perception surrounding the process have become just as decisive as the process’s content itself. In particular, the debates forming around the statements made by some members of the organization who had spent many years in prison and were released create a space that is independent of the process but carries the potential to harm it. What must be focused on is not the content of these statements, but the perception they generate, the reflexes they trigger, and the risks they may produce.

The Delicate Balance of Social Legitimacy

The success of the disarmament and dissolution process depends not only on technical and legal arrangements, but also on the sense of justice and reasonableness that will emerge across broad segments of society. After more than 40 years of conflict, it is clear—and naturally so—that sensitivities remain high in different parts of society. Especially for those who have directly or indirectly been confronted with the consequences of violence, the language and symbols of the process carry as much weight as its content. Therefore, the language used inevitably carries the risk of triggering these sensitivities.

A maximalist, defiant, or past-justifying tone—even if it does not reflect the essence of the process—can lead to certain questions being raised in the public sphere. Precisely for this reason, in such periods, perception can often come to overshadow the actual content of the process, and symbolic discourse can obscure institutional will. At this point, the issue is not the truth or falsehood of the statements made, but rather the erosion of the ground for social acceptance. For a loss of legitimacy can render even the most robust legal regulations open to controversy. Thus, the issue is not so much the individual statements themselves, but the kind of perception framework they generate.

Discourse as a Field of Political Sabotage

Another risk area posed by such statements is that they open up a broad space for maneuvering by political and ideological actors who have been opposed to the process from the outset. Circles that seek to present the disarmament and dissolution process as a “concession,” “surrender,” or “reward” tend to take these statements out of context and extend them to the entire process. This approach often evolves into a political strategy aimed at rendering the process controversial, independent of the actual impact of the statements.

The chaotic atmosphere that arises around this issue can result in individual statements—rather than the content of the legislative work to be carried out in the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM)—becoming the focal point of public debate. Yet the real strength of the process lies not in individuals, but in institutional mechanisms. Therefore, debates driven by personal remarks carry the risk of weakening the democratic and institutional foundation of the process. This, in turn, may also negatively impact the public perception of commission reports and possible legislative arrangements. It constitutes one of the most effective ways of sabotaging the process indirectly, without confronting it directly.

Indeed, it has been clearly emphasized at the highest level that the process must not be made a matter of daily political calculations. President Erdoğan’s statement, “This process, which aims to save our country from a 40-year calamity, must not be sacrificed to the political calculations of daily politics. We will not shy away from doing whatever is necessary to ensure that the process reaches its intended destination without any mishaps,” points to the fact that the process must be a matter of institutional will, not personal polemics.

The Risk of Losing the Subject of the Process

Another critical risk is the displacement of the subject of the process. The subject of the disarmament and dissolution process should not be individuals, memories, or ideological narratives of the past, but rather the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (TBMM), the rule of law, and democratic politics. However, debates revolving around individual outbursts can drag the process toward personal accounts and symbolic polemics. This results in a disproportionate trivialization of the issue relative to its historical weight and leads to a lowering of the level of debate. Pulling a problem that has lasted more than 40 years back into old lines of discussion through a few statements not only causes a loss of time but also deepens the already worn-out social patience and fatigue. The future-oriented character of the process weakens the more it is discussed using the language and symbols of the past, and the sense of public motivation and ownership recedes.

One important point that must be underlined is that such statements do not possess the power to decisively affect the legal and institutional resolve behind the process. The will of the state and the role of the TBMM extend far beyond individual rhetoric. However, this does not mean that such statements are harmless. On the contrary, they create a space that is ineffective but harmful. They do not halt the process, but they corrode the societal perception surrounding it. What they wear down is not the mechanisms that move the process forward, but the social perception encircling the process.

Call for Responsibility and Composure

At this point, responsibility falls not only on the institutions conducting the process, but also on politicians, the media, and society as a whole. It is of vital importance that the media place provocative statements in context rather than amplifying them; that politics clearly distinguish the process from individual rhetoric; and that society recognize that an issue of this scale cannot be evaluated in a few sentences. For at such historical thresholds, the real harm often arises not from direct opposition, but from negligence, haste, and recklessness in language.

The opportunity before Türkiye can be realized not with slogans of the past, but with the law and institutional wisdom of the future. The silencing of weapons and the end of conflict do not constitute a single “moment,” but rather a long process that must be managed with care. The success of this process depends on the continuous reproduction and preservation of its gains. Otherwise, statements and polemics that seem secondary today may turn into headlines tomorrow that damage the legitimacy of the process.

For this reason, composure is not a choice but a necessity. In an environment where collective wisdom, institutional grounding, and social patience cannot be preserved, even the most well-intentioned and correct steps may become subject to controversy. Türkiye’s chance to be rid of a 40-year burden can only turn into a lasting success if this consciousness and sense of responsibility are consistently sustained.