Politics in Türkiye has long been carried out on a ground that fosters identity politics and consequently polarization. In every election period, campaigns shaped by security-centered rhetoric have further reinforced this polarization. One of the most central and influential issues in this polarization has undoubtedly been the issue of “terror.” The PKK’s armed presence has shaped not only the country’s security dynamics but also the very style of doing politics in Türkiye as one of the most defining facts and problems.
The real problem here is that the distortion revealed by this situation has been overlooked for a long time. Political parties, especially centrally positioned actors, preferred a relaxed, comfortable, and contentless political style thanks to the atmosphere created by armed terrorism. This comfortable style of politics extended not only to the ruling party but also to the centrist opposition parties. A bit of rhetoric and some nationalistic fervor sufficed.
But what if the PKK lays down its guns completely?
The elimination of the political reflexes, polarizing language, and security-based agendas to which society is accustomed, will require rebuilding both politics and social perception. The PKK’s disarmament will initially be perceived as a positive development in terms of reducing security risks and strengthening social peace. Of course, this would be a major change in itself. However, this development also has the potential to leave a large part of politics in Türkiye ‘bare’ and ‘unprepared’. This is because politics is largely built upon the reflexes produced by the conflict. It leans on positioning itself rather than having a real political agenda, on exclusion rather than vision.
Political Comfort Built in the Shadow of Terror
We know that political positions in Türkiye have long been shaped along a “we” versus “them” axis. In this equation, the PKK had become a functional element for both the government and the opposition. This equation, which was seen as beneficial by the parties even though it was not spoken about, was destroyed by the experiences of the AK Party in its early years. On the one hand, a distinction was made between terrorism and the Kurdish issue, and a general democratization perspective that appealed to the whole society and the Kurds was implemented. Meanwhile, the terrorist activities carried out by the terrorist organization were also combated. Unique political approaches were developed, and this yielded positive results that deserve serious consideration.
However, it has been forgotten that the most fundamental characteristic of Ankara, that is, the old established order, is its capacity to transform and homogenize political understandings, parties and politicians that want to exist with their differences. All parties are expected to adopt a language and attitude that align with the existing comfort zone instead of engaging in genuine politics. This comfortable style of politics is not only characterized by a lack of content but also by the weakness of institutional reflexes. It renders the research units, policy-making mechanisms, and intellectual cadres of political parties inactive. When Ankara’s influence and capacity in this area are not taken seriously, it becomes clear that parties from different ideological backgrounds are pulled into a similar line, and instead of producing real policies, they gravitate toward safe but shallow positions. Many justifications can be made for this situation.
Ankara has long been operating this capacity through the terrorism equation. The organization’s terrorist activities serve as a functional justification. Thus, engaging in politics under the shadow of terror prioritizes crisis management rather than strategy development, problem-solving, or strengthening social peace. This has led to a sterilization, not a productive, political landscape. However, true politics requires not just winning elections but also establishing goals that will transform society in this rapidly changing world.
However, Ankara even consolidates the social base of the parties through this equation. Instead of embracing problems, putting them on the agenda, and producing solutions, it ‘imposes’ a form of political reluctance. While taking a political position may seem safe in the short term, in the long term, such preferences may weaken the ability of all parties to generate meaningful content. Yet this seemingly safe space is also an area of ‘irresponsibility.’ Most political parties do not feel the need to present an inclusive, convincing, and detailed vision on the country’s fundamental issues. This attitude is legitimized through the priorities created by terrorist activities. The atmosphere where guns dominate, creates a shared pressure on politics. This drives parties to remain silent and simply take a position rather than produce solutions.
The Gap That Disarmament Will Uncover
The PKK laying down its arms would not only mean the collapse of the old establishment’s political equation in Ankara but also the end of comfortable politics. Because the era of consolidating the electorate and doing politics through terrorism will be over. Politicians will be forced to exist through their solutions, economic and social projects, and cultural inclusivity. When that happens, politics will both become more authentic and more difficult. The era of politicians who know nothing beyond memorized rhetoric will come to an end. Not artificial figures polished through personal development workshops, but authentic individuals will come to the fore. The political struggle itself will also be forced to rest on a more genuine ground.
Moreover, in a period without guns, not only centrist parties but all parties will face a different test. An environment without guns will also transform parties engaged in ideological and identity politics. For example, the DEM Party, or any new political mechanisms that may follow its trajectory, will also have to reassess their ways of doing politics in this new period. The new political climate we are discussing will offer identity-based parties an opportunity to strengthen their legitimacy claims on democratic grounds. This opportunity applies not only to parties aligned with the terrorist organization’s ideology but also to nationalist, conservative, or secular actors engaged in identity politics. The absence of terrorism will necessitate a redefinition of identities and a transformation of forms of representation on a civilian basis.
What we are discussing here is not just a matter of political positioning, but a process of constructing a new identity and language within democratic politics. A period will emerge where what is genuine and what is symbolic or performative will be clearly distinguished for all parties. Thus, not only centrist parties but also actors prioritizing ideological, ethnic, and identity-based politics will have to confront the demands of this new era.
We can all observe that centrist parties have long avoided producing genuine politics. This tendency is not limited to the ruling parties; it has spread to all parties that have long been influential in centrist politics. As a result, each party’s different weaknesses have begun to surface. Parties that build political allegiance through local services, social aid, and traditional values but remain weak on issues such as democratic transformation, freedoms, and multiculturalism… Parties that are successful in appealing to urban and secular voters but have yet to develop a deep economic vision or inclusive identity policy… These examples can be multiplied. In fact, one could argue that this situation has emerged because political parties have preferred ‘activity-focused’ endeavors over authentic political struggle.
The Sterile Voter and the Problem of Vision
When one carefully examines the country’s political struggle, it becomes apparent that the voter behavior is also becoming increasingly sterile. The sterile voter is a profile that largely determines political preferences through identity-based affiliations and prioritizes symbolic representation over political content. This situation reduces the pressure on parties to be accountable and to renew their policies. In turn, it limits their capacity for self-criticism and participation in authentic political struggle. However, in a political climate free of terrorism, voters will begin to demand more from political parties. Issues like education, a vision of equal citizenship, plans to close regional development gaps, democratization goals, media freedom, freedom of expression, judicial reform… In short, full democracy.
In such a context, there will be a need for a political party system that asks not about “what activities they are doing, do they visit our town?” but about “what is their vision for the country and what they think?” Political parties also have a responsibility to transform voters. Politics must not only meet the demands of the voters, but also make them dream of a fairer, freer and more egalitarian future, which must be part of the political vision. And this is precisely the situation that will become the most challenging issue for the existing parties.
Time to Confront Real Politics
The PKK laying down its arms would be a historic opportunity for Türkiye. But this opportunity will only be meaningful if it is accompanied not just by the silencing of weapons, but by the rise of political dialogue. For political parties, and especially centrist parties, this is the end of the comfort zones mentioned above. They will need to produce genuine policies that respond to the needs of society, not just holding activities and hiding behind anything, and this situation is true not only for the ruling party but for all parties that have been positioned in the centre for a long time.
A Türkiye without terrorism will place political parties in front of the mirror. It will reveal who is visionary and who is reactionary, who is inclusive and who is insular, who produces policy and who merely takes positions. Looking into this mirror requires courage. But now, we have no choice but to look. Because politics must be conducted not only with the fight against terrorism, but also with justice, prosperity, equality and a common vision of the future.
The end of terrorism will remove the excuses from politics. Not just politics, but also the media, academia, and civil society must be prepared for this new era. Türkiye’s chronic problems can no longer be overcome with useless arguments but only through common sense and common ground. We know very well that real politics does not require taking positions, but building a future that can accommodate all the colors of society.
Perhaps, for the first time, Türkiye is approaching a threshold of doing politics not with terror but with ideas, not with fear but with hope, not with oppression but with social consensus. And this threshold does not only belong to political parties but to all of us.
Source: perspektifonline.com