Adnan Boynukara
“Language is a bridge; it is the human themselves who builds or destroys it.”
(Anonymous)
Türkiye is on the brink of a new and promising period concerning the resolution of a longstanding and burdensome societal issue. The PKK’s disarmament and its declaration of self-dissolution is the clearest sign that the terrorism problem has effectively come to an end. This development marks a historic turning point not only in the realm of security but also in shaping politics, social reconciliation, and the democratic future.
At the same time, the Turkish Grand National Assembly’s (TBMM) move to establish a commission to provide legal grounds for the process indicates that the political system is taking this development seriously. Every step taken represents a historical shift in the disarmament and dissolution process. Türkiye has reached the threshold of a new era, both in its political structure and collective awareness.
The Main Factor That Will Determine the Fate of the Process: The Language Used
In this critical period of historical steps, the most prominent and vital issue is the language used. The current stage once again shows how decisive the language used by the key actors in the process is. However, the sense of responsibility in political communication sometimes appears to be weak. The country is being drawn into vicious cycles centered on political agendas. We are faced with a state of mind that expects the issue to be resolved without taking responsibility: Regularly given directions, imperious and one-sided ‘instructions’ such as “Now it is time for this or that action” or “Step must be taken on this or that issue”.
As the old saying goes, “The method precedes the essence.” And wording precedes procedure. In such a sensitive and critical period, it is necessary to prioritize correctly and speak of what is reasonable and achievable. Instead of a language trapped in a ghetto mentality that evaluates the process within the framework of organizational gain, a positive language should be established that presents the ultimate goal of normalization as a collective gain. This is the true creative contribution and the attitude that will move the process forward.
What’s clear is this: the old discourse must be abandoned. Because it carries the memory and habits of the past. However, a new era cannot be built on old formulas. Today is not the time to build a public discourse based on our established beliefs. On the contrary, we face the responsibility of establishing a discourse that breaks with the established approaches and prioritizes a shared future.
Discourses that constantly assign duties to parties and rely on a “we vs. them” dichotomy inevitably provoke social and political backlash. Yet we are presented with a historic opportunity to collectively leave a crisis behind and build a common future together. A prudent and inclusive language must be constructed to support this goal. And this responsibility lies especially with all actors who are involved in or wish to be part of the process.
In this context as well, the conditions being raised regarding the commission that will work on arrangements for disarmed and dissolved group members sometimes include approaches that go as far as assigning all of the country’s problems to a narrowly defined structure. This could destabilize the process.
Yet details regarding the roadmap have already been discussed between the parties; communication channels are open. Despite this, persistent use of ‘instruction’ language can harm the process. It might even erode public support. Moreover, it creates misperceptions among the public, turning the process into a tool for internal political rivalry. In both cases, the people of the country suffer.
A similar situation is seen within the commission itself. Numerous meetings have already been held; all technical details, such as content, scope, format, and participation, have been addressed. Just as the process appears to be stabilizing, a language that complicates the process resurfaces due to internal political rivalries and individual agendas.
The Shadow of Political Competition: Opposition and Perception Wars
Today, almost all political actors involved in the peace process are well aware of the past experiences, the challenges faced, and how the process has been sabotaged before. For this reason, they are expected to adopt a more cautious and sensible stance. However, the current picture does not align with this expectation. The language generally used is careless enough to be easily exploited by domestic political opposition and harsh enough to cause societal fragility. This is not just a symbolic fragility; it is a situation that triggers a genuine, deep and social sensitivity.
Some circles tend to compress every step and every statement into the discourse of “negotiating with terrorism” with the aim of wearing down the political willpower that decides the process, especially the government and its partner. In an atmosphere where such position searches are intensified, the imperious language containing ‘instructions’ narrows the field of action of the actors running the process. Worse still, it rekindles a sense of distrust among groups already skeptical of the process.
In every situation where the language is not used carefully, false but effective perceptions are created such as, “Look, it is not what they say; this process is a give and take process.” Presenting a well-known falsehood as fact is detrimental to the process. This is clear. Similarly, bargaining discourses, attitudes that establish winner-loser equations, or wholesale expectations regarding developments that will spread over time are also far from reality and even damaging to the process.
What Matters is Balance in Discourse
Yet the spirit of this period, along with political maturity, necessitates the construction of a new language. This language must inspire public trust, prioritize the nation’s interests, adopt the process, and be grounded in the principle of mutual responsibility. And this language guides not only the wording but also the essence of the process. Political parties and actors are aware of the special responsibility that falls upon them. From the beginning of the process until now, most actors have taken care to use a careful and liable language. Even if they are not direct stakeholders, they have understood that they carry the process forward through their social bases.
Therefore, the interest of the nation and the people clearly demands a prudent and responsible language. While constructing this language, it must be remembered that not only the electorate but the entire Turkish society, who are watching and questioning the process closely, must be taken into consideration. Every word spoken addresses not just one side but all parties who will shape the future of the process.
The frequently repeated and now hollow “directive” discourse of the previous resolution process holds no meaning today. What truly matters now is the sharing of responsibility. Because at hand is a willpower that rejects arms and seeks a solution on democratic grounds. What needs to be done at this stage is not to repeat slogans, but to assume shared responsibility and prevent false perceptions. This is a historic responsibility.
The healthy progress of the process depends not only on assuming responsibility but also on how that responsibility is conveyed to the public. For this reason, what is expected from those involved is not just appeals, but sincere reflections on the past to rebuild social trust.
The Spanish-born philosopher George Santayana’s famous quote is particularly worth recalling at this stage: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” If we recall the mistakes of the past and observe today carefully, the correct way to manage the process will naturally emerge.
The Importance of the TBMM Commission and Expectations
The commission established under the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM) holds historical importance as a mechanism that seeks political and social consensus. As a significant development in the process, for the first time the head of the National Intelligence Organization (MİT) visited political parties represented in Parliament, shared information, answered questions, and emphasized the seriousness of the issue. This visit became a concrete indicator of the government’s commitment to the issue.
The proposed commission structure allows all political parties represented in Parliament to participate in the process. Therefore, any success that emerges here has the potential to shape not only the present but also the future.
The foundation of this success depends on all actors embracing the process, contributing to it, and acting with a sense of responsibility. Because an issue of this magnitude requires a procedure and approach that match its sensitivity and seriousness. Reopening previously agreed topics for discussion or using the process as a tool to signal messages to any party’s base would undermine Türkiye’s achievements. The commission must serve not as a political tool, but as a bearer of the common good.
Past experiences have shown clearly how such positions have harmed the process. That’s why it is vital today not to manipulate the work of the commission, in which great hopes are placed, and to genuinely believe in the process. When all sides unite around the goal of strengthening the democratic framework, legitimacy and social support will naturally grow.
Silence, Timing, and the Language of Responsibility
As Türkiye approaches a new threshold in the quest for social peace and resolution, not only the language used but also the nature of silence gains significance. We are going through a period where fake news is spreading about people who have been released from prison within the framework of the penal-execution regime and where public opinion is being manipulated through videos.
At this point, the essential thing is to stand with the truth, not falsehood. Avoiding unnecessary polemics and choosing silence at times can be far more valuable for the health of the process. Because untimely and repetitive statements weaken social support, whereas constructive silences and reassuring messages delivered at the right time strengthen the process.
Every step taken today does not only shape the peace of today but also lays the foundation for the democratic order of tomorrow. The success of this process is not limited to establishing a legal order that brings peace, tranquility, and freedom; it will also reinforce a sense of shared belonging and a fair understanding of democracy. Therefore, developing a shared political ethic and language of discourse is a responsibility we all share. This call is not limited to politicians, it also includes the media, civil society, and opinion leaders. Because the future of this process lies in the bridges we build with words. We must cross those bridges together, without tearing them down.
Let us not forget that this effort is being made to heal a deep wound. To ensure that past mistakes are not repeated, burying the pain and negative memories with dignity is the first step toward healing. Building the future with a prudent language is just as vital as not forgetting the past. Otherwise, as Lacan said, “What is not properly buried always returns.” And we do not have the right to allow such a possibility to exist for this land, this people and, for the future of our children.