Adnan Boynukara
One of Türkiye’s most fundamental problems has been the PKK issue, which has posed a threat to national security since the early 1980s and has resulted in the deaths of thousands. While the issue has various dimensions, at its core it is about the PKK carrying out terrorist activities as an armed group. It is generally accepted and true that this problem will continue until the PKK lays down its weapons. Alongside this general consensus, there have also been debates from time to time about what developments might follow if the PKK disarms. These discussions were held frequently, especially in the past, during the period called the solution process. In recent days, these debates have resurfaced. Questions such as how Türkiye would evolve if the PKK disarms, or how society would react if such a step is taken by the PKK, are once again on the agenda.
It is worth recalling that one of the key phrases regarding the process of the organization laying down arms is “fortification of the domestic front.” President Erdoğan mentioned this issue in three major speeches. The first on the anniversary of the Manzikert Victory on August 26, the second on the anniversary of the August 30 Victory Day, and the third during the opening of the new legislative session of the Grand National Assembly on October 1. Following these speeches, on October 2, Bahçeli shook hands with DEM Party MPs in the General Assembly of Parliament, and AK Party Deputy Chairman Efkan Ala also joined in. When asked by journalists about this contact with DEM, Bahçeli responded; “What prompted me was the speech made by our President; I did it in response to our President’s call for ‘fortification of the domestic front.’” After Öcalan’s call and the PKK’s decision on May 12 to lay down arms and dissolve itself, related discussions flared up again and positions became clearer.
What Happens if the PKK Disarms?
The answers to this question essentially reveal two different visions for Türkiye’s future. For one side, the PKK’s disarmament is seen as a development that would open the door to a more democratic, socially peaceful, and pluralistic Türkiye. For the other side, it is perceived as a development that threatens Türkiye’s security, unitary structure, and sovereignty. Therefore, the reactions to the PKK laying down arms also serve as indicators of two differing approaches to Tükiye’s future.
Since the day the PKK began its terrorist acts, the fight against terrorism has progressed alongside the search for “an alternative path.” In the early years, there was no clear distinction because no concrete steps had been taken. However, there has always been a duality between those supporting solutions beyond armed conflict and those opposing them. Both sides evaluate the issue through different values, historical experiences, and visions for the future. To clarify the issue, it is useful to first look at global examples.
A Brief Perspective from International Experiences
The disarmament of some organizations with similar armed structures in the past and the developments that followed can shed light on discussions in Türkiye as well. For example, the IRA laying down arms and becoming a legitimate actor in the political sphere marked a major turning point for the United Kingdom and Ireland. In Colombia, FARC’s disarmament and participation in the peace process were considered critical developments for the country’s stability. In South Africa, the ANC’s decision to end its armed struggle and lead a democratic transformation was a historically significant example.
These cases are concrete experiences showing that it is possible for armed groups to be included in the political sphere and contribute to democratization processes. None of these countries were divided, and no autonomous administrations emerged. However, in contrast, the persistent conflict dynamics in the Balkans turned some countries into city-states. Despite this, each of the cases in Ireland, Colombia, and South Africa encountered various reactions from different segments of society. The same applies to Türkiye. It is possible to concretize the division that has become more apparent with the latest developments, as two basic approaches in Türkiye, those who support a political solution and those who oppose a political solution. Evaluating these two different stances is valuable for the country’s future.
The Pro-Solution Approach
Those who view the PKK’s disarmament, declaration of an end to its terrorist activities, and self-dissolution as positive developments, believe that the process will strengthen values such as democratization, equal citizenship, social peace, and pluralism in Türkiye. At this point, equal citizenship is not only a legal discourse but also a constitutional issue that ensures citizens can exist in public life with their identities.
Another emphasized point is that the process is not merely a security strategy; it also involves guaranteeing fundamental rights and rebuilding a democratic social contract. Those who adopt this approach also advocate for the expansion of civilian political space, the abandonment of security-focused policies, and the broadening of freedom of expression. Their main argument is that in an environment where arms are silenced, Türkiye can evolve into a more democratic and participatory political structure. Pro-solution advocates recognize citizens’ demands as legitimate as long as they remain within the constitutional framework. Such demands are approached within the scope of human rights and efforts are made to resolve them through a general democratization perspective. These individuals simultaneously support Türkiye’s democratization, the strengthening of a peaceful environment free from terrorism, civilianization, and a strong yet just state, while also rejecting division or a shift toward a federal structure.
They propose a resolution perspective that ensures Türkiye’s unity and integrity, recognizes differences, establishes equality, and secures social peace. Such a process is believed to accelerate Türkiye’s democratization. The retreat of military tutelage, civilianization, and the development of freedoms are directly related to the removal of the gray zones created under the pretext of counterterrorism in past years. Moreover, economic development and the elimination of regional disparities become more feasible in environments free from conflict.
The Anti-Solution Approach
Those who oppose the PKK’s disarmament believe that such a development would pose a threat to Türkiye’s security, unitary structure, and sovereignty. This approach is generally shaped by past traumas, security concerns, and the losses suffered during the fight against terrorism. For many figures representing this view, the term “solution” often implies “surrender” or “concession.” Their political vision is centered on a security-based, centralized, and homogeneous social structure. Rather than recognizing diversity, the implicit or explicit orientation of this view tends toward uniformity and assimilation policies. It is evident that this mindset produces outcomes contrary to democratic equality.
The arguments of those who support this stance can be grouped under three main headings. First, they accept that “the PKK’s ultimate goal is autonomy or independence.” There is no information/answer as to why some people are disturbed by the organization dissolving itself, despite laying down arms and declaring that there are no demands for independence or autonomy. Second is the assertion that “the legitimacy of the state cannot be questioned.” Based on this, it is argued that negotiating with the group would weaken the state. Third, such a process is described as “disrespectful to martyrs.” It is possible to say that this attitude is affected by two main factors. The first is the continuation of the security paradigm shaped in the 1990s within institutional memory and its reflection in society. The second is the impact of the outcomes of previous attempts on the state apparatus and how the bureaucracy reflects this to the public.
As it stands, this approach supports the continuation of security-oriented policies that have dominated Türkiye for many years. The vision of Türkiye from this perspective is a centralized state, shaped by a unitary and single-nation understanding. It advocates that all forms of diversity should exist only in private life, not in the public sphere.
Türkiye’s Dilemma: Suppress or Build the Future?
The fundamental difference between these two approaches lies in whether Türkiye can live together with its diversity. One side supports the recognition of differences and coexistence with them; the other believes differences should be suppressed and a homogeneous society should be preserved. Therefore, the issue is not only about the PKK laying down arms, but also about what kind of country, Türkiye wants to be. Will Türkiye become a pluralistic and democratic society, or will it maintain a security-centered, centralized, and homogenizing structure? When positions are evaluated within this framework, the problematic nature of the situation becomes apparent. To clarify this issue, it is necessary to consider what the outcome might look like if the organization disarms.
What Changes If Guns are Laid Down?
It is possible to say that the PKK’s disarmament will be effective in six main areas and will produce positive results. The first of these is the end of terrorism. If the PKK lays down arms, it would eliminate a terror problem that has persisted in Türkiye for over 40 years. This would especially reduce security concerns for people living in the eastern and southeastern regions and pave the way for normalization.
Second is the achievement of social peace. An atmosphere where weapons are not used and are abandoned will allow for a decrease in social polarization and an increase in dialogue between different segments of society. This would contribute to the strengthening of social peace.
Third is democratization and the democratic transformation of the state. As security concerns decrease, steps toward democratization can accelerate. Freedom of expression, political participation, increased pluralism, and the democratization of the state structure could become possible.
The fourth point is the removal of the PKK’s guardianship over Kurdish politics. Kurdish actors could then be evaluated not based on what the PKK does or does not do, but rather on their own political performance and what they promise to Türkiye. In the end, this would open the door to a genuine opportunity for normalization.
The fifth issue is international gains. One of Türkiye’s problems with some neighboring countries and the West stems from the consequences of PKK terrorist activities. The PKK laying down arms and the progress of a peace process would increase Türkiye’s legitimacy in the international arena and produce positive outcomes in the eyes of Western and regional actors. In a time when the economy is highly globalized and strong models of regional development are emerging, this could be a significant opportunity for the country.
The sixth topic we will focus on is economic benefits. The end of terrorism will allow for increased regional investments and accelerated economic development. Particularly for the youth population, increased employment opportunities would help reduce and resolve social problems. During the previous peace process, the people of the region saw clearly what this meant.
To realize the positive outcomes mentioned, two fundamental conditions must be met. The first is political courage. In order for this process to progress, political actors need to take bold steps, enlighten society and defend the policies they implement. This political courage must be demonstrated. The second is public support. For the process to gain societal legitimacy and ensure a lasting solution, public support is decisive. Current research data show that such support exists. It is clear that this support will increase to a higher level with the organization’s decision to lay down its arms.
A Lasting Solution is Possible But Courage is Essential
Returning to the central issue, the divide between proponents and opponents of a resolution in Türkiye is, along with internal dynamics, a reflection of broader debates about identity and the nation-state. International examples show that societies experiencing conflict do not achieve long-term stability by repression but through recognition and political solutions. The legitimacy of a state is strengthened when it approaches its citizens on the basis of equality and respect. If citizens’ demands are addressed not as security threats but through democratic inclusiveness, they cease to be a threat to unity and instead become a component of social solidarity. Therefore, the path ahead of Türkiye is not just a dilemma of “pro-solution or anti-solution” but a matter of establishing new rules for living together in democratic pluralism.
In conclusion, the PKK’s disarmament is not only a matter of security but also a critical turning point for Türkiye’s future. The responses to this issue also reflect choices about what kind of country Türkiye aims to be. A vision of resolution that recognizes differences, establishes equality, and achieves social peace will make Türkiye a stronger and more stable country. It will gain meaning only when the guns fall silent, but also when different voices are heard and listened to. The solution is crowned with the inclusion of not only the powerful actors but also those who cannot make their voices heard. The poor, those who have been forced away from education, and the children of the victims are the true stakeholders in this process.
The PKK laying down arms represents not only the resolution of a security issue but a move toward solving a social problem that has remained unresolved for over a century in Türkiye. This is not an easy path. The pain, insecurities and political calculations of the past lurk on this path. But that is precisely why the solution emerges not as a matter of political engineering but as a matter of historical courage. Resolution means the state speaking with justice, and the people responding with hope. Let us not forget that a democracy that grows under the shadow of guns will never function properly and will always remain incomplete. More importantly, this country and its citizens do not deserve this.
Source: perspektifonline.com