Who Is Resisting Laying Down Arms, and Why?

Resistance emerging during disarmament processes can be classified into two distinct categories. The first includes the nationalist and far-right circles who oppose initiating dialogue with armed groups and the very idea of disarmament itself. The second consists of groups led by those who have used arms as a tool of struggle, as well as individuals within their orbit. Both factions are parties to the conflict and have acquired ideological and psychological traits born from this environment. Beyond the immense toll of pain, death, and injury, the conflict process embeds a culture of hostility, revenge, retaliation, and a desire for annihilation—sentiments that endure even after the violence ceases. Normalization becomes an intolerable space for such a culture. As Pierre Clastres illustrates in The Unhappiness of the Savage Warrior, when war ends, warriors expect rewards from society. Yet society only rewards them in times of war and does not want them interfering in its affairs during peace. This unfulfilled guardianship renders the warriors deeply unhappy.

The unhappy reflexes we have witnessed in the process of a “terror-free Türkiye” have a similar psychological basis. This is because neither the actors laying down arms nor those facilitating the process have any concrete proposals, alternative political visions, or constructive projections for their own sides—beyond their psychological responses. Instead, they express unease at the termination of habits born from and internalized within the culture of conflict. They have no answer to the question, “Should this conflict go on forever?”

The first group to react most harshly to the disarmament process is the nationalist and far-right elements. While these terms differ, they largely reflect overlapping instincts. Nationalism stems from a more secular and state-centric perspective, whereas the far-right expresses itself through notions of ethno-cultural superiority and exclusion. However, during processes of reconciliation and disarmament, the lines of resistance between these two groups converge.

Paradoxically, the terrorist activities carried out by armed organizations reinforce nationalist language and narratives, mobilizing nationalist and far-right sentiments across broader society. Yet when disarmament or peace efforts begin, these same nationalist and far-right circles intensify their opposition. For the well-being of the disarmament and peace processes, it is vital to examine the psychological, political, and identity-based roots of this phenomenon, highlight the risks it poses to societal peace, and discuss how such resistance might be managed.

The Roots of Nationalist Opposition to Disarmament

In this context, it is useful to focus on four separate headings. The first is the perception of “treason” in relation to national unity. Nationalist and far-right groups generally construct their political identity around the sanctity of national unity, territorial integrity, and a singular, indivisible national identity. For these circles, any kind of negotiation with armed organizations is seen as “legitimizing treason” or “compromising the sovereignty of the state.” The idea of engaging in dialogue with a group they label as terrorists or traitors is perceived not only as betrayal by the separatists, but also as a charge of treason against the public officials involved in such negotiations. However, for the state and its leadership, the core issue is not to leave problems unresolved, but to solve them. Another fundamental concern for those governing Türkiye is to resolve such issues at the lowest possible “cost.” Expanding the avenues for dialogue and civil politics represents the most viable and sustainable solution space that enables this outcome.

The second issue to consider is zero-sum identity politics. Nationalism often functions through a zero-sum perspective. Zero-sum identity politics is a political and social mindset in which the gains of one group are perceived as losses by another. In this framework, the expansion of identity-based rights, freedoms, or visibility is interpreted as a weakening of the power and status of other identity groups—particularly the majority—and even as a threat to their existence. Thus, constitutional recognition of fundamental rights, the emphasis on equal citizenship, and efforts to ensure participation in civil politics are perceived by the majority not as progress but as a loss. This sentiment is rarely articulated openly but occupies a deep space in the collective subconscious. Such dynamics are especially potent in societies where terrorist activities have caused profound destruction, and where narratives of victimhood are dominant. For this reason, nationalist and far-right groups do not perceive disarmament or solution-oriented negotiations as a path to social peace, but rather as a slippery slope toward fragmentation or secession.

The third factor is the fear of justice and accountability. When solution and disarmament processes are brought to the agenda, a variety of related issues also emerge. In particular, the possibility of judicial mechanisms being activated frightens certain actors who were involved in past periods of the conflict. These individuals externalize their fears through the reactions of nationalist and far-right groups. Although such fears are rarely expressed openly, they feed resistance to the organization’s disarmament process. At this stage, it is crucial to follow a cautious path to ensure that the country’s future does not become hostage to these fears.

The fourth issue is the matter of political capital and mobilization. Nationalist and far-right leaders often attempt to use negotiation processes aimed at a resolution to mobilize their base, consolidate their power, and discredit moderate actors. They frame such efforts—including even the organization’s decision to lay down arms—as dangerous concessions, while presenting themselves as the “true defenders of the homeland.” Thus, opposition to disarmament is not purely ideological but also instrumental, serving as a tool to enhance political visibility and maintain influence. These circles’ tendency to portray themselves as the rightful guardians of the state, national security, and unity represents one of the most serious challenges to the normalization process—that is, the democratic institutional order. Indeed, events such as the HDP delegation’s visit to İmralı during the 2013–2015 Resolution Process, the leaking of the Oslo talks, or the public reception of groups arriving from Habur sparked widespread public outrage and demonstrated how easily nationalist reflexes can be triggered. Yet these reflexes are no different in consequence from the negative outcomes of the very events they react to. In the end, the material and emotional losses, the costs and pain endured during the ongoing conflict, have added a new layer of trauma to Türkiye, its politics, its society, and its state.

Is It Right to Ignore Nationalist Reactions?

Even if they emerge from different motivations, it is not appropriate to ignore nationalist and far-right reactions. Disregarding such resistance may undermine long-term stability. Particularly important is the cost of reflexes nurtured by bureaucratic positions. These types of reactions can lead to problems in four key areas.

First is the active or passive resistance of individuals within the public bureaucracy—those who either do not want the process to succeed or who carry over security-oriented reflexes from the past. This is not a matter of ordinary resistance; it points to both political and structural challenges. Bureaucratic nationalism can play a critical role in sabotaging the process from within. The government’s sensitivity in this area is of utmost importance.

Second is the risk of sabotaging the resolution and disarmament agreement. Nationalist and far-right factions may attempt to obstruct the implementation of disarmament processes and block necessary legal reforms. As noted in the first point, they may try to achieve this by influencing certain public officials involved in implementation. Beyond this, they may also resort to protests and violence in an effort to sabotage the process.

Third is the risk of increasing polarization and radicalization. The priority here should be to communicate the truth to these groups. However, there is still the possibility that their activities will persist. In that case, it becomes essential to inform the public of the true aims behind the actions of nationalist and far-right groups and to take the necessary precautions. If such steps are not taken and this trend is ignored, even moderate segments of society may, over time, gravitate toward more hardline positions. This would only serve to deepen societal polarization.

Fourth is the potential for democratic erosion if the process is mismanaged. If nationalist and far-right reactions are not confronted and addressed, the resulting political turbulence could lead to the suspension of democratic norms under the pretext of “preserving national unity.” It is critical to keep this possibility in mind and to exert pressure on such groups when necessary.

Managing Nationalist and Far-Right Resistance

Processes of resolution and disarmament require effective management of nationalist and far-right resistance. Three main dynamics can be identified in this regard. The first is an inclusive architecture for peace and resolution. It is beneficial for such processes to be designed in a way that includes all social and political actors within society. Early involvement of these groups allows for the articulation of fears, clarification of misunderstandings, and the transformation of the symbolic foundations of national unity—from perceived threats into a basis for reinterpretation. Moreover, the process should be framed not as “yielding to terrorism,” but as finding a solution through the strength of democratic principles.

The second dynamic involves strategic communication and leadership. Political leaders must engage in bold and strategic communication efforts. This entails using inclusive language, maintaining transparent processes, and establishing direct engagement with communities who feel “threatened,” particularly in order to prepare the majority population for a potential resolution. Political elites must not surrender the language of patriotism to extremist factions. Instead, the courage to pursue a solution should be embraced as a new definition of patriotism.

The third dynamic is appealing to the emotional terrain. Opposition to resolution is not only ideological, but also deeply emotional. Feelings of worthlessness, loss, and insecurity must be acknowledged and addressed. Symbolic gestures, public statements, and joint commemorative events are essential. A significant portion of nationalist reactions are fueled by a tendency to interpret past grievances in a one-sided manner. Moreover, political identities rooted in the rhetoric of being “native and national” may lead some segments of society to feel devalued during resolution processes. Therefore, themes such as national honor, belonging, and collective historical mourning must be addressed with an emotional tone that includes all segments of society.

Disarmament Denied: Between Inability and Reluctance

The second source of resistance to the process comes from the organization itself. One of the most critical stages in post-conflict political transition processes is disarmament. This stage is not merely a technical military decommissioning, but also a symbolic, organizational, and societal practice of renunciation. In this sense, the PKK’s disarmament holds the potential to become not only an internal transformation for the organization but also a historic turning point in Türkiye’s democratization process. However, current developments raise concerns about signs of foot-dragging that may prevent this potential from being realized.

Three key points can clarify the issue. The first is that, in democratic regimes, the process of peace and normalization should begin with the organization’s renunciation of armed struggle and the implementation of this decision—prior to any steps taken by the state within a legal framework. Reversing this sequence produces a distortion that undermines both the process itself and the broader idea of a political solution.

Second, is the effort by certain elements within the organization to establish new partnerships in order to exploit the current international conjuncture. In particular, Israel’s regional revisionism and the crimes it has committed are fueling the organization’s appetite. This trajectory pushes the organization toward a historic mistake and risks sowing deep hostilities among the peoples of the region. The natural outcome of such potential cooperation would be a reassessment of the entire process by political decision-makers. And we all know what that would entail. Thus, the core dilemma can be summarized in the question: “Is this a path toward resolution—or a renewed search for proxy wars?”

Third, is the fact that much of the current discourse centers around the mythologization and sanctification of the leader, the organization, and the war itself. Sanctification belongs to the realm of theology. When applied to the political sphere, it detaches debate from rational grounds and turns into a form of dogmatic allegiance that obstructs democratic politics. Furthermore, the deification of individuals and the attribution of absolute representation to them become part of a hegemonic construction project—one that erases pluralism from political representation. This dynamic threatens not only the political rights of various groups, but also the very foundation of rational discourse upon which democratic politics must be built.

In conclusion, the paradox of peace and resolution is that it often triggers more resistance than conflict itself. Opposition to disarmament—whether from nationalist, far-right, or organizational circles—is not grounded in rationality. Rather, it is deeply intertwined with identity, memory, and political interests. Therefore, both existing and potential forms of resistance must be taken as seriously as the efforts toward disarmament and resolution themselves. One of the essential first steps toward a solution is to build a sense of shared homeland, an understanding of equal citizenship, and a new foundation for civic belonging. What is needed is a perspective that does not interpret coexistence and diversity as fragmentation, nor perceive the pursuit of peace as a weakness. On the contrary, there must prevail an understanding that recognizes these steps require genuine political will and moral courage.

The political positions that exist in our country represent a great opportunity. In order not to sacrifice this opportunity to petty political calculations, narrow nationalist reflexes, far-right ideologies, or the childish ambitions of certain actors within the organization, what is needed is a courageous demonstration of collective will. Peace, resolution, healing wounds, building a shared future, learning from the past, and adopting a constructive and foundational position—focusing on the common problems of our shared home without paying more costs or suffering new pain—require rational thought and profound wisdom. Ensuring Türkiye’s existence and survival within a climate of comprehensive peace, justice, and democratic rule of law—despite global and regional threats and anxieties—is not only the responsibility of sincere statesmen who believe in this vision, but also of the nationalist and organizational elements who claim to care more than anyone else about the interests of their own nation. If they cannot be a component, a partner, or a contributor to this greater goal, then they must either remain silent with the sorrow of the “unrewarded warrior,” or await being branded before society and history as savages who promise death in place of life.

Ultimately, every conflict is a tool of politics. And if politics has managed to create an environment in which such a tool is no longer needed, then reason and common sense demand that we contribute to that environment. What those who govern the country must focus on—without being hindered by resistance or foot-dragging—is the following fundamental question: “If we fail to find a political solution to this issue, what will the country gain—and what will it lose?” The answer to this question sheds light on many other matters.