CHP's stance insufficient, may step in with complementary proposals says Ali Bayramoğlu    

2025-01-11 09:10:03


	İSTANBUL - Pointing out that the government has postponed the cultural and political dimensions of the Kurdish issue, "The CHP's stance is also insufficient. If democracy and Kurdish rights are not in the government's plan, the CHP can step in with a proposal that will complement them," says Journalist Ali Bayramoğlu.

	The messages of PKK Leader Abdullah Öcalan, who is being held in isolation in İmralı Type F High Security Closed Prison, on the democratic solution of the Kurdish issue remain on the agenda. After 43 months of absolute isolation, Abdullah Öcalan had a face-to-face meeting with his nephew, Peoples' Equality and Democracy Party (DEM) Riha (Urfa) MP Ömer Öcalan on 23 October.

	 

	The last contact with Abdullah Öcalan was made on 28 December. After the meeting with DEM Party MPs Sırrı Süreyya Önder and Pervin Buldan, Abdullah Öcalan's 7-point message was shared with the public. Abdullah Öcalan emphasised the strengthening of the Turkish-Kurdish brotherhood and stated that all political circles should " take initiative without getting caught up in narrow, short-term interests".

	 

	Journalist-writer Ali Bayramoğlu, who was a member of the Wise People's Delegation during the "dialogue" process between 2013-2015, answered the questions of Mezopotamya Agency (MA) regarding the discussions on the "new process". 

	 

	Bayramoğlu stated that he found the call to Öcalan made by MHP Chair Devlet Bahçeli at the opening of the new legislative year of the Parliament on 1 October and the talks held afterwards positive and that Öcalan's statement "I also support this paradigm" is a bilateral opening. Bayramoğlu stated that the government did not carry out a complete process. Bayramoğlu said the following about the aims of the government regarding the solution process: "The government and the state side are trying to define this step and the mechanism that will follow it within an alliance model. It does not pay much attention to the cultural and political demands beyond the armed dimension of the Kurdish issue. It postpones these with an attitude of postponing them in time, paving the way for politics, and does not use the word democracy. What the government proposes is a model based on a dialogue between the state and Öcalan. In other words, 'call for laying down arms, disband the organization, and let opportunities such as the right to hope come into play. Let this gun business end. When the arms business is over, you can do whatever you want politically in the coming period.' It is a model like 'Come in this direction, let's redefine the republic on the basis of Kurdish unity. To do this, lay down arms, close the door to other alternatives, and do politics within Turkey."

	 

	Regarding Abdullah Öcalan's messages, Bayramoğlu said, "As far as I understand, Öcalan has a positive attitude to move forward with such models. In the first solution process, Öcalan accepted the withdrawal of militants from Turkey only in return for a promise. Without getting anything concrete. Therefore, it is not very different from the mechanism there. The difference is that there was no disarmament, there was withdrawal of militants. The laying down of arms was to be after a point to be reached in the negotiations. We could not reach that point with the Dolmabahçe crisis."

	 

	Bayramoğlu said that Öcalan's messages emphasised the expression of democracy and that it should be carried out through social dynamics, unlike the government, and that these attracted his attention, and that there should be a total approval in the constitutional arrangements to be made after the delegation's meetings with political parties. Bayramoğlu emphasised that the CHP did not propose anything regarding the solution process and stated that it should act in favour of the positive progress of the process. Bayramoğlu said, "The CHP's stance is also insufficient. If democracy and Kurdish rights are not in the government's plan, the CHP can step in with a proposal that will complement them."

	 

	WHAT KIND OF SOLUTION PROCESS?    

	 

	Bayramoğlu said the following about what kind of a solution process should be carried out: "Ideally, the model I would define as ideal is for the parties to come face to face to talk and satisfy their demands. But Turkey cannot move forward like this. It does not seem to be able to move forward like this. We are experiencing perhaps one of the most fascist political regimes in Turkish history and one of the main reasons for this is the fear of Kurds. In other words, there is a Kurdish issue or a policy framework that justifies the situation that has emerged in Rojava and Turkey's entire foreign policy and the regression of the democratic picture. This is a big obstacle. This model can overcome this obstacle. In this respect, we should look at it positively. As long as we develop around this model. Let's fill this model. Therefore, taking this gradually without giving the appearance of a negotiation should be the biggest lesson we learnt from the first solution process.

	 

	Let's talk about laying down arms. This should be discussed with the state and the government. This is a matter of the government, the organization (PKK) and Öcalan. But how will a democratisation in Turkey that includes the Kurdish issue and targets it as well be realised? You can call it democratisation without putting the Kurdish issue at the forefront. But you also emphasise the main aspects of this issue. What are these? A strong local government model. This is a way forward without political devolution. Regulating the mother language issue and making some arrangements regarding the definition of citizenship in Turkey. Of course, I am not including the Rojava part of the issue, because the main difference between the first solution process and the second solution process is here. Turkey's Kurdish issue is today a regional problem. Turkey is putting into play the role played by other actors beyond the organisation and Öcalan.

	 

	If this direction is to be pursued, the Kurdish movement must be able to say yes to a major paradigmatic change and seek ways to achieve this within itself. For a long time, the Kurdish movement in Turkey has been experiencing both a relationship and a contradiction between the method of violence, the method of arms and the method of politics. In other words, there is a large Kurdish community in Turkey that wants and demands that this work be carried out through politics. Of course, the other non-Kurdish communities in Turkey are more inclined to this. There is an opinion that the weapon has lost its function to a great extent in Turkey. Now, if there is a proposal in this direction, the Kurdish movement needs to be able to accept it, that is, to think and discuss the risks, dimensions and depths of returning from arms to politics, and to make a paradigmatic change in this regard. This is a very important issue.

	 

	Of course it is necessary. But the model of 'first take a step and then lay down arms' does not work. Therefore, we need a mentality that is willing to accept a transition towards politics. When and how to lay down arms is a separate discussion. It is a question of political balance. What is important here is the declaration of an intention and the discussion of how and in what way the weapons will be laid down gradually, if not the day after tomorrow. Of course, the story I just told before, the parliament, political parties should be active as a reflection of democratic steps."

	 

	MA / Diren Yurtsever