Necip F. Bahadır
I’m not among those who belittle the PKK’s symbolic disarmament. This moment could mark a turning point in a process whose direction remains uncertain. Without a doubt, “Peace is better.” We must give it a chance. Turkey has suffered greatly from separatist terrorism and sacrificed many of its children. If there’s an opportunity to say goodbye to arms, it should be pursued to the fullest. That’s what’s happening now. But this is not the end — it’s a new beginning. The first brick in building peace has been laid.
Interestingly, the process doesn’t yet have a name. Is it the “Resolution Process”? The “Peace Process”? A call for unity, solidarity, and brotherhood? Maybe something like “A Terror-Free Turkey”? But that’s nothing more than an empty slogan. Doesn’t it need a name that includes both sides’ roadmaps?
Devlet Bahçeli is one of the architects of this process. But what he initiated was the “Öcalan Opening”! İmralı (Öcalan) accepted the hand extended by Bahçeli — and responded with what can now be called a “Bahçeli Initiative.”
After the symbolic disarmament, an unexpected step followed: the main boulevard in Şırnak was named “Devlet Bahçeli Avenue.” Şırnak and Bahçeli? That would have sounded like a political joke. It was once unimaginable — not even dreamable. Yet the unthinkable became real. The MHP leader is now viewed as “Serok Bahçeli” in the region and among Kurds. He used to fiercely criticize Davutoğlu for using the word “Serok” (meaning leader in Kurdish), even using it mockingly. Now he seems pleased with the title.
AKP’s Ömer Çelik had already pointed to Erdoğan’s upcoming speech in Kızılcahamam, stirring public expectations of a general amnesty. Erdoğan indeed delivered a long, emotional, and memorable speech — one that will likely be cited for years to come. It was so moving that Emine Erdoğan burst into tears. What caused this emotional moment? Was it the end of terrorism? Or Erdoğan’s own political success? Tears don’t always stem from pain. They also come from deeply felt emotion. Who knows what crossed Emine Hanım’s mind as her husband spoke? Her emotional reaction was natural.
Erdoğan didn’t give a direct signal on a general amnesty or sentence reform — but he didn’t shut the door either. There were enough words and phrases that could be interpreted as subtle hints. For example:
“We make everything easier for those who take a step forward. For anyone looking for a way out, we open the doors wide. Water doesn’t flow backward…”
What door is being opened wide? The prison gates? While it might be overly optimistic, this possibility cannot be ruled out. It may not be enough — but there’s still hope.
Öcalan and the PKK have taken the first step expected of them. Now it’s Erdoğan’s turn. He said,
“We will embrace each other, talk to one another, and move forward by taking steps together.”
So what are those steps? According to the AKP, “This isn’t a give-and-take process.” But it certainly can’t be a one-sided one either. Progress can only be made with mutual steps. Erdoğan has always been cautious — never letting his guard down. He hid behind Bahçeli, keeping himself out of the spotlight. But now he must reveal his hand.
Is it possible to move forward without democracy, a general amnesty, broad sentence reform, and a definition of terrorism that aligns with EU standards? Offering democracy and amnesty only to the PKK defies the logic of both politics and society. How can one shake hands and negotiate with a confirmed terrorist group like the PKK while continuing to wage political war against the CHP and others? That contradicts the very spirit of the process.
Ahmet Türk, dismissed from office for the third time, recently said:
“If CHP mayors are removed from office, I won’t demand reinstatement for ours either.”
This message was directed squarely at Erdoğan. You can’t release “bloody-handed” PKK members from prison while keeping others behind bars. Society and politics won’t accept that.
Courts under AKP control have opened cases against CHP mayors in districts like Esenyurt and Şişli simply because they received support from the PKK and the DEM Party during elections. Both mayors are currently in prison. Is it really possible to run a healthy peace process while keeping them locked up? What kind of political logic or conscience justifies that?
The AKP government must immediately launch a genuine democratization initiative. It should implement ECHR rulings without delay and return to the rule of law. Just as it’s giving peace a chance, it must also give justice a chance. This means a total political transformation.
Isn’t that exactly what Erdoğan is doing? When laying out his recent “trilogy,” he said plainly:
“AKP, MHP, and DEM will walk together.”
Yet didn’t he say the exact opposite during the May elections? Didn’t he accuse the opposition of collaborating with DEM and the PKK? Didn’t he try to link the CHP with Kandil? Didn’t he win the most recent elections — including the constitutional referendum — using anti-terror rhetoric? Even the March 31 defeat didn’t stop him. His rhetoric went so far that he claimed if CHP won, terrorists would be the ones reading utility meters. He even warned that Öcalan would be pardoned by the CHP. And now? Isn’t he doing exactly what he once condemned? Everything he accused the opposition of, he is now doing himself.
In a normal democracy, such drastic policy reversals should be explained to the public. But in Turkish politics, it’s not unusual to say “black” one day and “white” the next — and voters rarely question it.
Just as Erdoğan has upended his own political paradigms, he must now restructure his policies of power accordingly. That’s the nature of politics. There’s no other way forward except democratization — including a general amnesty. And democratization must not serve Erdoğan’s personal agenda, but the good of the country. After all, he himself admitted:
“I have no intention of running again.”
If he ties this peace process to another run for the presidency, it could all collapse in an instant. But it could also pave the way for his candidacy — if he succeeds in building a new, peace-loving, democratic image of Erdoğan.
However you look at it, this is a historic moment. What happens next depends on Erdoğan. Will the process stall or move forward toward a future that brings smiles to the public’s face? That decision lies with the AKP government.
Can Erdoğan, without resorting to political trickery, sincerely say “democracy and peace”? Can he build a new political paradigm based on democracy and the rule of law? Can he take concrete steps — including opening the prison gates wide? If he can truly walk this path, then I too can let go of the past and say with a clear conscience: “Good luck with that.”
