A Turk speaking Kurdish: "bi xêr bê"

Although we cannot know exactly the balance between what his intention was and what fell to his lot, we had said that Ahmet Türk's speaking Kurdish in Parliament had rational consequences in many respects. Moreover, from the standpoint of the DTP, from the standpoint of the Kurdish question, and from the standpoint of Turkish democracy alike.

The rationality of the move for the DTP lies in the possibility that it creates an opportunity to take up again the priority on the Kurdish question that it has rapidly lost to the AKP, especially with the TRT Şeş initiative.

Politically, being right or not is not very important at this point; what matters more is whether the move disrupts the positions of its rivals. Indeed, with the reactions it gave, the AK Parti disrupted its position on this matter to some extent, thereby showing that it was not prepared for a few steps beyond the opening it had entered into with Kurdish-language broadcasting.

In Prime Minister Erdoğan's political rhetoric, it is very easy to be pulled onto the right-authoritarian-nationalist track, also under the influence of the seductive atmospheres of rallies and election arithmetic. Yet he needs to know that the DTP is making its own calculations, as much as he makes his election calculations, perhaps even more. Seen from this angle, Türk's speaking Kurdish in Parliament served the DTP's interests in terms of political balances, but this was possible to a great extent thanks to the negative reactions given by Erdoğan and some AK Parti members. Even if the AKP members had not given these reactions, the DTP would have come out of this with a profit, but the reactions seem to have doubled its profit.

Ahmet Türk's speaking Kurdish in Parliament is also a step with returns in terms of the Kurdish question and the advancement of the Kurdish language. Although a revolutionary development has taken place in the state's recognition of Kurdish with the announcement that TRT 6 and the YÖK would open Kurdish language departments, the side branches of this main road that has been opened are still blocked and need to pass through a few serious tests. Although it is understood that the General Staff also officially stands behind this, the legal legislation is still not in line with the de facto situation, and there is still the possibility that a psychological atmosphere that might form could take this gain back. The odd side of the matter is that Öcalan himself and the DTP members are also making such a complaint. Evidently the DTP members want a return to the old situation; they do not at all hide that they are not pleased with the opening of TRT Şeş.

Even if speaking Kurdish is a provocation, the fact that the reactions to it were not of the presumed severity has carried the process of Kurdish gaining a de facto legitimacy a considerable distance. People's right to speak their mother tongue of course includes at the same time the right to keep this language and its culture alive (education). In order to further consolidate the ground of legitimacy that this right needs today, provided it is not overdone, it is important that it be spoken about in Parliament too, enough to rid us as a country of our complexes on this matter.

But "not overdone" is really very important. As Kürşat Bumin aptly emphasized in his article yesterday on this subject, Parliament is a place of common agreement, and in this setting it is very important to speak in the accepted common language of everyone rather than in a language that would make understanding or agreement difficult. It must not be forgotten that in Turkey, apart from the Kurds, there are masses of people who are not Turks. Pointing this out cannot be reduced to the simple and at times comical logic of "if we give it to one, the others will want it too." The matter concerns an extremely simple and practical problem.

Moreover, even Türk's speaking Kurdish to his own group in Parliament was actually not very practical; the great majority of the listeners did not understand him. Perhaps this too can be regarded as a shame of the denial to which Kurdish has been subjected until now, but in the end it is a de facto reality.

In the end, Parliament is not a place where people will receive their education in their own mother tongues. At most it is a place where they will discuss their problems concerning mother-tongue education or mother-tongue identities in a language common to everyone. At least on today's political horizon, this is the fair borderline attainable for everyone.

The latest gain from Türk's speech has been recorded for Turkish democracy. This incident, by being got through relatively lightly compared with more grave possibilities, gave an opportunity to clear a threshold. Our recent political history has examples in which the roof of the TBMM witnessed the greatest lynching campaigns. The lynching meted out to the DEP deputies who tried to take the oath in Kurdish in 1991 and to Merve Kavakçı in 1999 are great shames that Turkey still has not been able to face.

Is it a bad gain that Parliament, whose turning at times into a show area for tomato, apricot and hazelnut producers is not found strange, should be remembered as a place where our deepest human problems are from time to time expressed?

The role attributed to Parliament in the Kavakçı incident defined it as the "fortress of the state" and distanced it from the nation. By regarding Türk's speaking Kurdish as an occasion reminding us of the nation to which Parliament belongs, we should say "bi xêr bê" to it too.