So as not to be singing from outside the choir

Today not all of the problems concerning the Kurds belong solely to the Kurds, not all of the problems belonging to the Alevis exclusively to the Alevis, and not all of the problems belonging to the devout exclusively to the devout. The whole of society is affected by the existence of problems that concern each of them in the first degree. Especially as the unsolved state of a problem drags on, the sphere and depth of its effect keep growing, and the number of those who must get involved in finding a solution keeps growing too.

The right to get involved in solving a problem turns politics from something done only in a localized field into one in which almost every issue concerns the whole of society. On the other hand, a problem that strikes every segment of society individually in the first degree is, in essence, a problem that keeps the whole of society under pressure as well.

Today, the ban on headscarved women entering universities shows at first glance that authoritarian pressure is felt directly by headscarved women, but this pressure in fact affects those who go without a headscarf no less. They too, in a sense, can attend universities or show themselves in the public sphere as "permitted." That is why one must not think that those who do not cover their heads have no problem because they can attend their school without difficulty. The sphere of action they freely use looks like a "bestowed freedom," on condition of "not displaying disobedience," thanks to the banned headscarf.

A Sunni involved in the Alevi question, a man or an uncovered woman involved in the headscarf question, or a Turk involved in the Kurdish question cannot be excluded, from whatever angle they get involved, on the charge that they are "reciting a ghazal from outside". The only conclusion that follows when an attempt is made to exclude them is that the problem has been closed off to politics.

Whether this claim of ownership over problem areas is peculiar only to Turkey, I honestly do not know. But in Turkey, for example, those who make demands on behalf of the Alevis, when they hear approaches they do not like, can easily crush the speaker under the accusation of "reciting a ghazal from outside." It is also a reaction often resorted to by those who make demands on behalf of the Kurds when they hear approaches they do not like. Describing other people's speaking as giving them advice... How little reason we need!...

When you voice the mistakes made by the PKK or the DTP, you are labeled as "giving advice to the Kurds"... Right, we had forgotten: the Kurds may need everything, but they never need reason. The Kurds always know, entirely on their own and without needing any reason, what they are doing and what they should do. Is that so?

Those who show this reaction speak on behalf of the Kurds, but of course the Kurds have not authorized them to speak on their behalf. That is why they speak with the naivety of people who think 72 million are watching whenever they appear on any television channel. The people they complain of giving advice to the Kurds may also be Kurds; is it so hard to describe them as well as having deviated from Kurdish politics?

Is it fitting for the Kurds, or for the entire political ground affected by this problem, to hand over the authority to speak on behalf of the Kurds to the PKK through a fait accompli, and to describe every Kurdish politics or discourse other than its senseless attitudes as "reciting a ghazal from outside"?

In recent days this attitude seems to have become quite popular both in leftist circles and in the Southeast under the PKK's armed tutelage. Yet it must be known that neither does the PKK become the sole authority entitled to pursue whatever politics it wishes on behalf of all Kurds merely because it has a huge armed force in its hands, nor has Kurdish politics reached such a perfect reason that it needs no other participants' reason.

All the measures to be put forward in the name of solving the Kurdish question also concern other Kurds, other non-Kurdish people living in the region, and now many other elements in society as well. The continued unsolved state of the problem affects everyone's life directly or indirectly. While our democracy constantly remains in a fragile state because of this problem, everyone who seeks democracy acquires the right to be a party to the solution. No one has the possibility or the right any longer to close the problem off and keep others outside.

I follow with great interest and admiration the approach that Etyen Mahçupyan has put forward in the newspaper Taraf in recent days on the occasion of a debate, as the most sensible texts I have read on the subject. In the last of his articles, which he has successfully kept on the line of reason and common sense against the risk of the debate turning into personal sniping, Mahçupyan draws attention to the fact that the approach put forward in the name of Kurdish politics refers all responsibility to the state, and stresses the danger that this kills, suspends politics on behalf of the Kurds. Yet, as Mahçupyan aptly notes, "politics means, above all, responsibility, and no one can shift their own responsibility onto another, least of all onto their opponent. If politics means waiting for the other to do right and using violence until that happens, then there is no politics to begin with, and the parties are not mature enough to deserve politics."