Where are we in the solution of the Kurdish question?

From the moment the will for a democratic opening was declared, how far have we come on the solution of the Kurdish question? According to the PKK and the BTP people, the policy of opening has ended in fiasco, because almost no steps have been taken since the process began, even very simple things such as returning their names to some villages could not be done, the government's courage was broken in the face of what happened at Habur, and it has surrendered to nationalist discourses. According to the more nationalist opposition, on the other hand, they too say that the opening being experienced has deviated from the seriousness and dignity of the Republic of Turkey state and that separatist elements are being spoiled too much with the discourses of the opening.

Undoubtedly it is possible to make a more objective assessment of the situation, and if there is a problem, it is not possible to put forward a road map for what comes next without determining where we stand on the solution of this problem.

At a workshop held in recent months within the Strategic Thinking Institute, we tried to bring together all segments sensitive to the Kurdish question and to seek the answer to precisely where we stand on the solution. We turned the views that emerged at the end of the workshop into a report together with Bekir Berat Özipek and Dr. Vahap Coşkun. The report determines the current position of the problem and makes proposals for its solution.

First of all, it is stated that, despite the ups and downs of its graph and the limitations it contains, the Democratic Opening is one of the greatest advantages in this process, since it expresses a change in the state paradigm and the crossing of a threshold on the road to a solution. We are definitely far beyond the point at which we started in the solution process of the problem. The claim that no step has been taken in this matter and that the opening is an empty discourse does not square with fairness. Thanks to the opening process it has been certified that the state paradigm on the matter has changed and every issue concerning the Kurdish question has been opened to politics.

Therefore, it can be said that the Kurdish question has to a large extent already been solved, in a way, with the problem's being defined in this manner and the opening's being declared a state policy. The steps to be taken after this, whether the demands in this regard are met or not, will remain only a detail next to this great step. After this stage, rather than a situation in which someone gives the Kurds something or recognizes some rights, what is at issue is whether those who have demands in this matter can use the field of politics opened before them in a productive, convincing and skillful manner.

There is nothing at this level to be tolerated in still trying to attribute an excuse or pretext to armed formations with statements such as "The government gives us a few course rights, slips a finger of honey into our mouths, and says this is enough for you, so no problem has been solved yet." The subject has been carried in all its dimensions into the political field, and from the moment it has been recognized in this field, all that remains is developing arguments, debate and politics. Failing to persuade people as a result of this debate can only be recorded as a weakness of those who put forward these demands. The way to persuade also passes through awakening people's empathy and sympathy, and politics is precisely the field in which such channels too can work most effectively.

Nothing can be as normal, in the debates, as the prime minister or someone else saying "never, let no one ask this of us" regarding some demands (for example demands such as education in the mother tongue). Everyone pursues his own politics, and everyone also answers for his own politics in this arena. What is important is that no one be condemned as a "traitor" or "separatist" on account of his demands, arguments or cause, and kept outside the field of politics.

Today, at least in the context of the Kurdish question, this level of debate has been reached. Therefore, one cannot act as though this level had never been covered. That Kurdish politicians in particular continue to act as though this distance had never been covered, and that they still "expect from the state" all the steps to be taken, causes the problem to be felt far more and more heavily than its real dimensions.

As long as the ground of politics is not closed, it is possible that those who say this today may be persuaded of something else tomorrow, and the way to persuade them is not to produce excuses for violence. This only gives away the will to profit from the continuation of the problem.

The moment subjects such as democratic autonomy and self-defense forces came to the agenda, the general public in the Southeast subjected them to a criticism that immediately invalidated them. Thanks to the openness of the debate and the working of the principle of politics, options that could not work were excluded. Today even the PKK cannot embrace the project previously announced by the DTK within the scope of democratic autonomy. Yet the matter of "Education in the mother tongue" is the one subject on which all Kurds agree, from the most devout to the most secular, from the BTP member to the AK Party member and even the CHP member.

Therefore, in the next stages of the opening, no solution below a bar at which education in the mother tongue is recognized will be able to satisfy Kurdish demands. What kind of negative consequences such an application would have for the future of Kurdish children is a fact, but a separate subject of debate. If there are some drawbacks, it would be better for those who demand it to think about them.

Therefore everyone needs to be ready for education in the mother tongue. Meeting this right is, in the end, a matter of technical problems, and although it is difficult to meet today, this difficulty is not insurmountable over time. The report makes a pilot-application proposal for such a technique. The basic condition of this application is freedom. That is, the right to education in the mother tongue should be recognized on condition that it is also ensured that no Kurd is forced to receive education in the mother tongue. Because not everyone may want to exercise this right.

To access the full report: www.sde.org.tr