Turkey Analyst,
vol. 4 no. 11
30 May 2011

WHAT THE COLUMNISTS SAY

Two related issues preoccupy commentators in Turkey as the June 12 general election approaches. One is the Kurdish issue, and the other one is what kind of constitution the country will get after the election. As the representatives of the Kurdish movement have become more assertive and outspoken about the Kurds’ demands during the election campaign, the question is increasingly becoming how the Turks are going to respond to these demands. A leading liberal editor writes that the Turks are going to have to make a choice between autonomy (for the Kurds) and separation. Meanwhile, a statement by Prime Minister Erdoğan has occasioned the conclusion that he intends to impose a new constitution, instead of seeking a broad, societal consensus.

BIRAND: WE THE SECULARIST CLASS COULD NEVER IMAGINE THAT WE WERE NOT THE SOLE OWNERS OF THIS COUNTRY
Mehmet Ali Birand in Milliyet notes that a recent column of his – in which he argued that the secularist generation to which he himself belongs has always believed more in the General Staff than in democracy – has stirred a major reaction. Indeed, he writes, we were brought up to believe that it was perfectly natural for the military to intervene in politics. But in that article, I only accounted for one side of the picture. However, the blame cannot exclusively be assigned to the military; it has always been the secularist class that has forced the military to stage coups. We have been united in our determination not to share the system that we had constructed with anyone else. And the secular Turkish republic that was founded by Atatürk and which he bequeathed to the military always had two enemies: what we called religious reaction and the Kurds. There was never any distinction made between the pious and the religious fundamentalists. We never let the former into the system, and we never tried to understand them. And we could never acknowledge the existence of the Kurds. It never occurred to us that this country didn’t belong to only ourselves, and that the pious and the Kurds were its proprietors as well. And it never occurred to us that the world and Turkey would one day change and that the people that we had consistently oppressed would grow powerful and put us in a minority situation.  But now a golden opportunity has arisen; will the constitutional endeavor after the elections result in the adoption – for the first time ever – of a constitution that meets the demands of everyone? In short, will have societal peace or will the war rage on?

ALTAN: AUTONOMY OR SEPARATION? IT’S UP TO THE TURKS TO MAKE A CHOICE
Ahmet Altan in Taraf writes that Leyla Zana, an independent Kurdish candidate in the upcoming general election, has given a historic speech. Zana implored a gathering in a small village in Kurdistan to “cast your votes for Kurdistan, for peace, brotherhood and for the guerilla”. In fact, these words clarify what’s on the minds of all Kurds: a Kurdistan which is ruled by the Kurds. The Kurds may have different visions about Kurdistan, but Kurdistan is nonetheless their shared vision. As the positions and demands of the Kurds are becoming clearer, the question becomes: how are the Turks going to respond to these demands? There are three alternatives: they can either say “no, you cannot change the way the country is ruled”, which will lead to civil war. Or they can say “all right, let’s have a system of autonomous regions”, in which case the problem will be solved. Or they will say “by all means, you can govern Kurdistan, but we are not going to finance it, so you may declare its independence”, and we will part ways. There is no point in fooling ourselves; what the Kurds demand is clear. The Turks are going to have to choose between autonomy and separation.

AKYOL:  ISLAM CAN NO LONGER KEEP THE KURDS AS PART OF THE TURKISH NATION
Mustafa Akyol in Star writes about the similarities and differences between how the old state establishment and the ruling AKP view the Kurdish issue. Now, both of them do speak of “one nation”. But while the former, in accordance with the Kemalist paradigm, envision a homogenized nation, the AKP refers to a common nation that consists of different elements. And it is obvious that what unites these different elements is Islam, and it is also obvious that this fact has led religious Kurds to take a favorable view of the AKP. But Kurdish society has by now also become part of “contemporary civilization”. And furthermore, all the suffering that has been endured has created a separate “national consciousness”. As a result, the AKP’s pluralistic vision of a common nation no longer satisfies the aspirations of the Kurdish masses that have come to view themselves as a distinct “people”, separate from the Turks. And what is more, the Kurdish nationalists have adopted a sensible strategy from their own viewpoint and are trying to divide Islam; they are trying their hand at their own version of a “Kurdish-Islamic synthesis” that would attract conservative Kurds over to their side. What this means, in sum, is that we are in dire straits. The only thing that sustains hope is the CHP’s new and “liberal” approach to the Kurdish issue. If the CHP manages to stick to this stance after the elections as well, it could create a new space of “opening” for the AKP which so far has been left isolated in the Kurdish problem.  Otherwise, violence will probably escalate.

KURBAN: THE TURKISH SOCIETY IS READY TO ENGAGE IN A DIALOGUE WITH THE KURDS; THE STATE NEEDS TO GET OUT OF THE WAY
Dilek Kurban in Radikal observers that the political culture in Turkey is such that the solution to societal problems is always expected to be delivered by the state. And one of the most fundamental issues that will have to be solved is the Kurdish issue. Yet the state continues to treat the Kurds in a paternalistic fashion, even disregarding their demands. And the state draws its legitimacy from the perception that it speaks for the sensitivities of the Turks. Yet the Turks may not be as sensitive about the Kurdish issue as is assumed and feared. A new survey by TESEV reveals that the Turks in fact look favorably on many of the political demands of the Kurds. It reveals that society is far ahead of the state, and that the Turks are prepared to engage in a deliberation with the Kurds, even though they don’t know them particularly well and although they, to a certain extent, fear them. The conclusion that imposes itself is that a solution is within reach, provided that the state is shoved aside and societal communication is engaged.

GÜRSEL: ERDOGAN HAS NO INTENTION TO SEEK A SOCIETAL CONSENSUS ABOUT A NEW CONSTITUTION
Kadri Gürsel in Milliyet notes that Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in a speech in Siirt on May 19 declared that a new constitution is going to be enacted after the election, and that he then went on to say “How is this going to be accomplished? You will enable us to do this if you see to it that we get more than 367 seats in parliament.” These words make clear that Prime Minister Erdoğan has no intention whatsoever to seek a societal consensus about the new constitution. Who says “I want to make a new constitution, but first see to it that you give me 367 seats in parliament”? Those who intend to write a new constitution singlehandedly and who are intending to impose it on the people.  If Erdoğan had at least said “send us to parliament with 330 seats”, then we would have been able to conclude that the Prime Minister is not afraid of putting the constitution to a referendum. But that is not what he intends to do; his goal is to secure a majority that would allow him to settle things on his own. Watch out, this force is about to get out of control.

© Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program Joint Center, 2010. This article may be reprinted provided that the following sentence be included: "This article was first published in the Turkey Analyst (www.turkeyanalyst.org), a biweekly publication of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program Joint Center".

The Turkey Analyst
The Turkey Analyst is a publication of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Joint Center, designed to bring authoritative analysis and news on the rapidly developing domestic and foreign policy issues in Turkey. It is published bi-weekly, and includes topical analysis, as well asa summary of the Turkish media debate. It is edited and compiled under the supervision of Svante E. Cornell and Halil M. Karaveli.

The Turkey Analyst welcomes article submission. Please contact Halil M. Karaveli, Managing Editor.

The Joint Center
The Joint Center was created in 2005 through the merger of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, and the Silk Road Studies Program, at the Stockholm-based Institute for Security and Development Policy.

The Turkey Initiative
The Joint Center launched a Turkey Initiative in 2006 in order to improve understanding of Turkish domestic and foreign affairs in Europe and the United States.

To Subscribe:
To subscribe to the Turkey Analyst email announcements, please contact Martina Klimesova with an email containing "subscribe Turkey Analyst" in the subject line.