‘Kurdish problem’ and a proposal

There, it must work to earn the amnesty they have long been demanding by protecting Turkey’s economic interests, protecting hundreds of drivers that have been slaughtered, kidnapped for ransom and their trucks ransacked

After long deliberations with parliamentarians, statesmen and diplomats from countries in the European Union one can feel the crystallization of an elite consensus — although not full heartedly — on declaring a reasonable date to start accession talks with Turkey. If it was put to a popular vote, there could be spoilers and national governments that would like to hide behind such a vote. Yet we live in a world of diversity and we ought to learn how to live together while revering each other’s differences rather than just advocating doing so in rhetoric. Yet, one is often struck by the contradiction of some European politicians: While they have made a vocation in reprimanding Turkish governments for not acknowledging the multicultural reality of the country’s population in the past, now they try to build up unconvincing arguments against Turkey’s membership to the Union for reasons of cultural incompatibility. Is this an innocent eclipse of the mind or sheer hypocrisy? It is hard to tell.

Another such an argument is the persistence of the “Kurdish problem” in Turkey. While it is true that this problem is not solved, the emphasis is put on the wrong place (ethnicity) that sadly leads them to the acceptance of a terrorist organization as the representative of the Kurds. Allow me to elucidate the flaw in the Turkish political system that has led to the “Kurdish problem” among other problems of participation and representation.

The “problem” emanates from the monolithic and monocultural understanding of nationhood and the ensuing restrictive definition of citizenship. After the declaration of the Turkish Republic (1923), citizenship was defined by obedience to the state, which bestowed “Turkishness” to anyone who did not refrain to do so. Such an official (and artificial) identity deprived the citizens of their socio-cultural ties and historical heritage that was not officially acknowledged. This may be likened to a flower severed from its stem and put into a bowl. The bowl being the state would nurture the flower and contain it. Well, the bowl could not nurture the flower for long and the restrictive nature of citizenship fell into crises, simply because it was unrealistic.
State defined and state owned citizenship turned the citizens into a herd and deprived them of individualism that could otherwise reflect the cultural, social and political diversity of the nation. If that could be done then the main concern of the state or political system would have been finding creative ways of reconciling existing differences rather than repressing them and truncating basic rights and freedoms.

Now we understand that this official suspicion of differences and efforts of repressing them are the main factors behind Turkey’s democracy deficit. All efforts for compensating for this deficit will lead the existing “nation of the state” paradigm to transform into the “state of the nation” paradigm. Indeed, Turkey is discussing and trying to alter its official definition of citizenship based on an overt accent on Turkishness and covert acceptance of Sunni Islam. The loyalty of individuals will no more be to the state but to the country and the political unity of all its citizens symbolized by the democratic and non-ethnic state that guarantees equality before law. Such a system can only be inclusive and encompassing, leaving no one out for belonging to another ethnic, linguistic, religious or political group that is not officially favored. Recent political and legal reforms are changing this crisis-producing phenomenon.

What else? The official ideology of nation building and nation keeping has been Turkish nationalism. Any student of social affairs knows that nationalism is exclusive, defines itself as opposed to “others” and sharpens on other nationalisms. Insisting on Turkish nationalism in a multi ethnic society aggravated Kurdish nationalism simply by way of denying the existence of Kurds and Kurdish culture. Now a government who took office, not with a nationalistic agenda, tries to repair this mistake.
Nationalism must be devoid of its oxygen: fear and suspicion. Turkish nationalism is nurtured by suspicion of Kurds who are looked upon as potential separatists. The16-years of internal strife drove this point home in the mind of the average Turk. However, the government took impressive steps in reforms that eased tensions in society. Now it is the Kurds’ turn. They must abandon their pedestrian positions behind the PKK and free themselves from the authority of one man in prison. Whether it is out of hero-worshipping or mere loyalty to a man who put them on the map, now it is time to keep up with the reality of the times. Just as civilian politics is institutionalizing in the country, the Kurds must prove their maturity by detaching themselves from a paramilitary organization and a secluded leadership. Here is a proposition:

The Kurd who still follows Abdullah Ocalan’s lead must force their incarcerated leader to give orders to the PKK to leave the country and go back to northern Iraq. There, it must work to earn the amnesty they have long been demanding by protecting Turkey’s economic interests in this country and protecting hundreds of drivers who have been slaughtered, kidnapped for ransom and their trucks ransacked. If the PKK, for the first time since its existence, can prove that it can do some good for Turkey’s citizens than just harm, then it can expect to discuss some form of amnesty in the future that would lead to its complete dissolution. May be then Kurdish politics will be emancipated from the throngs of this radical organization at the same time leaving Turkish nationalism devoid of the excuse for upholding a “state of emergency” regime.
Probably this proposition will infuriate Turkish and Kurdish nationalists alike but it has always been impressive to see the worst of foes lying side by side in peace eternally after slaying each other for ephemeral reasons during their short precious lives. If only they knew, that one could feel larger than life but cannot be larger than life.