Shortly before parliament went into recess, Speaker of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, Numan Kurtulmuş, held a meeting with the deputy chairs of the parliamentary groups to discuss the formation of a new commission. However, with the recess now in effect, there is still no concrete framework regarding either the proposed legislation or the future of the commission.
Iskender Bayhan, a MP for Istanbul from the Labour Party (EMEP), which holds two seats but does not have an official parliamentary group, spoke to ANF about his party’s position. Bayhan noted that they fundamentally differ from the ruling bloc when it comes to the purpose and function of such commissions.
We have fundamental differences regarding the commission’s function
Bayhan noted that nearly every political party has its own perspective on the commission, but emphasized that, from their point of view, they fundamentally diverge from the ruling bloc:
“From the very beginning, we have seen that the commission’s function, its formation, and especially the concrete steps that should follow the silencing of arms, steps that must be taken on the basis of parliament and through legal regulations, are being shaped by the practical mindset and approach of the ruling bloc.
Our approach to the commission’s function, its work, and its role is fundamentally different. The Republican People’s Party (CHP), the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party), Yeni Yol, the Workers’ Party of Turkey (TIP), and other parties expected to take part in the commission also have differing views. From our perspective, we are trying to prevent the commission from being turned into a tool or a process through which the ruling bloc, namely the People’s Alliance, seeks to reinforce its own dominance and consolidate its power. We object to this.”
A broad and inclusive debate must also be organized
Iskender Bayhan outlined his views on the commission’s structure and function as follows:
“First, all parties represented in parliament must be included in the commission. Second, the principle of equal representation must be implemented, and every member must have an equal right to speak. Of course, when it comes to decision-making and voting procedures, there are key criteria, such as requiring a simple majority of the participating members of parliament for the commission’s decisions.
There are also several points we want to emphasize regarding the commission’s purpose, its function, and its mandate. Most importantly, we believe the commission should serve as a platform to inform both parliament and the broader public about the Kurdish question, its historical and current roots and the current stage of negotiations taking place in Imrali. Only under these conditions can the commission fulfill its role and truly serve the interests of the people and the cause of peace.
Second, the commission must organize a participatory process that includes meetings and activities involving all segments of society, an inclusive dialogue where the people can express their views, expectations, and tendencies regarding this process. We believe a broad public debate must be organized, and the commission should become the forum, the tool, the platform for that.
Third, there are urgent legal reforms that must be undertaken in the near future. These include, first and foremost, ending the practice of appointing state trustees to elected local governments; passing a general political amnesty; halting cross-border military operations; and introducing legislation to ensure that the state steps back from armed confrontation, thereby providing concrete guarantees for a ceasefire and disarmament process.
Unfortunately, the statements made by President Erdoğan and the People’s Alliance have nothing to do with these priorities. Their approach delays even the smallest, most basic steps, creating only false expectations without any genuine initiative. This is unacceptable.”
Erdoğan is reviving the National Pact of 1920
Iskender Bayhan argued that President Erdoğan and the government continue to operate within the framework of neo-Ottomanism, offering the following assessment:
“Despite all the debate and all the developments, Erdoğan still acts with the same mindset. He is using this moment, marked by disarmament and the decision by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) to dissolve itself, as an opportunity to strengthen his own power and realize his neo-Ottoman ambitions in Turkey and the region. The commission, in his eyes, is just another tool in that project.
Erdoğan says, ‘There is no Kurdish question, only a terrorism problem.’ That is why he insists, ‘I am ending terrorism.’ Even the name he proposes for the commission reflects this view: ‘The Commission for a Turkey Without Terror.’ That alone reveals that Erdoğan approaches the issue entirely through the lens of Turkish capital, serving the interests of the bourgeoisie, a handful of elites, and his own loyal economic circles, both domestically and regionally.
Through this strategy, Erdoğan openly aims to pursue deeper collaboration with Western imperialism, especially that of the United States, across the Middle East, as well as in North Africa and South Asia. He wants not only to align with U.S. imperialism, but to become its primary partner in the region, even aiming to replace Israel’s role.
Domestically, he seeks to bring anything that might stand in his way into line. What he is saying is essentially this: ‘I will claim a share of the regional spoils. And I will claim the largest share. I will follow an active policy to achieve that. Everyone must fall in line behind me.’
This policy, therefore, is internally consistent with his approach to the Kurdish question, but it is not a consistency that serves the interests of the people or the working class. It certainly does not serve the peoples of the region. It is a policy entirely aligned with the interests of imperialist forces and their local collaborators, especially the capitalist class gathered around Erdoğan himself.
We can see the same approach in Erdoğan’s policy toward Palestine. He shouts and condemns Israel, but at the same time hosts international arms fairs inside Turkey, welcoming the very companies that supply weapons to Israel, under the banner of ‘the world’s largest defense industry.’ He rolls out the red carpet for them while trying to convince the public by saying, ‘We are becoming stronger; if we don’t do this, we will become weaker.’
But for workers and the poor, whether Turkish, Kurdish, Arab, Turkmen, Druze, Alevi, Sunni, or Christian, this means only devastation. It means complete disaster.
Look at Syria, just across the border. Russia claims it, the United States claims it, Netanyahu and Israel claim it, Iran claims it, and Turkey’s ruling elites claim it as well. In other words, everyone has a stake, except the peoples who actually live there. Peace cannot come to this region through such a mindset.
And let me emphasize this point: Erdoğan says, ‘We will take our rightful share from this region.’ But what share do you have in Syria? What claim do you have in Iraq? If you look at this through the lens of neo-Ottoman ideology, then Mosul is his, Kirkuk is his, Damascus is his, Aleppo is his…
This is nothing more than a revival of the 1920 National Pact and I have stressed this repeatedly. If one day he comes out and says, ‘We are fulfilling the dreams of Mustafa Kemal. We are completing the unfinished business of the National Pact,’ no one should be surprised.
In fact, Erdoğan has already said as much while defending his military interventions in Afrin (Efrin) and other cities in Syria, claiming those regions for himself. And in the coming period, we may hear these claims again, this time in an even more elaborate and calculated form.”
Source: ANF News
