The first meeting of the “National Solidarity, Brotherhood, and Democracy Commission” established in Parliament was held on Tuesday, August 5. During this initial meeting, Speaker of Parliament Numan Kurtulmuş presented a 12-article draft outlining the procedures and principles of the commission. The meeting ended with the adoption of this draft.
The commission will hold its second meeting today (Friday) in a “closed session,” during which National Intelligence Organization (MIT) Director İbrahim Kalın, Minister of Interior Ali Yerlikaya, Chief of General Staff Selçuk Bayraktaroğlu, and Minister of National Defense Yaşar Güler will be heard.
Having decided to meet twice a week, the commission is being closely followed by all sectors of society. Except for the Good Party (IYI Party), members of all parliamentary groups in the commission raised demands for peace and democracy during the first meeting, while members of the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) brought the “right to hope” back onto the agenda.
What was discussed in the commission, what will happen next, and the legal changes expected to follow continue to raise questions for many. DEM Party commission member and MP Cengiz Çiçek spoke to ANF to address some of these questions.
The long-discussed parliamentary commission has held its first meeting. What was discussed and debated in this meeting? Which main issues were emphasized?
In the context of the Kurdish question, the fact that, excluding the Good Party, all parties in Parliament, whether they have a parliamentary group or not, came together under the umbrella of a single commission holds great historical significance. This must first be underlined clearly, because in the search for a solution to the Kurdish issue and in the pursuit of a democratic future, this is the first time we have seen such broad parliamentary representation. This is what makes the process so valuable.
A political spectrum representing nearly 98 percent of the public’s will coming together in this commission is a highly meaningful step. Therefore, it is essential that all parties recognize the importance of this process. In particular, all those who fight for democracy and feel a sense of responsibility for a free and democratic future for Turkey must grasp the historical role and legitimacy of this commission.
We must all work together to ensure that this composition, this coming together, continues without breaking apart and fulfills its historical role. At the same time, societal forces outside Parliament must stand beside, behind, and at the same level as this legitimate platform, seeking ways to expand this struggle. This is one of the most fundamental responsibilities.
Since it was the first day of the commission, there was naturally a discussion on procedures and principles, how the commission would operate, what methods and principles it would follow, and what course it would take.
As you know, Commission Chair Numan Kurtulmuş and representatives of all parties made speeches expressing their general approach to the process. Looking at the messages conveyed, a few common points can be noted.
Particularly in Numan Kurtulmuş’s speech, there was a notable approach: an inclusive tone that acknowledged the other side, made an effort to understand and embrace differences. This was a responsible and conscious approach that viewed diversity as a richness. This applied not only to the Commission Chair but to a large extent to all parties.
Of course, we cannot say that we fully agreed with everything expressed in the speeches. There were statements, definitions, or approaches we did not share. However, such differences are part of the nature of the process. What is most important is that a conscious and responsible attitude, befitting this historic gathering, was displayed.
The commission’s beginning is extremely valuable. The real issue now is to produce content and take concrete steps in line with this beginning. At this point, it is our historical responsibility to create a libertarian, democratic, and peaceful content that focuses on solving this problem, which directly concerns the future of millions of citizens.
This process is not only a matter for the parties in Parliament but belongs to all segments of society. Therefore, we must work together to expand and strengthen this platform both in content and in politics, and to turn it into lasting solutions.
As a member of a party that has long fought for peace and democracy, did the commission’s first meeting give you hope?
When comparing today with the 2015 resolution process, there are both similarities and differences. Unlike in 2015, today almost all political parties, except for the Good Party, both in government and in opposition, share a common understanding that this issue must somehow be resolved. At the very least, they are no longer displaying an openly rejectionist stance toward the Kurdish question. This is highly valuable.
Therefore, we have before us an opportunity that must be genuinely assessed, and we must not waste it. Of course, we are aware that there are different approaches and methods of handling the issue among the parties. However, at this point, such a broad political spectrum and therefore such a wide representation of the people’s will, coming together around the Kurdish question places a historical responsibility on us to build a democratic and lasting peace.
Another important point lies in the very name of the commission: the “National Solidarity, Brotherhood, and Democracy Commission.” This name was chosen with an inclusive approach, reflecting the colors of different political perspectives. In other words, despite differences in approach, there is a state of political responsibility that demonstrates maximum sensitivity toward finding common ground, something that was reflected in the commission’s very name from the outset. This name is also proof of the will and political determination to establish a shared foundation.
As stated clearly in the commission’s mission statement, there is an emphasis that the Kurdish question must be removed from the realm of violence and placed on a legal and political basis. While there are differing definitions, this shared understanding is noteworthy. Through the work it will carry out in the coming period, the commission is expected to create both the legal arrangements necessary for resolving the Kurdish question and the democratic mindset that will sustain those arrangements. As of the first meeting, this is the commission’s historical responsibility in its clearest form.
It can be summarized as follows: this is, so to speak, the first button being fastened. Just as 102 years ago, during the construction of the Republic, some buttons were fastened incorrectly, mistakes that grew and repeated over the years, if we truly want to build the next century on the foundation of a democratic Republic, this time we must fasten those first buttons correctly. For this reason, perhaps the commission’s most fundamental historical duty is to start this process correctly and to guide it forward in a healthy way.
The commission had been eagerly awaited. In this sense, will it respond to the demands of the Kurdish people and other peoples and faiths for living together?
The commission needs first of all to be defined accurately. Of course, there are expectations regarding the commission, and these expectations are justified. The very fact that the commission has convened is, in itself, a historic achievement. This picture should be seen as a historic development and valued accordingly.
However, to view this commission as a body that will solve all problems in the context of the Kurdish question or democracy issues in general would not only be unfair to the commission but would also misdirect the process from the outset. The commission is not a body that can solve every problem; but neither is it insignificant. On the contrary, it is a structure of very high historical importance.
The consensus, mature atmosphere, and shared will to work together emerging in Parliament for the first time, particularly in relation to the peace and democratic society process, is highly valuable for ensuring the process runs in a healthy manner. The role Parliament has undertaken in this process makes the commission’s existence important. Parliament’s involvement in the process at this scale provides significant legitimacy.
If the institution of politics is to fulfill its fundamental function of resolving social problems, the formation of this commission is an opportunity. A political understanding alienated from society, nature, workers, and peoples can, through this process, come closer to its true reason for existence. Politics is the art of solving society’s problems and regulating its relationships. The success of this process will be the product of a collective effort.
Expectations are, of course, high and we are aware of this. However, this is not a technical commission. Beyond being a body that will contribute to legislative processes, it has a broader perspective. Tasks such as preparing draft laws are certainly important, but they are not its only function.
The commission’s role should not be limited to placing the process solely on a legal basis. It should also be expanded in a way that strengthens social legitimacy, builds relationships with civil society, and connects with social movements. When necessary, it must also take responsibility for engaging relevant parties and political actors, for example, holding possible meetings with Öcalan on Imralı Island.
In other words, the commission should not only produce draft legislation; it should also contribute to a transformation in democratic mindset. In this respect, the commission’s work can become part of a political, social, and intellectual transformation. Real democratic transformation is possible through the right legal arrangements, and this is also a way for politics to define itself.
However, this process should not be left solely to the commission members or to the parties represented within it. All organized forces of democratic society, civil society organizations, the academic world, women’s and youth movements, labor organizations, must be part of the process. A strong network of public support should form around this commission, and they must take an active role in achieving a democratic and peaceful solution.
This period should be approached with the awareness that the debates around the Kurdish question are a historic beginning that can contribute to the transformation of Turkey’s century-old monolithic, denialist, and anti-democratic structure. These first steps should be seen as the concern not only of parliamentary actors but of the whole society. Political structures outside Parliament, women’s organizations, youth movements, socialists, democrats, liberals, religious communities, labor organizations, in short, all social forces, must embrace this process and become agents of the democratic solution. Only in this way can a truly democratic path to resolution be built.
Otherwise, if we settle for accepting that the process has been initiated solely due to the “realpolitik” needs of the state or the ruling bloc, we must also consider that the process could easily be brought to an end if conditions change. If this process has emerged merely in response to developments in the Middle East, any future shifts could see these gains rolled back.
For this reason, it would be wrong to reduce the process solely to the state’s strategic needs. The current objective and subjective conditions present a historic opportunity for the resolution of the Kurdish question. Turning this opportunity into a free, equal, and democratic future for all peoples is the shared responsibility of all social forces. We must strengthen the ground for dialogue and negotiation and support this process with broad public participation.
This is not a period for simply waiting and watching; it is a period for active engagement, taking initiative, and shaping the process together. In our view, the true subject of this process must be the people themselves.
Abdullah Öcalan mentioned the commission to be established in Parliament in nearly every meeting he held, making it one of the significant steps in this process. The commission, closely followed by everyone, now faces the questions: how will it operate from here on, and when will concrete steps be taken to give confidence to the public?
Although the commission is not a body that will conduct the entire process on its own, it has an extremely important function. As you noted in your question, Abdullah Öcalan described it as a “fully authorized commission,” attributing to it a historic role. For Öcalan, it has always been important, not only in this process but also in previous resolution processes, for Parliament in its entirety to be involved.
There are several key reasons for this. First, involving Parliament is essential for increasing the legitimacy of the process, since Parliament is where the will of the people is embodied. In this context, Parliament’s participation also means that the millions who voted for it, representing different peoples, become part of the process. This is crucial for strengthening both the legal and legitimate foundations.
Second, to manage the political dimension of the process correctly, Parliament must listen to the relevant actors and proceed by taking their proposals for solutions into account. Objectively, there are two sides to this issue. If we are to approach it with a democratic perspective, we must discuss not only the Kurdish people’s struggle for freedom but also the democratic future of all the peoples of Turkey. This is a step that will contribute to democratic transformation in Turkey and positively influence the political climate.
While carrying out its work, the commission should avoid entrenched habits, break away from established patterns, and take bold and inclusive steps. For example, Öcalan has repeatedly expressed his wish to meet with this commission face-to-face. In such meetings, he might, perhaps for the first time, have the opportunity to share some of his proposals and assessments directly with the public.
Just as this Friday the commission will hear the Minister of National Defense, the Minister of Interior, and the Director of the National Intelligence Organization, it should likewise seek ways to meet with the leading representatives of Kurdish politics, first and foremost Öcalan. The commission must be a body that listens to all parties in the process and takes their proposals for solutions into account.
The commission will meet regularly every week, and when necessary, will convene two or even three times a week. In particular, during the processes of preparing legislation, decisions will be made by a three-fifths majority of all members. This shows both the seriousness with which the commission is working and that the resulting legislative proposals will be shaped by a qualified majority.
A three-fifths majority is also an indication of a consensus that will enhance the social and political legitimacy of the process. The commission’s 12-article rules of procedure were also adopted unanimously after lengthy discussions. This demonstrates that all parties with representation are acting in consensus.
What is most important, however, is that the work of this commission should be approached not only as addressing the Kurdish question, but also as a means to resolve Turkey’s deep-rooted social and political issues. To deviate from this focus would cause serious harm not only to the institution of politics and to Parliament, but also to the democratic and free future of millions of people in Turkey.
We believe that the commission will act with full awareness of this responsibility. As the DEM Party, we would like to state from the outset that we will fulfill our responsibilities in the commission’s work with great seriousness and sensitivity. In the event of any disagreement, we are ready to play a mediating, reconciling, and constructive role. We view dialogue and negotiation as indispensable values of politics, and we openly declare that we will remain committed to these values.
Finally, I would like to conclude with one of Mr. Öcalan’s most striking words about the process: “These lands will henceforth be home to those who know democracy as both a right and a duty.”
Source: ANF News
