Kurdish politics and violence
Media reports about an impending meeting between President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Kurdish Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) Deputy Leyla Zana sparked hope for an end to violence. With the exception of a handful of radicals, the entire country acknowledges that the Kurdish community will not attain greater rights through violent means.
A number of public figures, including PKK leaders, have acknowledged in the past that the terror campaign does not aim to create an independent Kurdish state. The organization's self-proclaimed goal of "democratic autonomy," in turn, does not require violence. Considering that imprisoned PKK founder Abdullah Öcalan publicly declared in March 2013 that "the time for armed struggle was over," why is the organization still fighting?
It would appear that the PKK's return to violence reflects the shifting balance of power in the Middle East as well as the close relationship between Kurdish politicians and violent groups. Although political violence has deeply traumatized the Kurdish community in recent decades, leading figures have not learned from the past.
According to Kurdish author Orhan Miroğlu, who currently serves as an elected representative for the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) in Parliament, a small group of academics, who recently published a controversial declaration against the government, hailed the PKK as an instrument of "liberating violence." The terror campaign, they maintain, is a way to force the AK Party out of power. Kurdish politicians, ironically enough, think along the same lines, as for years, political violence has been an alternative to state power.Whether or not people would like to describe the PKK as a terrorist organization is one thing, but it is unacceptable that no pro-PKK politician has ever taken a stance against violence. For a long time, their reluctance to condemn terrorism was due to an understanding that there was no other way to challenge the state's repressive policies. Another reason was that the left tended to hail violence as if there were no alternatives. In the end, Kurdish politicians chose Che Guevara's way over Gandhi's teachings. When asked in 2006 why the Kurdish political movement could not disarm provided that independence was no longer on the table, the late Orhan Doğan, a relatively pro-peace figure, had notably argued: "Our weapons are our insurance policy and must not be abandoned."
Another driving force behind the PKK's obsession with violence is that the organization has managed to silence all its rivals through violent means. Executions of PKK militants by the leadership, furthermore, helps keep a lid on dissent. Although a number of HDP politicians criticize the organization's most recent efforts, for instance, they are unable to challenge the PKK leadership publicly for fear of retaliation. Speaking on condition of anonymity, a HDP official recently defended the code of silence as follows: "We can't speak out because [the PKK] would not only kill us, but also defame us as traitors. Who would dare getting killed and going down as a traitor?"
In an interview with the Turkish media last week, Kurdish artist Çiyager argued: "The time has come to speak against the [Kurdish] community's transformation and deprivation of its own values behind the smokescreen of modern concepts like freedom, peace and democracy. Values like honor and solidarity, which make the Kurds who we are, are disappearing. I thought about this at length and criticized the HDP and the PKK on my Facebook page. Hundreds of PKK and HDP supporters, who had praised me for years, declared me a traitor." The next day, Çiyager was attacked and severely injured.
Kurdish political movements are at a crossroads today. They have no choice but to make up their minds and take a stand against PKK violence, which the people do not support. This would be a great first step toward peace.
A number of public figures, including PKK leaders, have acknowledged in the past that the terror campaign does not aim to create an independent Kurdish state. The organization's self-proclaimed goal of "democratic autonomy," in turn, does not require violence. Considering that imprisoned PKK founder Abdullah Öcalan publicly declared in March 2013 that "the time for armed struggle was over," why is the organization still fighting?
It would appear that the PKK's return to violence reflects the shifting balance of power in the Middle East as well as the close relationship between Kurdish politicians and violent groups. Although political violence has deeply traumatized the Kurdish community in recent decades, leading figures have not learned from the past.
According to Kurdish author Orhan Miroğlu, who currently serves as an elected representative for the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) in Parliament, a small group of academics, who recently published a controversial declaration against the government, hailed the PKK as an instrument of "liberating violence." The terror campaign, they maintain, is a way to force the AK Party out of power. Kurdish politicians, ironically enough, think along the same lines, as for years, political violence has been an alternative to state power.Whether or not people would like to describe the PKK as a terrorist organization is one thing, but it is unacceptable that no pro-PKK politician has ever taken a stance against violence. For a long time, their reluctance to condemn terrorism was due to an understanding that there was no other way to challenge the state's repressive policies. Another reason was that the left tended to hail violence as if there were no alternatives. In the end, Kurdish politicians chose Che Guevara's way over Gandhi's teachings. When asked in 2006 why the Kurdish political movement could not disarm provided that independence was no longer on the table, the late Orhan Doğan, a relatively pro-peace figure, had notably argued: "Our weapons are our insurance policy and must not be abandoned."
Another driving force behind the PKK's obsession with violence is that the organization has managed to silence all its rivals through violent means. Executions of PKK militants by the leadership, furthermore, helps keep a lid on dissent. Although a number of HDP politicians criticize the organization's most recent efforts, for instance, they are unable to challenge the PKK leadership publicly for fear of retaliation. Speaking on condition of anonymity, a HDP official recently defended the code of silence as follows: "We can't speak out because [the PKK] would not only kill us, but also defame us as traitors. Who would dare getting killed and going down as a traitor?"
In an interview with the Turkish media last week, Kurdish artist Çiyager argued: "The time has come to speak against the [Kurdish] community's transformation and deprivation of its own values behind the smokescreen of modern concepts like freedom, peace and democracy. Values like honor and solidarity, which make the Kurds who we are, are disappearing. I thought about this at length and criticized the HDP and the PKK on my Facebook page. Hundreds of PKK and HDP supporters, who had praised me for years, declared me a traitor." The next day, Çiyager was attacked and severely injured.
Kurdish political movements are at a crossroads today. They have no choice but to make up their minds and take a stand against PKK violence, which the people do not support. This would be a great first step toward peace.