Both President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) leader Devlet Bahçeli once again reiterated their emphasis on “determination” and “no concessions” regarding the goal of a Türkiye without and a region free of terrorism. They repeated that the process is a state policy and should not be used as material for daily political competition.
They also stated, in differing terms, that the opposition’s approach to this process is based on “daily political competition.” What must be noted in the emphasis of both leaders is the warning that as the goal is approached, a politics of exploitation and attempts to undermine and derail the process will be activated, and will increasingly spread.
This warning is not misplaced. Türkiye has enough experience in this regard.
There are groups within the terrorist organization that oppose the process. States that have regional designs through the PKK have, from the very beginning, invested in the failure of the process through the YPG/SDF.
At the current stage, obstructive attempts from within the terrorist organization and from international actors are increasing. One must assume that the state and the government are prepared for such disruptive attempts.
However, being prepared first of all means being cautious. What must be carefully observed is that the opposition, including those who say they support the process, have from the start presented it not as a state policy but as a political maneuver of the government.
While the opposition present in the commission says it supports the process, it simultaneously calculates, together with the opposition outside the commission, how to impose political cost on the government.
We have experienced this at every critical threshold. The circles around the Peoples' Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) and those who believe in the importance of a Türkiye without terrorism must avoid statements that the opposition can manipulate.
It has been observed that the support of the Republican People's Party (CHP) and the New Path Group in the process commission has been shaped by electoral concerns. CHP leader Özgür Özel’s characterization of the DEM Party’s contribution to the process for a terror-free Türkiye as Stockholm syndrome – being in love with one’s executioner – was a clear disclosure that he approaches the process solely with electoral anxiety.
The parties in the commission appeared to support the process out of fear of losing the DEM Party base. However, when it came to stages requiring responsibility, they withdrew.
In the transition process, the opposition will, rather than contributing, create grounds for the discussion of sensitive issues. We will see this during the drafting of the report and the announcement phase.
Therefore, it is clear that managing the transition process must be carried out in a more planned and programmed manner than in previous critical stages. It is important that the parties of the People’s Alliance, the process commission operating in Parliament and the relevant state institutions managing the process act in a coordinated and more rhythmic way, according to the established roadmap. Because those who want the process to fail will increasingly exploit even the smallest disruption, as well as the statements coming from the PKK side.
It is important to constantly recall the sensitivities at the starting point of the process. A common stance should be shown against those who disregard these sensitivities.
Once again, the red lines outlined at the beginning, and the red lines that must be observed going forward, should be reiterated, and those who will bring new demands and maximalist expectations to the agenda should be prevented.
Here, it must be repeated at every opportunity that the transition process arrangements are related to the ending of terrorism. Debates on democratization are not issues that directly concern a terror-free Türkiye or this transition process.
Once terrorism is ended, many issues can be discussed more comfortably. Those who want to discuss issues on which society is sensitive after terrorism ends will bear the political cost within democratic boundaries.
