By Aslan Muhsin
The Kurdish issue in Turkey has long been a complex equation for the state, politics, and society. Today, as this equation is brought back to the table under the guise of ‘resolution,’ it remains shrouded in dubious, interest-driven maneuvers.
The Bahçeli-Erdoğan paradigm, presented as a ‘solution,’ is nothing more than a stage play motivated by immediate gains, power consolidation, and positioning in the international arena. Behind the rhetoric of “brotherhood” lies a process steeped in threats, uncertainties, and a disregard for the true demands of the Kurdish people.
State and diplomacy: Contradictory approaches
States have friends and interests, but politics, particularly foreign relations, is carried out through diplomacy. Turkey’s approach to the Kurdish issue, relying on international support at the financial and commercial levels, fails to provide a meaningful framework for resolution. Intelligence and low-level bureaucratic ties cannot substitute for a genuine political strategy. This is particularly evident in the policies shaped by Bahçeli and his ilk, whose historical contradictions are a testament to the opportunism in Turkish politics. After all, the same Bahçeli who once waved the noose for Öcalan at public rallies was later instrumental in abolishing the death penalty.
The AKP-MHP alliance: Power and melancholic ambitions
The AKP-MHP alliance sees itself as a powerful bloc today and seeks to leverage the Kurdish issue as an opportunity to secure a second term in power. Driven by Erdoğan’s melancholic ambition to become a ‘conqueror,’ this process serves more as a tool for historical vanity than a pathway to addressing the Kurdish people’s grievances. Even the aging figure of Öcalan, long detached from the Kurdish youth and their contemporary struggles, is treated as a bargaining chip in this cynical state-driven narrative.
Bureaucratised Kurdish politics and ‘white Kurds’
Within Kurdish politics, the ‘bureaucratic class’ has long been complicit in surrendering the people’s sacrifices to the Turkish political class. Under the guise of a ‘Turkification’ ideal, Kurdish demands and struggles have been sidelined for the sake of integration with the Turkish left in Ankara. This group, detached from its grassroots, prioritizes securing parliamentary and municipal seats over advancing meaningful political initiatives. This detachment has eroded political trust and faith among the Kurdish people.
Adding to this is the class of Kurdish elites, labelled as “white Kurds,” who have integrated into the Turkish capital. Believing they can move more freely and achieve greater autonomy within the framework of Turkish capitalism, they have turned away from the core of the Kurdish struggle. This group uncritically embraces every opportunity presented by the AKP-MHP government, standing on the wrong side of history, far removed from the people’s reality.
Armed struggle and the illusion of ‘resolution’
The reality is that armed struggle in Northern Kurdistan has long since run its course. Yet, the Turkish government portrays this as a precondition for progress, placing it at the forefront of its negotiations with the Kurdish people. In truth, armed struggle has significantly diminished, and using this as a bargaining tool highlights both the shortsightedness of the state and the disarray within Kurdish politics itself.
The “trench wars” in Northern Kurdistan, the failed organisational experiments of the KCK, and alliances with the CHP have left the Kurdish movement struggling to regain the trust of its base. These missteps, for which no accountability has been taken, have deepened the disillusionment among the people. Empty promises of “victory years” or “final years” ring hollow, failing to inspire confidence among either the movement or the people.
The role of global powers
The Kurdish issue has now evolved into an international matter, and its resolution is impossible without the involvement of global powers. Any viable solution must be guaranteed and observed by actors such as the United States, European Union countries, and regional powers like Israel. The Kurdish demand is clear: the resolution of this issue cannot be achieved solely through Turkey’s internal dynamics but requires a framework shaped and supported by international guarantees. Any attempt to portray this process as a “brotherhood” initiative is, at best, self-deception.
Conclusion
The path to resolving the Kurdish issue lies in an inclusive process built on the demands of the people and supported by international guarantees. The current picture, however, is one of bureaucratised politicians and opportunistic elites prioritising their own survival over the people’s struggles. For the Kurdish people, the final word is clear: We want a solution, but we demand the involvement of the United States, EU nations, and Israel as guarantors.
Everything else is mere rhetoric.
Read more:
