ALIF AKBULUT

Istanbul — Intense discussions continue in Ankara regarding the framework law project that is supposed to form the legal basis for the return of Kurdistan Freedom Movement fighters who relinquish their weapons—a step considered one of the most sensitive files in the path toward resolving the Kurdish issue.

Information circulating in parliamentary circles indicates that the draft law may consist of between 8 and 10 articles, and that the government is seeking to place it on the agenda before the parliamentary recess in mid-July.

According to current discussions, the draft includes amendments to legislation concerning investigation procedures and judicial prosecutions related to those who declare they have destroyed their weapons, while debates continue regarding the scope and content of these amendments, amid a clear divergence of views between the security approach and the political approach.

"Maintaining Momentum Requires Serious Steps"

In this context, human rights activist Seyfural Ballıkaya recalls the statements of Parliament Speaker Numan Kurtulmuş, who spoke of a process proceeding in parallel with the destruction of weapons by Kurdistan Freedom Movement fighters, noting that two full years have passed without any concrete steps, making it imperative to accelerate the preparation of the legal framework.

She states that talk of "mechanisms for verifying the destruction of weapons" cannot substitute for a clear political will translated into comprehensive legal text, affirming that any draft law must be discussed from a democratic perspective, not from a security angle. She adds that the parliamentary report referred to by Kurtulmuş had previously faced criticism from the DEM Party, reflecting the need for a new approach that does not reproduce the security logic that has proven limited.

"The Law Must Be a Document for Transitioning to the Stage of Positive Peace"

Seyfural Ballıkaya warns that restricting the project to the issue of disarmament—as suggested by some leaks about a law consisting of 6–7 articles—would render the text incapable of addressing the essence of the issue. The law, in her view, must be a participation law that opens the way for engagement in democratic political life and establishes a phase of "peace and democratic society" that goes beyond merely ending armed action to "democratically rebuilding society."

She explains that the new phase is not only about those who have destroyed their weapons but includes the reformulation of the relationship between the state and society on democratic foundations, including addressing the Kurdish issue within a comprehensive framework. She believes that any law that does not clearly define the nature of the new phase, nor express an explicit political will for a solution, will remain incapable of producing real results.

A Law of Beginning… Not Merely a Technical Amendment

Seyfural Ballıkaya criticizes the restriction of public debate to what the media publishes, emphasizing the necessity of submitting the draft to parliament and opening it to societal discussion. She notes that what was leaked following the meeting of the Ministers of Justice and Interior with the leader of the Nationalist Movement Party regarding amendments to the Law on the Execution of Sentences and Parole reflects the continued treatment of the file with a fragmented logic.

She stresses that the anticipated law must be a "Law of Beginning" that clearly defines the name of the phase, demonstrates the will for a solution, and establishes the legal foundations for a negotiation path based on "consensus and negotiations," not on isolated technical procedures. She adds that the informal negotiations that have taken place so far have not been translated into standard or legal steps, making the new law a necessary starting point.

She noted that any legal framework that does not address outstanding humanitarian and political files will remain incomplete. The file of "ailing detainees, political prisoners, and those detained for decades" must be part of any resolution path, along with ensuring mechanisms for political participation.

She warned that merely activating the "mechanism for verifying the destruction of weapons" will reproduce the security approach and will not open the way for the natural return of those who left the country after the movement announced its decision to withdraw its fighters. She points out that limited amendments to parole or judicial oversight will not be sufficient, because politically classified crimes have always been excluded from such amendments since the enactment of the Anti-Terror Law in 1991.

"The Law Must Be Clear and Explicit"

Seyfural Ballıkaya affirms that the first law in this path must be a political text as much as a legal one, defining the objectives of the phase: establishing peace, consolidating democracy, and opening the way for unarmed political struggle. She notes that global experiences show that the phase of "positive peace" begins after the moment of disarmament and requires clarity and continuous negotiations.

She adds that restrictions on political representation, such as "guardianship over municipalities," represent a fundamental obstacle that must be addressed within a vision that guarantees the exercise of democratic rights. She believes that "addressing these issues will make the radical law that Mr. Öcalan spoke of a text capable of producing tangible results."

"The Greatest Threat to Peace Processes Is the Collapse of Hopes"

She pointed out that continued postponement exacerbates societal frustration, especially with repeated promises to present the draft "after the holiday." She noted that parliament is capable of enacting the law within a single week if political will exists—the matter has been under discussion for two years, and the state possesses cumulative experience spanning fifty years on this file.

She believes that prolonging the process raises serious questions about the existence of genuine will for a solution and reproduces the doubts that accompany every peace process when clarity is absent. She adds that addressing the damage caused by years of conflict is an essential part of the path, and that postponement only increases the scale of that damage.

"Departing from the Security Perspective Is a Condition for Opening the Way"

She stated that managing the path according to security calculations—"giving as much as it takes"—will suffocate the process within a narrow framework, while peacebuilding requires a bold step that opens appropriate channels for the return of those who left. She noted that the path has already achieved important gains: "Mr. Öcalan has said, 'I am ending an armed struggle that lasted fifty years.' He also said, 'I want to practice politics with political tools.' These are extremely important matters. Thus, much has already been achieved."

She affirms that continued postponement opens the door to serious questions: Does the state not want a solution? Is the path being deliberately prolonged? She believes that overcoming these doubts requires a clear participatory mechanism that reflects explicit political will, especially in light of regional transformations that make avoiding a return to the cycle of war in the Middle East an urgent necessity.