ROJBIN DENIZ

News Center — For over a century, the Kurdish people have been subjected to policies of denial. Therefore, for them, democratic and lasting peace does not merely mean silencing the voice of arms, but also ensuring equal citizenship, ending policies of denying identity and language, opening the field for democratic political activity, and rebuilding the foundations of coexistence. From this perspective, the ongoing discussions regarding the resolution of the Kurdish issue should not be viewed merely as a security matter, but as a historical turning point directly linked to the path of democratic transformation in Turkey.

In this context, the "Peace and Democratic Society" call launched by leader Abdullah Öcalan on February 27, 2025, constituted a starting point for a new phase. This call, instead of the approach based on the continuation of conflict, introduced a new vision for resolution rooted in democratic politics and democratic integration. In doing so, it aimed to transition from the political arena long dominated by armed confrontations to a new space of debate grounded in the search for legal and democratic solutions.

Peace processes are not measured by declarations of intent, but by the practical steps taken by the parties concerned. From this perspective, the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) has taken notable steps by assuming the greater responsibility in this process. At a time when the Middle East is sliding toward new conflict zones, witnessing rapid shifts in regional power balances, and facing escalating war probabilities, the will to achieve peace has been demonstrated despite significant risks. This should not be viewed merely as an organizational decision, but also as a strategic choice concerning the shared future of the Kurdish and Turkish peoples.

From Armed Struggle to Democratic Solution

One of the most pivotal milestones in this process was the PKK's announcement on May 12, 2025, following its 12th congress, of the decision to dissolve its organizational structure. The statement also declared the end of the armed struggle strategy. On July 11, 2025, a group of 30 fighters, led by the co-chair of the Executive Council of the Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK), Bese Hozat, destroyed their weapons in a ceremony followed by international circles—a symbolic step regarded as a declaration before the world of the preference for political solution over war. This was followed by withdrawal operations from various regions, included among the steps aimed at reducing the risk of confrontations.

The fact that a movement that had waged armed struggle for nearly half a century, in a phase of escalating regional wars, took such decisions cannot be considered ordinary. If there had been no genuine will to move toward a democratic solution, decisions involving this degree of strategic risk would not have been possible. Therefore, the evaluation of this process should be based on the steps actually implemented, not on the debates raised around them.

However, the process has faced criticism from various political parties. Some parties advocating the continuation of the PKK's armed struggle, alongside Kurdish nationalist circles with traditional orientations close to the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) line, have considered the peace discourse as merely an attempt to reshape political power balances or a tactical maneuver. Yet this approach reproduces a political vision that keeps the resolution of the Kurdish issue hostage to the continuation of conflict, and sees the fall of more casualties as inevitable.

Conversely, the continuation of war under the current circumstances in the Middle East carries the potential for even more severe humanitarian and political consequences—not only for Kurds but for the peoples of the entire region. The existence of external parties seeking to keep Kurds at the heart of regional influence conflicts to preserve their strategic calculations does not change this reality. Therefore, reducing peace initiatives to mere tactical maneuvers means ignoring the political transformations the region is witnessing, as well as overlooking the strategic shift developed by the Kurdish liberation movement in recent years.

Regional Balances and the Path of Resolution

In this specific context, the "Democratic Society" theory developed by leader Abdullah Öcalan over many years acquires particular importance. The struggle for freedom was never reduced to a single form of struggle at any time. As historical conditions changed, organizational methods, political objectives, and confrontation strategies were reshaped. At different stages, the movement succeeded in adapting to changing circumstances by prioritizing armed struggle at times, democratic politics at others, and community organization at yet others. From this perspective, the ongoing transformation today should not be viewed as a rupture with the past, but as a new phase the struggle has reached after drawing lessons from its historical experiences.

However, the fact that developments in the process have so far progressed largely from one side should not be overlooked. While the PKK has taken its steps publicly and concretely, the state's approach to the process has been characterized by greater caution and fragmentation, shaped largely under the influence of regional developments. Turkish security policies, foreign policy priorities, and shifts in Middle Eastern power balances have sometimes made the process's progress on a democratic basis difficult.

Developments in Rojava, efforts to build regional alliances, and transformations in Turkey's foreign policy axis have made the resolution debates an integral part not only of domestic politics but also of regional power balances. Therefore, reading the ongoing process as solely a Turkish domestic issue would be an incomplete reading. The democratic resolution of the Kurdish issue simultaneously represents a strategic file that could affect the future of the Middle East.

Nevertheless, the continuation of the process and its failure to completely break down remains noteworthy. Despite all the tensions witnessed, the possibility of dialogue has not disappeared, and for the first time, discussions have begun on transferring resolution efforts to a legal framework. Although this situation does not in itself mean the achievement of lasting peace, it should be considered an important milestone after a long path of years of conflict.

The Potential and Limits of the Framework Law

At this specific point, the importance of the framework law project submitted to parliament emerges. The project, in terms of its scope and content, does not constitute a text that fully meets the core aspects related to the resolution of the Kurdish issue. However, it represents a step that cannot be ignored, as it allows, for the first time, the discussion of the democratic solution within a legal ground. Therefore, this law should be evaluated not only through its current provisions but also through its potential for development and expansion.

Undoubtedly, providing peace with legal guarantees cannot be achieved through a limited framework law alone. A lasting resolution requires support with constitutional guarantees, the expansion of democratic politics, and institutional arrangements that strengthen mutual trust. Otherwise, the steps taken will not be sufficient to build sustainable social peace. In this framework, one of the most important files is the reconsideration of the conditions of leader Abdullah Öcalan—whom Kurds view as the primary negotiator—in a manner befitting a democratic negotiation process, alongside advancing legal discussions regarding the "right to hope." The implementation of the democratic integration strategy does not depend only on political will but also requires supporting this will with legal guarantees.

Alongside this, the recognition of the constitutional status of Kurds, the guarantee of equal citizenship, full recognition of mother tongue and cultural rights, the strengthening of local administrations on democratic foundations, and the ending of the appointment of trustees to municipalities, are essential elements of the democratic solution. These issues should not be treated as subjects of political negotiation, but as natural requirements of a democratic rule-of-law state.

Similarly, the participation of women as essential actors in building peace and democracy, addressing the environmental damage caused by wars, and establishing mechanisms for democratic participation that include all segments of society, represent indispensable parts of achieving lasting peace. Peace does not gain its meaning merely by ending armed conflict, but by achieving democratic transformation encompassing various areas of social life.

The Roadmap for Lasting Peace

The success of the new phase is directly linked to the extent to which the field of democratic politics is expanded. Ensuring freedom of the press and expression, reconsidering legislation that restricts fundamental rights and freedoms—foremost among them the Anti-Terror Law—in accordance with the principles of a democratic rule-of-law state, along with providing conditions that allow civil society to organize freely and ensuring women's effective participation in decision-making processes, will be among the most prominent indicators of democratic transformation.

Ultimately, the framework law currently under discussion is not sufficient by itself to resolve the Kurdish issue. However, it carries historical significance in that it allows, for the first time in many years, the discussion of the democratic solution within a legal framework. The next phase will be determined by the capacity and will to transform this ground into a comprehensive peace program based on equal citizenship, constitutional guarantees, democratic politics, and social consensus.

Lasting peace is not achieved merely by silencing arms. It becomes sustainable through a democratic system in which justice is entrenched, rights are guaranteed, and different identities are empowered to build a shared life on the basis of equal citizenship. Moreover, the resolution of the Kurdish issue, when approached from this perspective, can contribute not only to the democratization of Turkey but also to building a more stable and peaceful future in the Middle East.