Rosa Walat

A way to intervene in the past—or repair it—has yet to be found. But searching for new paths toward a life shaped by peace, one that brings tranquility and well-being while sparing the present and future additional wounds, has become both possible and urgently necessary. Creating new methods that diverge from what is familiar is no longer an option; it is an essential requirement for safeguarding humanity and building a better tomorrow.

Necessary Transformations on the Path to Resolution

When individuals or societies face recurring problems, recognizing that temporary remedies do not produce progress—but instead entrench crises and multiply losses—marks a critical turning point. Once this realization is reached, a new path emerges: one of comprehensive and deep-rooted solutions guided by experience and clarity of vision, seeking to uproot the problem from our lives entirely.

And if the question at hand is peace, then countless reasons justify choosing it as a noble and indispensable goal. Peace cannot be condemned, criticized, or blamed. Anyone who does so merely exposes their own inadequacy and moral failure—deserving condemnation themselves. Every person who places human values at the center of their thinking, who embraces them as guiding principles, and who evaluates events through their lens, yearns for a world where the page of war is turned forever—a world defined by just and dignified peace. Such individuals work earnestly to make it a reality.

Today, one side insists on making Turkey “free of terrorism,” while the other remains committed to building a peaceful and democratic society. Both sides frequently affirm that the issue at stake is not a matter of bargaining or bartering for gains. Some steps taken in the past will never be repeated; others left unfinished will now be implemented. Alignment between rhetoric and action is essential. Only then can we say that decisive stages have been overcome and that the problem has entered a genuine path toward a final solution.

In this context, the Freedom Movement’s renunciation of armed struggle against the Turkish government and its decision to dissolve its organizational structures represent a significant step regarding what will no longer be done. Conversely, engagement in democratic political life constitutes the practical direction for what will be achieved moving forward.

 

The Kurdish Issue: Between Denial and Recognition

Looking from another angle, government discourse in Turkey has begun shifting from ignoring the Kurdish question to emphasizing the idea of historical brotherhood. A parliamentary committee has been formed to place the issue on the national agenda and propose necessary measures. Yet here lies a remarkable point: while many individuals and institutions have been consulted, the founder of the Freedom Movement—Abdullah Öcalan—has not yet been heard, despite the state previously addressing him within the Imrali framework. It remains unclear whether this will happen or why this delay persists.

Devlet Bahçeli’s statement, “I will not hesitate to go to Imrali,” carries notable implications. But the committee’s reluctance to address the Imrali file or to visit the prison raises questions: What calculations lie behind avoiding a step now considered indispensable for progress toward a solution?

Clear signs of fundamental problems are evident, and they are not lost on the public. The absence of tangible, practical steps fuels legitimate doubts regarding sincerity of intentions and commitment to change, giving rise to uncertainty and eroding trust.

 

Racism and Fascism: Barriers to Social Peace and Democracy

At a time when every effort should be directed toward achieving comprehensive peace, old behaviors persist—suggesting little real intention for progress—while new steps remain unimplemented. Is the goal merely to buy time? With democratic reforms stalled and legislative changes indefinitely postponed, the key questions remain: Who truly benefits? What is gained, and what is lost? These concerns have become constants in a crowded political landscape.

The Turkish government has yet to take substantial or lasting steps in how it addresses problems, often limiting itself to declarations that it will not revert to past practices. Meanwhile, the Freedom Movement is presenting broad projects addressing issues of identity, belief, gender-based discrimination, and other structural and societal challenges—not only in Turkey but across the broader region. It is preparing practical measures to build a new reality and openly announcing its initiatives.

If the true goal is to take responsibility for guiding society toward a future defined by peace and stability, it is unfortunate that some still cling to outdated notions of fragmentation, division, and existential threat—concepts long discredited globally. Those who labeled anyone acknowledging the Kurds yesterday—or calling for resolution today—as traitors, who view equality as an insult, and who consider anyone non-Turkish, non-Sunni, or non-male as a threat, perpetuate a crude racist discourse. Statements like “the best Kurd is a dead Kurd” represent explicit, unacceptable racism.

Racism, fascism, and hate speech remain grave obstacles to social peace and democracy. They must be overcome. Such rhetoric serves no legitimate social function anywhere in the world. It is morally, socially, and humanely rejected. Consider this: can someone who sees themselves as inherently superior, who denies others their rights, and who justifies all forms of harm against those different from them—ever pursue justice, equality, brotherhood among peoples, or any vision resembling a shared paradise?

Given their political stances and the vote share they received in recent elections, it is clear that certain narratives surrounding the peace process—particularly those amplified through certain media outlets—are intentionally manufactured. The total combined vote of the two parties most committed to racist discourse was only 3.39% of the Turkish population—less than 3.5%.

Those engaged in racist or fascist rhetoric for political or economic gain are not worthy of delicate handling or persuasion. Their primary aim seems to be inflating their electoral base and protecting the interests of war profiteers through contrived political positions. They target the process itself—not its implementation—leaving them with an electoral base of just 3.38%.

As time passes, and with each step taken toward healing wounds, one must ask: Why do their ideas not evolve? Why do they not contribute to building peace, democracy, justice, and equality—the very environment the Turkish people desperately need?

A renewed and purposeful Kurdish–Turkish alliance is a possibility worth thoughtful discussion. It is a framework upon which a shared life can be built, shaped, and strengthened around noble and universal principles.