The Democratic Society Party (Turkish: Demokratik Toplum Partisi, DTP) was founded in 2005. In the 2007 elections, the DTP received around one-fourth of the Kurdish people’s votes in Turkey and formed a party group in the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM) with 21 parliamentarians.
The interests that the DTP represented in parliament and the political line to which the party adhered led to heated debates in Turkey. In the end, the party was banned by the Constitutional Court on December 11, 2009, for alleged links to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), and for becoming a supporter, focal point and promoter of the violence.
Although the closure of political parties in Turkey is a widespread tradition, the majority of political parties and intellectuals have begun to stand against the political party closures in recent years. The process of the DTP’s closure case in the Constitutional Court took place in a wide public platform with the opposition of these intellectuals and with thoughts against closing the party.
Many Turkish intellectuals argued that such a disposition towards closing down parties is unacceptable in a modern democracy. These intellectuals defended the party’s right to survive even though the party represents only a portion of the Kurds and does not reject its dialogue with PKK, which has adopted terrorism as a method. However, the DTP has never made it easy for those who support democracy and freedom of opinion and are advocates of the DTP. In the last eight years, Turkey’s EU process, democratization process, and reforms in the field of law have developed a pluralistic environment that is very attractive for the Kurds as well. Turkey has ensured pluralism and that different groups could express their demands in many areas.
Failing to develop policies that discouraged the use of violence as a legitimate method, the DTP did not take advantage of the democratic environment that had been given to them and the opportunity to act as the political representatives of the Kurdish people. The EU strongly demanded that the DTP distance itself from violence several times; however, the DTP ironically seemed to legitimize the violence, especially the violence done by the PKK. The polarization increased in the country due to the recent street events, the murder of a young man in Diyarbakir, the burning to death of a seventeen-year-old girl, Serap Eser, and most recently, the death of seven soldiers in a PKK ambush in Tokat, which made it much more difficult for those who strongly oppose turning Turkey into a graveyard of party closures to defend the DTP.
In addition to all of this, DTP co-chair Emine Ayna’s explanations that condoned violence, the revelation that some of the party officials were the same as the militants of the PKK’s city organizations, the DTP extremists’ war against the democratic opening, and even declaring the democratic opening was dead just five months after it began, have made it extremely difficult for both Kurdish and Turkish democrats to defend the party . President Abdullah Gul, who showed a great example of courage in starting the democratization reform, including the solution to the Kurdish problem, expressed his disappointment with the closure decision by saying “I wish party executives would show the necessary care to protect parties. As long as a party cites a terrorist organization as its raison d’etre, what can the court do. I wish party executives would understand the total democratization process and the interest shown to them when they came to the Assembly.”
The death of a political party and its realization by the court is a tragic situation. However, the DTP preferred to commit political harakiri by declaring itself as unauthorized and declaring the PKK and Ocalan as authorized in terms of the solution to problems related to the Kurds, and by not distancing itself from violence and terror. Before the closure decision of the Constitutional Court, the DTP expressed that they could not do anything against some of the DTP deputies who had an understanding based on the legitimacy of the violence. At the same time, the DTP refused a golden opportunity created by the democratization process and aligned itself with the nationalist MHP and secular nationalist CHP. Unlike the other party closures, this one is based on concrete actions and concrete links between the party and the terrorist organization.
The closure decision shows that this winter would be a harsh one for Turkey. Yet, democracies do not have a chance to carry the political parties that get along with terrorist organizations that legitimize the annihilation of democracy. From this point of view, the decision is an troublesome one.
The rule of law might be consolidated by decisions made without the pressure of violence. The legal criticism of the court’s decision does not seem very meaningful. A political criticism may be appointed, but expecting courts to give political decisions would not be an ethical and correct approach. Following the Constitutional Court’s decision, there may be some problems in the short term. Neverthelesss, in the medium term, the number of Kurdish people who are ready to punish the DTP that disappointed them is remarkably increasing day by day.
Prof. Dr. Ihsan Bal Director of USAK Center for Security Studies
"Statements of facts or opinions
appearing in the pages of
Journal of Turkish Weekly (JTW)
are not necessarily by the
editors of JTW nor do they
necessarily reflect the opinions
of JTW or ISRO. The opinions
published here are held by the
authors themselves and not
necessarily those of JTW or ISRO.
Materials may not be copied,
reproduced, republished, posted
without mentioning the mark of
JTW or ISRO in any way except
for your own personal non-commercial
home use. For the news and other
materials republished by the JTW
you must apply the original
publishers. JTW cannot give
permission to republish this
kind of materials."
A Time Collapse in the Kurdish Problem
