|
Interview with Ihsan Bal, Head of USAK's Center for Security Studies, on the Kurdish Initiative |
|
|
Wednesday, 14 October 2009Ihsan Bal, Head of USAK's Center for Security Studies, is an influential figure on issues of terrorism, the Kurdish Issue, and the Democratic Initiative. Here, he explains his views on the ongoing Initiative.
1. How do you define the Kurdish Initiative?
First, we must start with the definition: this process should be referred to as the Democratization Initiative, not the Kurdish Initiative. The government and the parties believe that the term "Kurdish Initiative" narrows the scope of what can be accomplished in Turkey. Naming it a Democratization Initiative gives the parties and government an upper hand and allows them to perform in a larger arena. Although in the beginning of the process it was most likely referred to as the Kurdish Initiative, we now prefer Democratization.
Having said that, we in Turkey face a number of interconnected problems. One of these is the Kurdish problem. Mistakenly, we have a habit of putting all matters in one basket. We have one Kurdish problem, related to cultural rights and demands of Kurdish citizens of Turkey, which can be resolved within the framework of the Democratization Initiative. Another problem is the terrorism problem, which is not distinctive from the Kurdish problem. We have different terrorist groups with different missions, such as Hezbollah and the PKK, which are somehow related to the Kurdish issue. There are issues that are intertwined. The PKK problem is not the same as the Kurdish issue, but they interact. Another framework is that of the social and economic problems, especially of the southeast. When some refer to the Kurdish problem, they mistakenly place all of these issues in one basket (terrorism, social/economic problems). While they are related, they cannot be grouped together. Fixing one problem does not necessarily fix the others. Implementing social and economic reforms does not fix the terrorism problem, but can help. We can put this on the table to help describe these issues.
2. Is it a process or a package?
It is a process, rather than a package. The reason for this is because if you take it as the Kurdish Initiative, or the terror problem, or social and economic reforms, it must be an ongoing process. Human needs change; the relationship between the people and the state systems changes over time. When you look at the terrorism problem, after 25 years the problem cannot be cured with one possible suggestion. It's a deep-rooted, troublesome problem, which requires time to solve. This Initiative will take at least a couple of years, which logically and naturally refers to an ongoing process. It cannot be a package that would magically cure everything. Each step needs its own time and special conditions, has some areas to be addressed before overcoming any obstacles. Then we can take the next step and face new sorts of problems. I don't know how long it will take, perhaps one to two years for some aspects, and ten for others. At the end of the day, you are facing many different groups of people. You must satisfy all of them and they must rejoice and understand and accept this process. It is quite time consuming, so inevitably it is a process rather than a package.
3. Is this a top-down process? Or more of a bottom-up/grassroots process?
Many reforms come from the government or the state. But this is an interactive process, and the driving motivation comes from the bottom. The public demand and the civil society's contribution to these policies are very apparent. The civil society contributes a lot. Even the ministry of the interior asked people what they could contribute to this process - from student unions to think tanks to university departments to ordinary people on the street - if there is anyone who has new contributions, they are invited to put their efforts or ideas into these policies. This is driven by the public. The state and government together are trying to address the root causes, the grassroots, which inevitably shifts the government's focus to the public - the people on the street, in shanty towns, small towns, whoever could be affected from this problem over the years. They also asked how to rebuild and construct a new initiative. They asked what to do. Also the government said it is ready to shake hands with all the public - 72 million - whatever they want or ask for. This process is coming from the bottom to the top and top to bottom. It will probably be reshaped many times in accordance with the wishes, demands, and aspirations of the people. The process today probably takes the opinion of ordinary people into account more than the government's. This is also a reflection of the name "Democratization Initiative" rather than "Kurdish Initiative," because the former involves more people.
4. Does this initiative offer new individual or community rights to the Kurdish people in Turkey? Is there any "red line" to these new rights?
Yes. This new initiative offers two new improvements for Turkish society. The first is to change the mentality of civil servants towards the use of rule of law, to ground their rights, teach them how best to practice in the framework of democracy. To explain more, the same law says one thing to prosecutor A and another to prosecutor B. As the EU progress reports states, Turkey is good at making laws but not good at putting them into practice. This Democratic Initiative aims to change the complete understanding of how best to practice laws in areas we have already guaranteed to the people. Laws passed by the parliament are then given to civil servants to put into practice. At the end of the day, from police to civil servants to prosecutors, etc. in society, this is to rejoice in, enjoy the real essence of democracy, in order to put the best practices on the street. That is one aspect that the Democratic Initiative is trying to achieve. That is why the Initiative is an ongoing process and not a package.
The second improvement is that it would guarantee more individual rights to the Kurds, a process that has been going on since the EU accession process began. In this process, Turkey has been making a number of amendments to its constitution, but more will probably be done. Nowadays there is zero tolerance for any misbehavior of any kind by a public servant. This zero tolerance is very important for instilling the people's trust in the government. Also important are guaranteeing rights to the Kurdish citizens, learning more about their literature, practicing their language as a second literature, and the higher education council's opening a new Kurdish philology in different universities in turkey. There can be more, but in regards to the "red lines," we used to (and still do) have the unitary status of Turkey, integrity of the state, official language of the state, national anthem, and the flag.
However, with this new Democratic Initiative, we added two more "red lines": the first is universal standards of democracy, which is not an alternative to the others, but needs to be done and performed coherently with the others and is just as serious and important as the flag, unitary nature, etc. The second new "red line" is human rights concerns as rule of law. This also must be taken as seriously as the other issues. As President Gul said when opening the new Assembly on October 1st, no one can excuse bending the law, taking the initiative into his or her hands and not caring about human rights - not even by claims of "defending the country". Obviously, Gul was referring to the most recent case in Turkey, Ergenekon, which some say allows others to bend the rules or create new rules "for the sake of the nation." Gul said that bending rules cannot be excused by misjudgment or creating one's own rules - in short, a deep state understanding. Everything must be within the rule of law and must take human rights into account. These issues are as important as the other pillars of Turkey. The country has been celebrating and debating these two new "red lines" that have been added with the Democratic Initiative.
5. In the first days of this initiative, we heard a lot about it. But nowadays it hasn't been getting as much media attention. Did the process slow down? Or how can we explain this trend?
Well actually it is fluctuating. It is not taking less space in the media. There was a severe debate for roughly the first 3 weeks after the Initiative was announced, then things calmed down a bit. With the opening speech to the Parliament and the AKP's congress last weekend, it has aired more, and Turkey has talked a lot about it. The Democratic Initiative has been debated on the air more than anything else in the Turkish media in the last 5 months. Obviously, sometimes different issues take priority for a couple days, like the Armenian opening, but still today we have a couple of articles about the Initiative. And the CHP will respond to the president's letter. Tomorrow we will be debating this. In my shorter memory, this is the one thing in Turkish politics that has been hotly debated for so long, over many years, and especially the last couple months. At least a few papers address the issue every day. The public attention is still there.
6. What is the domestic reaction to this process? How have the opposition parties reacted to it?
We can classify this in two different dimensions. The first is the pro-Initiative camp, which argues that this is something that Turkey has long been waiting for and that Turkey is ready to pick up the Turkish public's common sense, to solve its problems with its own mind, its own initiatives, its own abilities. This camp believes in the public's maturity, its wisdom, and gives more credit to the public, as it has almost 100 years' experience with democracy.
The second dimension can be divided into two: one side, the secular nationalists, says the government must decide on behalf of the public. This mentality is older, reminiscent of government thinking 50-60 years ago. They believe the public is there to be directed, reshaped; the government must tell them what is right and what is wrong. To put the public in the center of any type of project, give it a duty to uphold the nation, is worthless. This mindset gives no credit to the public, and argues that the public is not up to that standard, as they would not know what is right. This is usually an old ruling mentality, which means it is usually the main opposition party's argument: state, military, bureaucrats should decide what to do. The other side to the anti-Initiative camp gives credit to the public, but has a nationalistic view. They argue that there is no Kurdish problem - only a terrorism problem, which is supported by Turkey's enemies. Arguing that because this problem is piloted by foreign agencies, this camp believes Turkey must fight against this foreign interference, not change its domestic policy. This is not a manageable thing to fight over, so this terrorism problem is merely foreign agitation in the country, not a domestic issue. This is as important as not leaving it to the public. For them, the first anti-Initiative group, this project is big enough, important enough not to leave it to the public's hand. But, looking from the public's perspective, the polls show that just over 50% of the population support this Democratic Initiative, and support sometimes reaches 70-75%, although government has not yet explained this Initiative to the public.
7. Some critics of this initiative claim radical consequences for this initiative, such as separation of the country or a new Turkish question. Do you think this initiative will lead to either of these scenarios?
Critics of this claim that yes, it would cause a big problem - Turkish questions or separation of the country. But actually the contrary is more true. If we do not follow through with this Democratic Initiative, what the surveys show is that, particularly in some of the troubled areas, the public's reliance on the government is decreasing. So if the clashes continue for 5-10 years or more on this scale, this could increasingly endanger the cooperation between the people and the government. On the other hand, at the present time we do not see a Turkish-Kurdish backlash on the streets, but there is a slight chance of seeing Turkish and Kurdish clashes if this terrorism continues in this shape and form. So, the government guarantees rights for its citizens. If it is explained well, understood well by the people, this would help the situation and would help to further integrate the society. We already have an integrated society - not a divided society - so the government has a chance to improve its image. This initiative would take the control from the terrorists and give it to society, who will then decide the destiny of the nation and the state. We believe in society's good will and common sense, what the power of democracy can achieve. It must be believed that in the end, a democracy with 100 years of experience would uphold the rule of law and human rights concerns. A resulting conflict in society or creation of a new Turkish question is not only unlikely - it is almost impossible.
Interview conducted by Kaitlin MacKenzie, a researcher at the International Strategic Research Organization (USAK).
|
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Journal of Turkish Weekly
|
|
|
Turkey |
|
Previous News |
Interview with Ihsan Bal, Head of USAK's Center for Security Studies, on the Kurdish Initiative |
Next News |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
