Serhat Çakmak stated that the process must be framed within a democratic legal structure and that integration laws are key to identifying the root of the problem.
The meaning of the term “democratic integration laws,” emphasized by Co-Chair of the Executive Council of the Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK), Besê Hozat, during a disarmament ceremony held by the Peace and Society Group on July 11 in the Casene Cave (Şikefta Casenê) area of the Dukan district (Dûkan) in the province of Sulaymaniyah (Silêmanî), Southern Kurdistan (Başur), has become a topic of public discussion.
Lawyer Serhat Çakmak, Co-Chair of the Association of Lawyers for Freedom (ÖHD), who attended the ceremony and also received the official inventory of the weapons handed over, answered ANF’s questions regarding how democratic integration can be achieved and how its legal framework can be established.
Legal basis should have been established at the very beginning of the process
Lawyer Serhat Çakmak emphasized that a legal foundation should have been established from the outset of the process, pointing out that this still has not been done:
“The emphasis on democratic integration during the ceremony was significant. The need for legal regulations to ensure democratic integration should have been addressed at the very beginning of the process. Both sides acknowledge that a process has existed since the initial contacts, the visits of the Imralı Delegation to the island, and Abdullah Öcalan’s statement on the island: ‘We are meeting with the state delegation; if a framework is formed, we are ready to contribute.’ In order to carry out such a process, there must be a legal requirement in place.
According to the constitutional principle of the rule of law, all acts and operations of the state must be based on law. Every action, statement, and decision taken by the President today, each step taken in the name of the state, has a legal basis. This applies not only to the President but also to politicians, state officials, and members of the bureaucracy. Every step they take must be grounded in law.
Since the beginning of this process, what has been consistently emphasized is the need for an overarching ‘umbrella law’ that would regulate it. Yet, to this day, such a law has not been enacted.”
A general legal framework is necessary
Lawyer Serhat Çakmak noted that both parties have acknowledged the process and that it has reached a certain stage. He emphasized that from this point onward, the state must introduce a general legal framework:
“At this stage, the parties have attempted to create the conditions for a negotiation table in practice. In other words, conditions were created to prevent potential conflict and to ensure that a ceasefire could be realized not only in words but also in practice. The final step in this effort can be seen in the symbolic disarmament ceremony held in Sulaymaniyah.
From now on, every step to be taken by the state requires a legal framework. There must be a law that forms the backbone of the resolution process. We can call this a ‘general law.’ For example, the phrase they use, ‘A Turkey without terrorism’, is already well known in public discourse. Perhaps they should now refrain from using such language at the legal level.
In the context of peace and de-escalation in the country, the law should allow for all kinds of initiatives and for dialogue with relevant parties. Such discussions must be legally protected through a general framework law that is binding for both sides and shields the process from possible sabotage.
Subsections and clauses of this law could also define the duties of any commissions to be established. This would constitute the legal backbone. It would show how seriously the state takes the process and fulfill the rule of law by giving legal legitimacy to each step the state intends to take.
That way, if someone asks in the future, ‘On what basis did you do this?’, there would be a clear legal reference. This would also help prevent the criminal prosecution of those involved later on.”
The commission must work in coordination with the negotiation table
Lawyer Serhat Çakmak emphasized the necessity of a legal framework and added that democratic integration laws are a necessary remedy to identify the root causes of the problem:
“The ‘democratic integration laws’ mentioned in the disarmament process are the remedy needed to identify the fundamental problems that are the source of this country’s century-old crisis. And this will only be possible through legal reforms. These are precisely what integration laws refer to.
What was the core of the problem? This will also be determined by the commission, but part of the process will move forward through the negotiations taking place on Imralı. In my view and what ought to happen, is that the commission to be formed in Parliament should work in coordination with the discussions on Imralı. Because it will not work if one side is three steps ahead while the other has only taken the first.
If something has been discussed at the table within a certain framework, the same issues should be addressed by the commission. The proposed legal changes discussed at the table should also be examined in terms of how they will be implemented legally and how the public should be prepared for them, how this will be communicated to society. Because in order for the public to take ownership of this process in the future, they need to truly understand it.
In this sense, I believe the commission should have a dual role. First, to work in harmony with the negotiation table and carry out legislative work in coordination with Parliament. Second, to use legitimate methods to help the public embrace this issue on a societal level.
This cannot rely solely on communication channels like social media or mainstream media. Arguments that directly engage with the public must also be used. The commission must study, research, and adopt these approaches as part of its responsibilities.
At this point, we do not know exactly what is being discussed at the negotiation table. But whatever is being negotiated must be capable of addressing this century-old issue. One side must not behave secretively or act in ways that hinder the progress of the process
