Mahfuz Güleryüz said that the commission is the most tangible step since last October.
The Grand National Assembly of Turkey’s (TBMM) National Solidarity, Brotherhood and Democracy Commission decided in its second meeting, by unanimous vote, to hold the session behind closed doors and to withhold the minutes from publication for ten years. In the first meeting, the commission’s name was changed, and its 12-article rules of procedure were also unanimously adopted.
The commission will continue its work until 31 December 2025. Mahfuz Güleryüz, Deputy Co-Chair of the Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party), responded to questions on how the party assessed the commission’s first meeting and what they expect from it in the coming period.
Güleryüz stated that the primary expectation of the commission was to take steps toward legal regulations that would serve as a “road clearance” function. He also commented on the Peace and Democratic Society meetings the DEM Party has been organizing in the field, noting that there is immense public trust in Abdullah Öcalan.
It is important for the commission to have a pluralistic structure
Mahfuz Güleryüz described the commission as a historic step despite some shortcomings, emphasizing that its pluralistic structure is also of great importance: “We see the formation of the commission as a very important stage in terms of the process, because it is the first officially established body in Turkey’s history to seek a solution to the Kurdish question. In this respect, we truly consider it historic. Of course, during the process of its formation, we made various proposals. For example, we suggested that it be established by law, rather than as a commission formed under the initiative of the Speaker of Parliament. Despite such shortcomings and inadequacies, we regard the establishment of the commission as an important phase in Turkey.
The speech made by Mr. Numan on the occasion of the commission’s opening was significant and historic, especially in terms of its reference points. For instance, citing Nazım Hikmet, Ehmedê Xanî, and Mehmet Akif can be considered a recognition and acceptance of the pluralism of this society, as such references have never before been made in such an official meeting. Of course, in the past, Tayyip Erdoğan or various state officials have made similar references; there are such examples. But the fact that these references were made in a meeting of a commission established to address the solution of the issue, and in the presence of that commission, was important.
Furthermore, it was extremely important for the commission to have a pluralistic structure. Abdullah Öcalan’s statements on this subject also emphasized the need for the commission to have such a character. As the DEM Party, we also proposed that the commission must include all the colors and representations of the parliament. In this respect, it was very positive.
Yes, one or two parties chose to stay out of this process. It would have been better if they had participated and all parties had been involved; but almost every party in parliament took part. Therefore, we need to assess it from a perspective that does not ignore this fact. From these and similar points of view, we believe that the commission will serve an important function, conduct significant work, and make a valuable contribution to resolving the Kurdish question and to the democratization of Turkey. This is our expectation.”
The process has begun to take some concrete form
Güleryüz said the commission could be considered the most concrete step the state has taken since the process that began on 1 October, and outlined the DEM Party’s expectations from it: “We can consider the establishment of the commission in this process as the first concrete step taken by the state in the period that began with the 1 October process. In this sense, we can say that the process has begun to take on some concreteness.
The commission has set out its working principles and declared them to the public. What matters is that this is carried out in a sound manner. If it is, we understand that it will not be a structure made up solely of those who are members of the commission. There is also the view that sub-commissions, various working groups that can operate under the commission, should be established. If such a decision is made and these groups are formed, they will be able to carry out preparatory and reform-oriented work on a range of issues, starting with the Kurdish question and including all anti-democratic practices.
We do not consider the Kurdish question to be an issue that can be solved overnight; we know it will not happen that way. We have no naive or fanciful approach. But there are certain prerequisites for resolving this issue. Until now, neither Abdullah Öcalan nor his Movement has spoken about conditions or preconditions. Addressing the matter on this basis is correct; however, the process must operate within democratic norms and must work on problematic areas, demonstrating the will to do so. If this happens, the commission can show the determination to resolve this intricate, century-old problem that has marked Turkey’s history.
Therefore, as we approach the new legislative year, our expectation from the commission is that the first stage should be to pass laws that could serve as a ‘road clearance’ for resolving this issue. In fact, the first step should be to amend regulations and bylaws. Because, whether we like it or not, there is a constitution and laws; but in recent years, especially through regulations and bylaws, even these have been nullified and rendered ineffective. A governance mechanism based entirely on arbitrariness has emerged. The first step must be to eliminate these. The rulings of the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) must be implemented. Above all, we expect the necessary changes in laws and statutes to be made as soon as possible, and we hope these will be completed before the new legislative year begins.”
There is immense public trust in Öcalan
Mahfuz Güleryüz also commented on the trend that emerged during the Peace and Democratic Society meetings they have been holding with the public for some time: “Following Mr. Öcalan’s seven-point call, announced after the meeting on 28 December, we organized nearly 40 central meetings. The main goal of those meetings was to reach, first and foremost, our own administrations and the active working members of our party, in order to discuss Mr. Öcalan’s call directly with them. As a result, we completed this phase with around 5,000 participants.
The second phase began immediately after Mr. Öcalan’s statement on 27 February. In that phase, we held 101 meetings, bringing together approximately 55,000 to 60,000 people. The aim in those meetings was to convey Mr. Öcalan’s 27 February statement and call to society, reaching both our own structures and all segments of the broader public. This program targeted labor and professional organizations, democratic mass organizations, political parties, regional associations, and more. We aimed to carry this process to all social dynamics, starting with our party’s structures.
The third phase began particularly after the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), in response to Mr. Öcalan’s call, convened its congress, declared the end of the armed struggle, and announced its dissolution. In this period, we held 2,000 meetings and, within this framework, engaged with 250,000 people. These meetings were aimed at embracing all social dynamics, turning this process into a broad social consciousness, and transforming organized struggle accordingly. We carried these discussions not only to city centers but also to districts, neighborhoods, villages, hamlets, and even homes, explaining the process extensively.
This was not only carried out by the DEM Party but also actively involved nearly all democratic institutions: all components of Kurdish politics, women’s organizations, the association of families of prisoners, the association of families of the disappeared, cultural institutions, legal organizations in short, all institutions we define as democratic, along with their administrators and members. They all took part in this process and tried to fulfill the requirements of this historic responsibility. In this respect, it was truly a historic process.
Two particularly striking points emerged from these meetings. The first was the immense trust the public had in Mr. Öcalan. We saw once again, in a striking way, the immense trust in Mr. Öcalan. For us, this was not a surprise; but for Turkish society and the political establishment, witnessing this determination and the power behind this will came as a shattering experience. It is safe to say this openly. The people clearly expressed both their trust in Mr. Öcalan and their commitment to stand behind his will. There was no contradiction in this regard. However, there was also an immense distrust toward the state and its mechanisms.
For instance, representatives from almost every political party asked, “Do you really believe that a government which has committed so many wrongs would genuinely want to solve a colossal issue like the Kurdish question?” We were met with questions, expressed with deep concern and suspicion, such as: “Is this part of a deception, an attempt by Tayyip Erdoğan to secure his re-election in 2028 through a constitutional change?”
Our position on all of this was expressed very clearly. This is not a matter of elections or constitutional bargaining. This is about resolving an issue that has marked an entire century of Turkey’s history and stands at the forefront of all its societal problems. That is our approach, that is our goal. We have explained at length to our society that we will not enter into any bargaining process with anyone on this matter, and that our stance and position are firm.
It was an intense and lengthy period of work for us, but it was also highly instructive and enriching. We came out of this process with great morale. This is because the desire for peace is not only persistent among Kurdish society but also strongly present in Turkish society. It is very clear that no one is taking a negative stance on this issue. This has made us very happy. It has also become evident that our efforts, our work, and the plans we made in this regard were by no means empty
