Yüksel Genç stated that the public’s main expectation is concrete action from the parliament commission.
A commission has been established under the roof of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey to address the resolution of the Kurdish question and the democratization of Turkey. The commission, named “National Solidarity, Brotherhood and Democracy,” held its first two meetings last Tuesday and Friday, and will continue its work until December.
So, how does the public view the establishment of a commission under the parliament, and what are their expectations?
Yüksel Genç, Coordinator of the Socio-Political Field Research Center, shared her assessment of public expectations regarding the “National Solidarity, Brotherhood and Democracy” Commission established under the parliament. Genç noted that in field studies, the public has long been demanding the active involvement of parliament in the process and stated: “The streets are now looking at action rather than words.”
The public had already been demanding parliament’s involvement
Yüksel Genç noted that the commission held its first meetings last week and will continue its work until December. She referred to past field research and said: “From the very beginning, there has been a strong demand from the streets for the Grand National Assembly of Turkey to take responsibility for the process. In our field studies, we found that nearly two out of every three people agreed and demanded that the process should be conducted with the parliament directly involved and with certain safeguards established through the parliament. Therefore, the parliament’s entry into the process, even if through a commission, creating a space for itself to take responsibility, can also be read as an effort to hear these demands and expectations and to act accordingly.
How well will this commission meet the public’s demand that ‘the Grand National Assembly of Turkey should take responsibility for the process, establish its legal guarantees, and give it formal status’? To what extent will this commission determine that? It is, of course, not possible to say at this stage. But considering that the commission includes representatives of almost all parliamentary groups, except the İYİ Party (Good Party), it can certainly be seen as a sort of mini-parliamentary representation group or a microcosm of Turkey’s representation space.
Another point here is this: when the street calls for the parliament to assume political responsibility, it actually assigns several meanings to the parliament. One of these relates to distrust toward the government. The fact that the results of past peace and resolution processes could never be given legal status, that their guarantees could not be established, and that the 2013–2015 process became deadlocked through the government and that previous processes had been locked around a more civilian and security-bureaucratic axis, has contributed to this distrust. But on the other hand, the public also makes this demand with the awareness that the Kurdish question is a fundamental issue for Turkey, encompassing both social peace and systemic transformation.
The street perceives the parliament as both a representative space for Turkish society that can speak in a binding manner, a guarantor space, and a place where legally binding processes for resolving the Kurdish question can be established. In addition, it sees it as a space where a more realistic solution can be developed around the approval and responsibility of Turkey’s political society. How much this parliamentary commission will meet that expectation? We will have to wait and see.”
Still some concerns remain
The public views the commission positively, yet the question of “Can it function in line with expectations?” still lingers in people’s minds. Yüksel Genç outlined the street’s assessments and the most frequently voiced questions as follows: “It is important to acknowledge the significance of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey taking on responsibility for the process, even if only through a commission; but from now on, it will be necessary to observe whether this commission can act as a body that performs the functions required in line with the Assembly’s vision and mission. Looking at the street, while the proportion of those wanting the Assembly to take responsibility is very high, since the establishment of the commission, those who view it positively are also high; however, it is possible to say that there are still some minor concerns about whether the commission can function in line with expectations.
For example, one of the most common remarks we hear on the street is: ‘Will this commission be able to provide the legal guarantees for the process? Will it be able to enact or secure the legal regulations the process needs? Will this commission be able to lay the groundwork for a new social contract, which represents a crucial turning point in resolving the Kurdish question? Or will it remain as limited and ineffective as any other thematic commission established in the Assembly, failing to go beyond the boundaries set by the government, perhaps even becoming part of the government’s way of managing, or possibly stalling, the process?’ Such questions are present in the street.
The most important factor in answering these questions or alleviating these concerns will be how the commission established in the Assembly functions. To be frank, the speech given by Speaker of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey Numan Kurtulmuş on the day the commission was formed was valued by the public. While not considered sufficient, it was still taken seriously, because since the beginning of the process, excluding Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) leader Devlet Bahçeli, no binding political body within the ruling bloc or broader politics had made such explicit statements about peace, democracy, and a vision for a new Turkey. We had not heard such discussions about unity, fraternity, and redefining Turkey. In this sense, the speech made by the Speaker at the commission’s inauguration was deemed valuable.
However, for a long time, especially in the streets of Kurdistan and among the Kurdish people, our street has been one that looks more to actions than to words. This stems from the mistrust created by past processes and the breakdowns that have resulted from various experiences. That is why, while they certainly value and give importance to words, they want practical steps. The street prefers to see what the Parliamentary Commission will actually do.”
An important stage since 1993
Yüksel Genç reflected on the historical dimension of the process, comparing today’s picture with the past: “Both the congress of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) on dissolution and disarmament, and the parliament taking the initiative, or rather assuming responsibility, by establishing a commission, were two stages that we did not see during the 2013–2015 process but that were expected to happen. We could never witness this stage in that process because it was brought to a halt. Similarly, in both the 1999 and 2009–2010 Oslo processes, the parliament, meaning the political arena, the sphere of representation did not take on responsibility. As for the process in 1999 and before, the issue could not even enter the political agenda because it was trapped within the deep circle of military tutelage.
Therefore, as a matter of fact, since 1993, in every period, the Kurdish question has gradually, step by step, moved from the military and tutelary bureaucracy to the security bureaucracy, then to the civilian bureaucracy, and finally to the political bureaucracy and the representative sphere of politics. The point it has reached today is the right point. Because the Kurdish question, as a century-old issue, can be addressed under conditions that aim to resolve and transform some of the flaws and deficiencies present at the founding of the current Republic. Likewise, if it is to reach a non-violent position, it is clear that one of the most competent and binding places for this, at least in the official and legislative sphere, is the parliament and the political field. Now the parliament and the political field have taken the ball. In this sense, it is highly significant.”
Yüksel Genç summarized the role of the commission as follows: “There must be a will, acting through the parliament and the sphere of representation and politics of Turkish society, that is capable of initiating a shared and solution-oriented democratic transformation; one that defines freedoms and triggers legal, social, and at the same time bureaucratic change. The parliamentary commission can position itself as a body that reveals or stimulates such will and make itself functional. If it does not get lost in narrow debates and agendas, perhaps a turning point in the Kurdish question more significant than ever before will be reached.
The issue of violence and tension will be significantly postponed, and perhaps even relegated to the back pages of history in this context. The role the parliament will play, and the position it assigns to itself as a subject, founder, or problem-solving arena, must be underlined as crucial. However, if it becomes a venue for narrow debates, follows agendas set by the government, opens and closes without progress, and functions in line with a delegated commission mentality, it will be a loss for the process, which would once again be left to be discussed among certain power centers.
