Could violence introduce democracy?

As we could not fully enjoy Qurban Bayram (Feast of Sacrifice), also known as Eid al-Adha, our conversations during the holiday were far more politicized compared to former ones in a bitter way. Even during traditional home visits, talk revolved around the reconciliation process, the government and the outlawed PKK. Some people are only blaming the government, making one wonder if the true perpetrator of the incidents does not have a role in the chaos.

This point has an insincere and unnatural character. In the phase we have been going through, the struggle for rights by means of violence and terrorism is insistently being valorized like it has never been done before in any part of our history. Besides, this is being performed in a period when Kurdish politics is at its strongest position in history, and civil politics stand out for the first time. But the interesting part, which is also the actual danger that reverberated in holiday talk, is that even groups that have not had the slightest sympathy towards the PKK and considered it a separatist organization so far are now giving overt support to violence. A politician who has been an administrator and deputy in the Republican People's Party (CHP) for a long time said: "The PKK will probably not lay down its arms, and it should not do that because if it does, it would not obtain any rights. And even the obtained ones would be divested."

Undoubtedly, some intellectuals who endeavor to represent President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as a hostile figure and underline that the PKK should not easily lay down arms not to be sold off cheaply have a major influence on this approach even though Erdoğan is the one who initiated the reconciliation process and announced that he was even ready to drink hemlock poison for the sake of the process.

Maybe for this reason, the pro-violent ones are mostly among Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP) proponents who came to support the party later on. In other words, when Qandil figures are set aside, Kurds who form the skeleton of the party are inclined to civilian politics, while the ones who were incorporated into the party later insist on keeping arms. It is impossible to explain this with a normal political approach or a democratic mind. This could only be a delirium created by a political grudge.

This is such a delirium that it pays attention neither to the dirty works going on around the Middle East nor to the fact that means of democratic politics are available in Turkey. And naturally, it cannot see how and with what kind of motivations the PKK is dragging Turkey into a whirlwind of violence again. However, only two years ago, Leyla Zana, a leading figure in Kurdish politics, said, "If the goal is to improve local administrations and democratization, no conscience can accept youth deaths for any longer."

Back in the 1990s, Abdullah Öcalan, the imprisoned founder and leader of the PKK, changed the main strategy of the organization by saying that weapons and violence could yield no result.

In the Nevruz celebrations in 2013, he declared the new route: "The period of armed struggle is ending, and the door is opening to democratic politics."

Is all this forgotten? As a matter of fact, they have not been forgotten since they all left their marks on history. The question as to why people die when there are democratic political means in Turkey is still insistently asked both within the PKK and circles of civil politics.

But unfortunately, this question is not discussed very audibly in Kurdish politics because some forces that encircled Kurds from inside and outside do not leave them alone.

With incorrect questions, the grounds and means of democratic struggle in Turkey are ignored, and people's belief in democracy is undermined. This is a direct harm to Kurds and indicates that other forces pursue their own political motivations through Kurds.

Both Qandil and certain outside forces are imposing on Kurds the belief that they cannot do politics without the PKK or weapons. Some measures must be taken before irreparable mistakes are made.

The Justice and Development Party (AK Party) also has a great duty in resolving that since it is the agent that initiated the reconciliation process and presented the means of democracy and civil politics to Kurds.