ANKARA - DEM Party İmralı Delegation member Faik Özgür Erol described the exclusion of certain investigations and prosecutions from the scope of the framework law as ‘an unjustified restriction’, and said that once the law comes into force, a process will begin in which demands including the right to equal citizenship, the right to use one’s mother tongue, freedom of expression and freedom of association, and local democracy will be discussed.

 

An important step has been taken in the political and legal dimensions of the Peace and Democratic Society Process, which has been ongoing for nearly two years, with the “Law on Strengthening National Solidarity and Social Integration” adopted by Parliament. However, the exclusion of certain offenses from the scope of the framework law, the failure to include the “right to hope,” and the absence of any provision concerning the status of Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan have sparked debate over the law’s scope and whether it constitutes a comprehensive framework.

 

Since the beginning of the process, verification, determination and monitoring mechanisms have remained on the agenda and have once again come under scrutiny following the passage of the law. There are also growing calls for Parliament to play a more active role in the process, as well as for civil society organizations, bar associations, women’s organizations and trade unions to be involved. Beyond these issues, attention is now turning to how the process will unfold in the area of fundamental rights and freedoms once the law is published in the Official Gazette, particularly with regard to democratization, local government, freedom of expression and association, and language and cultural rights.

 

Faik Özgür Erol, a member of the İmralı Delegation, answered questions from Mezopotamya Ajansı (MA) about the framework law and the steps expected to be taken in the period ahead. Despite the law’s significant shortcomings, Erol said it had created a new legal and political basis for resolving the Kurdish issue. He said the process could now enter a new phase in which these issues would be discussed and further political and legal steps could be taken.

 

The long-awaited framework law has been passed by Parliament after nearly two years of the ongoing Peace and Democratic Society Process. How do you assess the current stage of the process from a political and legal perspective? There is also widespread criticism that the draft law contains a number of shortcomings. What are these shortcomings?

 

Of course, the draft has now become law. Once it is published in the Official Gazette, it will become part of the legal framework. First of all, I would like to wish everyone well with this development. May it be beneficial to all our people, to all 86 million. We should also once again extend our thanks and gratitude to everyone who contributed to the preparation of this law and to the process of discussing and evaluating it. I think we will come to appreciate the significance and value of this law much more over time. At the same time, however, I believe we need to define the nature of the law more accurately. As we approached this stage of the process, we consistently called for a “Peace Law.” A Peace Law should have been more inclusive, more focused on the underlying problem, more solution-oriented and more comprehensive. It should also have identified the root causes of the problem and set out a roadmap for resolving it. At the very least, it should have been a law incorporating the stages outlined and the findings identified in the parliamentary commission’s report.

 

In its current form, does this law qualify as a Peace Law?

 

It does not. We need to be clear on that point. We have been highly critical of the law’s shortcomings in this regard. However, while it may not constitute a Peace Law in the fullest sense, it does mark a significant first step into a new phase of the process. It serves as an initial legal framework. For the first time in the history of the Republic, this law has opened up the possibility of Kurds becoming part of the Republic through a legal framework. That door has now been opened.

 

You say that the way has been opened for Kurds to become part of the Republic through the legal system, in other words, that the door has been opened. What responsibilities do the various actors involved now have in ensuring that this door is fully opened?

 

Opening this door fully has now become a foremost responsibility of all democrats, socialists, and everyone who cares about this country. That is one aspect of it. From another perspective, this law may well represent the most democratic step taken in the history of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey to date. Despite all its shortcomings, we have been saying for a long time that the law would carry such significance.Perhaps months were simply wasted in this regard. Months were lost in endless debates over whether there should be a determination or a verification, which step should come first, and so on. Thankfully, we were able to get through those months and reach this point without encountering any major problems or provocations or having to face a serious crisis. Yet the picture that emerged in Parliament has shown just how right those who argued that the existence of such a law would be so beneficial to this country were. It has shown that steps based on such a broad consensus and democratic will can receive unprecedented levels of support in this country, as demonstrated by the law’s passage with 468 votes.

 

Can the law’s passage by Parliament with 468 votes be seen as an indication of the level of public consensus and support for the process?

 

In fact, this is also a clear indication of what this country needs. In that sense, I believe the process has been successful in terms of building social consensus and support. At the same time, we need to consider the lives that this law has affected and will affect. This is not a law that will be enacted today and implemented tomorrow. There is a process involving verification and determination, followed by a decision by the National Security Council (MGK). In my view, these processes should be completed once a mutually agreed roadmap has been established, and they can be brought to a conclusion without being drawn out over a long period. At the same time, once the law begins to be implemented, its implications will extend beyond the legal status or return to the country of those abroad or in rural areas; they will also mean the release of thousands of people from prison. It would also mean the postponement of around 75,000 to 80,000 investigation and court files. This is a law that will affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.These figures have also highlighted just how broad and deep the impact of the conflict stemming from the Kurdish issue has been, both inside and outside the country, and have brought us face to face with the reality of that impact.

 

The bill excludes investigations and prosecutions concerning intentional killings committed as part of an organization’s activities, as well as offenses committed before 1 June 2005 that carry a sentence of life imprisonment or aggravated life imprisonment. Does this provision suggest that the law has not been approached as a comprehensive whole? How do you assess this?

 

The issue of these exceptions and exclusions has also been one of the most widely debated aspects of the law. In fact, this is its most significant shortcoming. From the very beginning, for the two years, we have consistently said that if you want to resolve an issue, you cannot address its different dimensions separately. A solution has to be comprehensive. We have repeatedly stressed this point. However, certain reflexes, political concerns, or perhaps the need to justify the process to their own constituencies may have led to such a restriction. But this was an unjustified restriction. It was not the right approach. The law should have covered everyone, starting with Mr. Öcalan. Because it is Mr. Öcalan who has shaped this process from the very beginning and brought it to where it is today. It will be the same going forward. Therefore, the law did not need to include such a restriction. That said, the law is not limited to this restriction.

 

Could you elaborate on your statement that ‘the law is not limited to this restriction’?

 

The law provides for the establishment of a higher board once it comes into force. Other boards will also be established alongside this higher board. These boards will be granted various powers in the course of their work. In other words, once the law has come into force and the National Security Council decision has been published in the Official Gazette, the board will be authorized to conduct periodic assessments, particularly once the release of prisoners and the return of those abroad have begun.

 

These periodic assessments by the board give it the authority to request judicial, administrative and legislative measures. Accordingly, during this period, the board will be able to make such requests in line with the purpose and scope of the law. I say “in line with its purpose and scope” because there are no exceptions in the purpose and scope of the law. No group has been excluded. Within this framework, the commission’s ability to make such a request on the basis of a periodic assessment could open the way for a legal approach that also encompasses those excluded under the law. So how will this happen? It will depend on how the process unfolds. I believe the process has now got on track, and it is important to keep it moving along that track.

 

Once the process is moving forward on the right track, our expectation from this legislation and the authority it grants is that, through the commission’s periodic assessments, everyone excluded under the law will, over time, be brought within its scope. That is essentially the expectation. That is what should happen. The scope includes both Mr. Öcalan and everyone else who has been excluded.

 

Bahçeli’s remarks on the “right to hope,” widely seen as a signal for the process, came back into focus on the very day the framework law was submitted to Parliament. Yet the “right to hope” was not included in the framework law. Will Abdullah Öcalan’s status be determined solely through a political initiative, or will it be addressed through a legal and institutional mechanism?

 

In our most recent meeting with Mr. Öcalan in İmralı, he shared his assessment of the law. Essentially, he described it as a kind of “gentlemen’s agreement”,  an arrangement in which not everything is necessarily put down in writing, but which is based on trust and assurances. We have seen this reflected in all of Mr. Öcalan’s approaches to date. Whenever he has given his word on an issue, he has fulfilled his commitments to the very end. Now, I believe one of the most important outcomes that will emerge with the enactment of this law will be the creation of conditions that allow Mr. Öcalan to work freely.

 

How will that happen?

 

The law provides for several boards. In fact, we expect the law to establish three main bodies. One of these is a higher-level board, referred to as the Monitoring and Assessment Board. It will bring together the key institutions that could broadly be described as the core of Turkey’s security apparatus, including the Vice President and the Ministries of Justice, Interior, and Foreign Affairs. At the same time, we consider it important to establish a Monitoring Commission in Parliament, as well as a Peace and Political Integration Board that will work alongside these bodies and play its role in the verification, determination and commitment stages of the process.

 

Regardless of the implementation of the law, these bodies should be established as soon as the law is enacted. The process should then be carried out in coordination among the three bodies. The Peace and Political Integration Board, or commission, whatever we choose to call it, is also the body through which Mr. Öcalan will play his role. It is a body that reflects both his role in promoting peace and his role in advancing political integration. For nearly 27 years on İmralı Island, Mr. Öcalan has often used an expression: ‘There is a pool, but no water.’ In other words, he has said, ‘I want to do things, I want to contribute, but my hands are tied and I don’t have the means to do so.' With this law, the groundwork for these possibilities will emerge on an official, legal and political level. I think this is one of the law’s most important gains. And with the work of this commission, I believe we could soon see the technical process completed, the decision published in the Official Gazette, and the law entering into effect.

 

Discussions over verification and determination have been ongoing since the beginning of the process. According to the bill, a 17-member Parliamentary Monitoring Commission will be established to oversee activities covered by the law. What will the commission’s responsibilities be?

 

The inclusion of the Parliamentary Monitoring Commission in this legal process is, above all, the clearest indication that no work is being carried out without the involvement of Parliament. This has always been a fundamental demand for Mr. Öcalan, the Kurdish political movement and the other democratic opposition forces in Turkey: that the issues of both the Kurdish issue and resolving the conflict be discussed within Parliament. As we saw during the debates over this law, despite all its shortcomings, Parliament is actually a capable forum for conducting such discussions in a meaningful and substantive way. Similarly, Parliament played this role in the commission process and in the preparation of the commission’s report.

 

The Parliamentary Monitoring Commission will enable Parliament to both monitor and oversee the implementation of the law once it enters into force, as well as to monitor and oversee the work of the relevant boards.  At the same time, the commission will be tasked with sharing its findings with the public and keeping the public informed, identifying the legal needs arising from the process ahead, and, as the legislative body, ensuring that those legal needs are addressed. In this sense, I think the Monitoring Commission is a very important body. There is, of course, an executive board, which will be responsible for verification, determination and commitments. There is also what the law refers to as the “Peace and Political Integration” Board. And now we have the Parliamentary Monitoring Commission. We hope that all three will prove to be effective and sufficiently capable bodies for carrying this process forward.

 

As part of this process, what kind of political process and struggle can we expect to see around further democratization laws, particularly legislation addressing fundamental rights such as local government, freedom of expression and association, language and cultural rights?

 

The very meaning of describing this law as an initial step lies precisely in these issues. In other words, while this law helps resolve, to a certain extent, the fundamental legal and illegality-related issues, we are now moving into a process in which we can discuss the resolution of the Kurdish issue as a whole,  including demands for equal citizenship, the right to one’s mother tongue, freedom of expression and association, and local democracy.

 

Mr Öcalan put it very directly during the meeting: ‘I am still where I was 35 years ago. That has never changed. I was saying it then, and I am saying it now: an end to armed struggle, and the continuation of political struggle.’ 

 

Therefore, the process we are entering with this law is not simply a process leading towards some kind of final outcome. It marks the beginning of a new phase of struggle. The political struggle that will emerge with this law will be a period in which all these issues will be discussed and put into practice. In the commission’s report, all the political parties represented in Parliament, including the  AKP and CHP committed to the following: The Kurdish question is not merely a conflict issue. Therefore, eliminating the conditions for conflict cannot be reduced to legal steps alone. Alongside this, political, social and economic solutions are needed, whatever may be necessary, and steps must be taken accordingly. In fact, the report included many concrete proposals on these issues. So, we are now entering a process that will further develop and deepen the framework set out in the commission’s report and adapt it more closely to our own reality. The implementation of this law will also provide a forum for discussing the question of the mother tongue, the demand for equal citizenship, the right to freedom of expression and association, and the strengthening of local democracy and local government.

 

You have been following this process closely for nearly two years, including meetings with both the state delegation and Abdullah Öcalan. Throughout this period, we have seen that trust has been one of the most important issues for society. Based on your experience and observations, how do you assess the parties’ commitment to advancing the process and the development of mutual trust?

 

I always give the same answer to this question: ‘Trust is political.’ Trust is a political phenomenon. When it comes to matters that concern society and such large sections of the population, we cannot approach them by asking questions such as, ‘Do we trust this person or that person?’ as we would in our personal relationships. The relationship here is a political one. Therefore, every issue addressed here, including the question of trust, has to be approached politically. If the struggle waged so far, a democratic people’s struggle, has been able to come this far through its own dynamics, then we must move the process forward based on our own dynamics, the dynamics of our people’s struggle, our own particularities, our own structure, and, of course, by trusting our friends, allies and comrades.

 

But the success of this process is not something that will benefit only us or only one section of society. Just look at what we saw last night. It will benefit everyone, including those who have been most opposed to this process. This is what has been emphasized from the very beginning. Who would peace disadvantage? Or who would lose from expanding the space for democratic rights in a country? Who would it harm? Therefore, we need to continue pursuing a political course that is both so justified and legitimate, and has been developed with such political care. Let me say again: the process ahead will not be an easy one. It will be a difficult process. We have to acknowledge that. Because we cannot really speak of either a republican system or a political system shaped by a long history of democratic experience and steeped in democratic principles. In a country where the absence of politics is treated as politics, Leader Öcalan is genuinely trying to carefully pave the way forward. That deserves to be acknowledged. It deserves our respect and should be treated with the respect it warrants. At the same time, if this is to receive the recognition it deserves, we must do what is required of us through democratic and political struggle. This will not be an easy path, but we have both the strength to overcome these challenges and the determination to see it through.

 

MA / Selman Güzelyüz - Sema Bingöl