A solution trapped between ‘yes-no’ equation

Yaşar Aydın

The Framework Law was debated in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (TBMM) and adopted. This legislative framework was accepted by the regime and the DEM Party as the ‘framework’ or ‘foundation’ of either a Terror-Free Turkey or the ‘Solution Process’. Both sides assessed yesterday’s decision not as an end but as a process that will continue. In other words, they said, ‘We are only just getting started.’ Whilst agreeing that it would continue, they used different phrasing regarding how it would proceed. Almost two distinct paths are being outlined.

WHO IS THE PARTNER IN THIS PROCESS?

Who is the true owner of this process, which began approximately two years ago, passed through various stages, and reached Parliament yesterday? To what extent are the parties involved in this process actually engaged with the issue? What does this process mean for the ruling party, and what does it mean for Kurdish politics? Why are the peoples of Turkey being kept on the sidelines of this process? It is possible to multiply these questions. But almost all of them have a single answer: the Palace seeks not a solution but a regime through this process, and all these questions are meaningless to them.

Right from the outset of the process, the government began by denying that the Kurdish issue was a matter of democracy for the country. For them, the main issue was terrorism, and it had to be resolved. For this reason, all stages were conducted through consultations between four or five key figures. These figures were part of the decision-making mechanism. The process proceeded on a platform with Erdoğan and Bahçeli on one side, and Öcalan on the other.

The Middle Eastern and US dimensions, which were advanced in parallel with the talks held in Turkey, also became external actors in the process. This is also why the simultaneous developments in Syria and Iraq had an impact on the progress of the process. That is why the meeting between Colani and Abdi was followed just as closely as the visit to İmralı. It is no coincidence that the US ambassador is the one most privy to the details of a process that has been advanced whilst being kept hidden from Parliament and the public.

OPPOSING THE PROCESS

This process – the nature of which is not fully understood, defined differently by every group but whose course is determined by the regime – hinged, as of yesterday, on how the opposition would vote. Anyone speaking on such a crucial issue was reduced to a simple ‘yes or no’ response. The issue has been taken so far that there was more discussion about how the YENİ Party would vote than about the content of the legislation itself.

The ‘amnesty’ decision passed by Parliament is an important and positive development. However, presenting this legislation – which was drafted with extreme carelessness and whose future course is unclear – as the sole path to resolving the Kurdish issue, which has been Turkey’s main agenda for years, is overly ambitious.

It must be emphasised once again that the mindset which reduces the issue to a technical matter by severing it from the people and their demands cannot resolve any problem, let alone the Kurdish issue – and indeed, it has failed to do so.

THE MAIN OBJECTIVE IS CLEAR

For the past two years, the Palace regime has been managing the process in a consistent manner. Within the process initiated by Bahçeli, the regime has organised its policy around two or three pre-determined headings:

There must be a united front at home that is compatible with the new order being rebuilt in the Middle East by the US. The regime’s new face must be moulded to fit the system being targeted in the Middle East.

Opposition forces must be divided, and Kurdish politics must, at the very least, be pushed into a neutral position.

Disarmament, rather than a solution to the Kurdish issue, must be the primary focus.

The course of the process must not intersect with democratic demands.

Every development, including yesterday’s vote in Parliament, has been designed to reinforce this fundamental approach. It is clear that this has been successful so far. The government is now planning to move on to the second phase. The effort to ‘create the conditions to win the election once again’, identified as the primary objective in the new process, will become even more pronounced. It is abundantly clear that the numerous committees established for ‘amnesty’ are not in vain. Every single step will be used as a bargaining chip in such negotiations. Ultimately, confining one of the most deep-rooted issues in the history of the Republic – namely, the Kurdish question – to the Palace’s strategies for extending its regime or to a shallow ‘yes-no’ equation in the corridors of Parliament would be a grave disservice to the country’s future. Lasting peace is not achievable through secret negotiations behind closed doors, but through a sincere commitment that is transparent, inclusive of the whole of society and centred on democratisation. Social peace can only be secured through the people’s direct participation in the process and the building of a collective consensus. If agreement is reached on these points, one final clause may be added:

The greatest obstacle to Turkey’s democratisation is the Palace regime. Therefore, a democratic solution to the Kurdish issue and Turkey’s democratisation must be understood as an integral part of the struggle against the Palace regime. Otherwise, it will lead to nothing other than the Palace regime consolidating its power in the direction charted by Trump.

Note: This article is translated from the original article titled "Evet-Hayır"a sıkışan çözüm, published in BirGün newspaper on August 11, 2026.