Known for her work in conflict resolution, a professor of Political Science and Conflict Resolution at Sabancı University Ayşe Betül Çelik talks about to what extent the society supports a peaceful solution to the Kurdish Question.
Prof. Dr. Ayşe Betül Çelik, Prof. Dr. Evren Balta and Prof. Dr. Mehmet Gürses, wrote a report titled “A Social Perspective on the Kurdish Question” for the Peace Foundation with the support of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) Association in Turkey.
The report, prepared with the data of KONDA Research, examines the perspective of Turkish society on the Kurdish problem and its solution between 2010 and 2022, and the factors affecting this view.
One of the authors of the report, Prof. Dr. Ayşe Betül Çelik gave an interview to Serpil İlgün from Evrensel Newspaper on to what extent the society supports a peaceful solution to the Kurdish Question.
How did you decide to write this report on the Kurdish Question?
As everyone knows, the Kurdish issue is one of Turkey’s most important problems. It can be off the agenda from time to time, but in the end, we all recently went through an important process that gave us hope for the solution of this problem, and then we quickly transitioned to a conflict period. We wanted to take a big picture of that process until the 2020s. There have been many studies on why the peace process ended, these questions have been left unanswered: How did this process reflect on society in general, and how did the polarized climate after 2005, the shrinking of democracy, affect the social view on peace? Is there anything we can do especially for social peace? Therefore, in this study, we tried to understand the factors behind different perceptions and how the rights- based and security-based approaches are defined by the society.
What are the main factors that determine our social perception of the Kurdish question?
I prefer to answer this in two ways. Because the Kurdish problem is one of the most important problems of the Republic of Turkey, but it is a problem that goes back much further. There is a Sèvres paranoia, especially in the Republican era. Again, in the period until the early 2000s, we see a denial of the problem. Fears, especially in those who identify themselves as ethnically Turkish, affect the definition of the problem and the perspective on its solution.
We can also talk about the contextual factors.This is more related to the social and political environment. Of course, we see a moderation while the peace process continued, but we see a more rigid approach to the peace processes when the conflict re-emerges. Moreover, our report also shows that the political polarization regarding this issue also triggers social polarization and shapes our perceptions about the solution.
How did the Turkish society approach the Kurdish issue and its peaceful solution during 2009-2011 period, that is called the “The Kurdish Initiative” and the resolution/negotiation process between 2013-2015?
When this process started, there was not a very high social support. But especially the AKP and the BDP at that time explained the peace process to their voters very effectively and the support increased over time. An important finding of our report is that citizens in Turkey are greatly affected by political discourses and the political environment. The language used by the leaders not only increases the support for peace, but also cause significant harm to it. As a matter of fact, during the polarized and conflict-ridden climate after 2015, AKP support for peace is falling.
What happened after 2015 pushed the Kurdish issue go down in the list of priorities. Because, as I said, society is very much affected by the leader’s discourse. The Kurdish question has begun to lose its importance, especially among those who identify themselves as ethnically Turkish.
Although other problems such as inflation, education, immigrants, democratization, gender equality take more attention than the Kurdish problem, this does not remove the issue from the agenda. The problems related to education, economy, democracy and institutionalization mentioned in the report are actually intertwined with the Kurdish issue. However, there is no climate where we can talk about these issues. And there is a social polarization based on prejudices and assumptions. This creates a particularly tense political environment in the pre-election period.
In the research conducted by KONDA in April 2010, approximately 35 percent of those who identify themselves as Turkish recognize the right to mother tongue education. In another study conducted in September 2012, the vast majority of those who identify themselves as Turkish (65 percent) are againts the recognition of the constitutional existence of the Kurds. What has changed in 10 years?
Yes, a similar question is asked again in January 2020, we see that the support for the right to mother tongue education is around 35-40 percent, just like it was in 2010. If we look from the bright side, the social support stayed the same in the ten-year period. Mother tongue education, I think, seems to be a good start to publicly speak about peace.
But there is resistance to the idea of equal citizenship.
Yes. However, 30 percent always supports citizenship rights. And again, the same 30 percent support the resolution of the problem through consensus. In other words, the report can present you a good or bad picture depending on where you look at it.
In the report, you say that peace work should also be done with “cautious optimism.” What does cautious optimism mean and how can the 55 percent who resist the peaceful solution of the Kurdish problem be persuaded?
The data tells us that 30 percent support for Turkey’s peace agenda even in its most oppressive times. If there is still 30 percent support even after going through such bad times, we see it as a positive thing. But a large section of the society is affected by identity, polarization, political preferences, and the leaders’ discourse. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate it with cautious optimism.
There is a common understanding in Turkish society, similar to other societies, that peace can only be achieved through the dialogue of leaders. As I mentioned, the report also supports that the leaders’ discourse is critical. But that doesn’t mean that peace is just a matter of what leaders say. Top-down peace building is doomed to fail if they do not receive support from the society. Peace processes that cannot have social support would not be successful. The process we went through in 2009-2011 and 2013-2015 was a top-down process. Besides these models, there are also bottom-up models and studies towards bringing the society together to talk about the problem, to break down the prejudices, and to work on healing and to improve intergroup relations.