In the second part of this interview, former Imrali Delegation member and Kurdish politician Idris Baluken told ANF that in the call he made, Abdullah Öcalan assigned responsibilities to everyone. 

The first part of this interview can be read here.

Vice Co-Chair of the DEM Party, Tayyip Temel, spoke to Medya Haber television and emphasized that Abdullah Öcalan had warned about the reactivation of a coup mechanism. Do you have any information regarding this warning? Considering your past experiences, what would you like to say about Öcalan’s warning?

A coup mechanism is likely to be set in motion whenever the Kurdish issue remains unresolved and the war machine continues to operate. Turkey’s recent history has shown this as well. To prevent this uninterrupted coup mechanism, Mr. Öcalan has consistently issued warnings in the past, particularly during the peace process. He stated that Turkey could escape this coup mechanism by democratizing, integrating the state structure with society, and achieving a solution.

At the time, when we were the delegation that first started talking about the coup mechanism, we heard comments from democratic, liberal, and leftist circles in Turkey, saying, ‘Would a coup really happen in Turkey at this point? Would such a mechanism still function?’ However, we all witnessed what happened in the following period. The coup practices that were put into action, both militarily and civically, proved just how accurate Mr. Öcalan’s assessments were.

Mr. Öcalan sees this danger today as well. A Turkey that resolves the Kurdish issue and ensures democratization can only rid itself of these shameful pages of the past. It can find peace by integrating with society in the present. Öcalan has evaluated the situation within this broader strategic framework. I believe that, above all, this evaluation must be taken seriously by the government and state authorities.

Öcalan’s historic call imposes a great responsibility on both Turkey and the Kurdish people, doesn’t it? What should different social and political groups do to ensure the success of this process?

Yes, this is a very important question. But before answering it, I want to emphasize something in particular: Mr. Öcalan is not a leader who takes a stance solely based on the developments happening today or tomorrow, either in the country or the region.

We have seen this in the past as well. He evaluates regional and global developments very well, analyzing the political background of the next fifty, perhaps even a hundred years. In doing so, he operates from a perspective grounded in political, sociological, philosophical, and historical realities. That is why understanding the strategic moves he puts forward can sometimes be difficult for those who fall into the shallowness of daily politics. However, as the process unfolds, the value of his moves becomes clear.

If you remember, when the 2013-2015 peace process began, there was confusion in different circles, including some segments of the Kurdish people. A very intense war period had been experienced. There were political arrests. The government was not showing any will regarding Kurdish policies or democratization.

At that time, everyone was asking, ‘Why is such a process needed when all of this is happening?’ But over time, the developments in Rojava, the tangible emergence of the revolutionary process there, the Kurdish political movement’s leap from a 6-7% range to 13% in Turkish politics through the Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP), and its establishment as a key force in Turkey’s political landscape, positioning itself as a third alternative between the two main political axes, Mr. Öcalan was considered as a peace leader for the first time in Turkish society (west of the Euphrates and in the international community), in opposition to his always misrepresented image. All happened thanks to the resolution process.

People often discuss the peace process only in terms of what happened after the table was overturned, but they ignore what the process brought to the Kurdish people and the revolutionary and democratic circles in Turkey.

I see the current process as similar to that one. Of course, there may be concerns, worries, and difficulties in interpreting it through the lens of daily politics. However, leadership, especially peace leadership, is precisely about this. It is about having the courage to make strategic moves without getting caught up in conventional patterns and taking that risk.

The value of the move put forward by Mr. Öcalan will soon be understood. Its effects, in the long run, will shape all future developments and mark a historic turning point. That is why I wanted to emphasize this in particular.

Öcalan places responsibility on everyone

On the other hand, as mentioned in the text, Mr. Öcalan has assigned responsibilities to everyone. First and foremost, he has made a call to the state and government within a defined framework, emphasizing that a new century must not be wasted. He urges that this century should be shaped around a democratic republic, the path for democratic politics must be opened, obstacles to democracy must be removed, and the necessary legal arrangements should be made.

At this point, it is both our sincere wish and an essential necessity that state and government officials do not remain indifferent.

On the Kurdish side, there is a responsibility to focus on democratic transformation, to shape and organize itself accordingly, to guide the politics of the era within this framework, and to approach current developments with this perspective. The democratic transformation power that the Kurdish political movement has demonstrated in this context and its recent successful practices show that there must be an intensive effort in line with Öcalan’s perspective.

At this stage, different dynamics within the Kurdish political movement will take on responsibilities and assign themselves tasks accordingly.

Moreover, Mr.Öcalan also places responsibility on all social segments regarding democracy and peace. He emphasizes that for this process to be supported, embraced by society, and ultimately succeed, everyone must contribute to it.

He demonstrates that if we address century-old problems with responsibility, we can move toward a lasting solution for the next century.

Therefore, rather than focusing solely on the attitude of the state and government in the coming period or basing our actions entirely on their stance, I believe that intensifying efforts to build a democratic society and peace in line with Mr. Öcalan’s perspective will contribute to a solution.

The struggle for peace and democracy is far too great to be placed on the shoulders of a single individual. It is a process that requires collective labor and sacrifice. In the previous peace process, the aspect of societal engagement was not achieved successfully. This time, regardless of the stance of the government and state, it must be expanded. This process must generate pressure on the government and state in favor of peace and democracy.

This support must go beyond mere rhetoric

At this point, a few words must be said about the opposition in Turkey. The main opposition, the Republican People's Party (CHP), has maintained a generally positive approach since the beginning of the process, though only at the level of rhetoric. In the past, the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and its leader Devlet Bahçeli categorically opposed the peace process. However, in this phase, even they have, at least rhetorically, acknowledged Turkey’s need for a final peace. These are significant developments.

However, this support must not remain at the level of rhetoric. At present, aside from a few small racist, nationalist, and marginal parties in parliament, nearly all political parties, both inside and outside of parliament, along with civil society organizations that have a representative presence, have expressed their willingness to support a civil peace process. This is a very important matter, but now it must transition from rhetoric to action. In other words, initiatives should be developed within parliament to facilitate democratic transformation and bring lasting peace closer through legal regulations. The primary agenda of parliament should be focused on democracy and a peaceful future.

Likewise, every political party and civil society organization should now prepare its base for this democratic and peaceful future, independently of the government’s stance. They should take on the responsibility of conducting effective campaigns to achieve this. If the approach to this process is developed with such a sense of responsibility, I believe that the strategic move put forward by Mr. Öcalan not only to secure the medium and long-term future, but also to save the country’s immediate future, will serve a crucial function.