Author Sefkan Kobanê told ANF that the Turkish government is stalling in discussions about solving the Kurdish question, adding that in Syria, Turkey has positioned itself against the Kurds using HTS (Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham).

As the process of resolving the Kurdish question continues in Turkey, significant steps have been taken by the Kurdish side. The PKK’s decision to halt the conflict and the resolutions passed during its congress once again demonstrated the Kurdish side’s sincerity in the solution process.

However, despite this, the AKP government has taken no legal or institutional steps toward resolving the issue.

Important steps have come from the PKK in the context of resolving the Kurdish question and fostering dialogue in Turkey. The decisions taken at the PKK’s 12th Congress, in which the organization decided to dissolve itself, were shared with the public. These decisions emphasized the need to ensure that Leader Öcalan can work and live freely. On the other hand, while arms have not yet been laid down, the need for a broad legal and political framework to facilitate disarmament was highlighted. How do you evaluate the PKK’s decisions?

The PKK, while fulfilling its historic mission, has left the practical management of the next phase to Leader Öcalan by deciding to dissolve itself. The aim here is to underline that the conditions for Öcalan to work and live freely must be ensured in order to implement the congress’s decisions.

At the same time, it was emphasized that Öcalan’s freedom, based on his "right to hope", is essential for implementing decisions such as the dissolution of the PKK and ending armed struggle. This is the most important decision. Without it, none of the other decisions could be implemented because a new phase has begun in which leadership and execution lie with Öcalan.

How do you view the Turkish State’s position? There’s an approach that reduces the issue to merely disarming. We also observe a lack of actual steps being taken. How do you interpret this?

The Turkish state is trying to stall and buy time. It’s watching to see whether a new opportunity arises if the U.S. withdraws from Syria. If a withdrawal occurs, Turkey is looking for chances to undermine Kurdish gains in Rojava and Bashur (Southern Kurdistan).

In such periods, there is a daily, tactical approach that is not strategic and not in line with reconstruction processes, and that does not treat a “Kurdish-Turkish alliance” as strategic. This reflects a lack of seriousness and an unwillingness to adapt to new realities.

Is this a power struggle within the government? There’s a dual policy within the AKP. It’s clear this will bring them no benefit. The process is extremely delicate, and we are now at a historical point of no return. Those who fall behind the flow of history or take a fundamentally different stance end up in the dustbin of history. This is the fate of those who stubbornly cling to nationalism and the nation-state ideology.

There’s talk of a difference in approach between Erdoğan and Bahçeli. For example, Bahçeli proposes forming a commission, but Erdoğan and his circle oppose it. What does this indicate?

Yes, the situation seems to be just that. This discrepancy keeps emerging in various statements. There’s a split between certain factions in the state—those who want to carry out this process and those who don’t. Within the AKP, there’s also a clash between a faction profiting from war and other segments.

This reflects a contradiction based on diplomatic and political interests between the party and the palace.

MHP (Nationalist Movement Party) makes statements calling for a return to legal and democratic norms, while AKP tries to spread out the process and stall.

Operations against the CHP (Republican People’s Party) continue, and the Kurdish Freedom Movement has criticized these moves, claiming the government aims to divide the opposition. It’s said that democracy is indispensable to solving the Kurdish question. How do you view the government’s stance?

There’s a situation that arises from a power struggle among those who want to come to power. Ultimately, both forces are central wings within the state.

Unless the state returns to democracy, operating based on personal or party interests—purely for family or group gain—will not bring anything positive to Turkey. Therefore, support should be given, especially to the democratic, peace-oriented factions within the CHP.

These attacks against the opposition aim to block the democratic forces. Supporting this process is only possible through a struggle rooted in democracy. It’s not a matter of siding with one party or another. It’s clear that the power struggle will not benefit the Kurdish side or the democratic front.

What’s in Öcalan’s report to the congress about the Kurds’ future struggle?

There’s a call to organize a new free life. It’s about building a democratic society based on women’s liberation, in line with the conditions of the 21st century and Democratic Modernity.

This construction entails responsibilities for society and political actors alike.

It’s a multi-dimensional struggle involving all segments of society, from villages to neighborhoods, women, and youth. Therefore, the struggle is only just beginning: it’s about reorganizing society.

Leader Öcalan expressed this 20 years ago. He reiterated it in his 2010 "Manifesto of Democratic Nation." But it wasn’t implemented or understood well enough. There were shortcomings, and the Kurdish Freedom Movement approached the issue with self-criticism.

Now comes the time to do what wasn’t done before—to build the Democratic Nation. And this requires total mobilization.

What does it mean to build the Democratic Nation? Is supporting Öcalan’s call enough, or what does society need to do to be a subject of this process?

The entire society must organize itself, from the base up, through communes, economically, intellectually, and educationally; through cooperatives, especially with women at the center, in neighborhoods and streets. Now is the time to organize. The organized power will be the one that stands strong.

This is society organizing itself despite the state. It must express and govern itself. Councils starting from neighborhoods must be formed to create forums for decision-making and debate.

An organized society is one that acts. In this process, demands must be voiced, and alternatives created.

Municipalities must work more democratically, freely, and communally. They must become collective actors, operating in solidarity. Society is the subject here. It acts for itself and expresses itself through action. This is how democratic politics gains strength.

Are these issues connected to Rojava? It’s said that this issue is linked to developments in Rojava. How do you see it? Is the Turkish state still taking an anti-Kurdish stance in Syria?

Clearly, the balance in Rojava hasn’t fully settled. There’s still chaos, and it’s unclear where the system is headed. Syria remains a complex equation with many players and interventions.

The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria is trying to shift governance away from political Islam and hardline Baathist ideology. They’re engaging in negotiations, sending delegations, and simultaneously waging democratic and diplomatic struggles.

There are many forces within HTS, often conflicting with each other. For example, in Deir ez-Zor, forces affiliated with HTS or supported by Turkey are active. Turkey is trying to stir up chaos.

So, is Turkey in an anti-Kurdish position?

Definitely. It wants to weaken and force the Kurds into a disadvantaged position in negotiations, to reduce their demands.

It seeks to prevent the SDF from participating in talks as a strong actor and to undermine the Autonomous Administration’s councils and cohesion. If it could, it would activate various forces in Deir ez-Zor that it has bought off, whether under the HTS name or tribal banners.

Turkey continues to impose disarmament. But who is expected to lay down arms, and how? While HTS and its affiliates, seen as terrorists by the entire world, should be disarmed, the pressure is on the SDF, which is defending its rights and freedoms. This reveals the mindset at play.

There is a psychological and special warfare strategy being implemented. Pressure is being applied. But for this process to progress, Leader Öcalan must directly lead it through negotiations.

Syria’s unity can only be achieved through a democratic Syria—one that brings together the Druze, Alawites, Armenians, and all regional peoples. That is the goal.