The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)’s decision to end its armed struggle and dissolve its organizational structure, announced following its 12th Congress held between May 5 and 7, continues to be debated. 

Fatma Bostan Ünsal, one of the founding members of the Justice and Development Party (AKP), a political scientist, and a human rights advocate, spoke to ANF, describing the PKK’s decision as a significant phase in addressing long-standing issues that urgently need resolution. She also shared her views on how the government should respond.

The dissolution decision is a key phase in the path to resolution

Bostan Ünsal underlined that had Turkey been under a normal democratic administration, this decision should have been made decades ago. Emphasizing the significance of the current moment. She said: "Turkey is not skilled at resolving its problems. To understand how much it postpones issues, we can look at another example. Consider the headscarf issue, which no longer poses a legal problem since the ban has been lifted. Turkey failed to resolve it in any reasonable way, turning it into a festering and complex issue. We struggled to explain it when it reached international human rights mechanisms. The situation became so severe that it led to constitutional amendments and even the closure of several political parties. Remembering all of this, how it affected society, politicians, universities, and the media, shows just how poor Turkey’s capacity for problem-solving really is.

At that time, I was part of a small minority that believed Turkey would have to resolve the headscarf issue sooner or later, and we persistently kept it on the agenda. Now, following the 'dissolution declaration', I find myself again among a not-so-large group reminding society that the path to peace, ensuring freedoms and applying the principles of conflict resolution, is not as difficult as it seems.

In short, the ‘dissolution declaration’ marks a key phase in the process of addressing a problem that we should have resolved long ago."

Process carried out with great caution against sabotage attempts

Bostan Ünsal noted that, unlike previous ones, the current process is being conducted with greater caution. She pointed out that there have been multiple attempts to sabotage it, and added: "Previous processes, due to the failure of peace efforts and the subsequent transition to much more violent periods, have understandably led to a more cautious approach. This time, despite several attempts at sabotage for various reasons, I believe the process has continued without being derailed. I think regional developments and the dominant powers in the region have pushed Turkish leaders to address this issue, an issue we should have already resolved in a normal democracy.

Just as Turkey had several unsuccessful attempts at transitioning to a multi-party system but remained under single-party rule for a long time, it was only after World War II that we could no longer postpone joining the club of liberal democracies and finally adopted a multi-party system. I believe that resolving this issue now also seems dependent on the catalytic effect of international and regional developments."

Turkish people was exposed to one-sided propaganda

Bostan Ünsal emphasized that the Turkish public has been raised under one-sided propaganda for many years, and that as a result, there will inevitably be segments of society that oppose the peace process. She said: "For many years, under the influence of unilateral propaganda, even naturally neutral terms such as ‘PKK’, ‘Kurd’, or ‘Kurdish’ evoked negative associations, like ‘violence’, ‘rebellion’, or ‘ingratitude’, especially among non-Kurdish segments of society. At best, one would hear comments like, ‘Were there even Kurds? Where did they come from?’

This kind of rhetoric is reminiscent of former President Ahmet Necdet Sezer’s justification of the headscarf ban. In defending the ban against those who wanted to lift restrictions on female university students, he said, ‘In our time, there were no headscarved women at universities.’ In much the same way, we now see similar arguments being used to oppose the peace process."

Time to reread political history

Bostan Ünsal said that, as a result of long-standing one-sided propaganda, Turkey adopted an education system that presents the nation-state as the only legitimate form of political governance. This model, she said, has been imposed on the masses, including through universities. She emphasized that the current process offers an important opportunity, especially for rereading history through a critical lens.

She explained: "Turkey has promoted the idea that the ‘unitary nation-state’ is the only valid and correct system of governance, as if this were a global truth. It has institutionalized this view through an extremely narrow and rigid education system, one that covers history, political history, political science, and local governance, and imposed it across all educational institutions, including universities. As a result, Turkey has lacked an academic and intellectual environment capable of understanding the world, its own society, or broader social developments accurately.

Those who challenged the dominant narratives and attempted to develop original theses, like Ismail Beşikçi, often faced prison sentences. That is why many of our globally respected scholars, such as Daron Acemoğlu, Kemal Karpat, and Niyazi Berkes, were only able to pursue their academic careers abroad.

Now, this process offers us a chance to calmly and rationally revisit political history, to examine the evolution of Turkish society, and to engage in negotiation free from nationalist bombast. I believe this moment allows us to finally confront and analyze many issues that have been deliberately ignored for years. It creates an opportunity to gain a clearer and more accurate understanding of both the world and Turkey."

Media must change its language

Bostan Ünsal emphasized that for the public to truly engage with the process, the media must free itself from pro-government rhetoric. She said: "Creating a space for open and unrestricted debate will be crucial to preparing the public to engage with this process. In recent years, we have seen the emergence of an unprecedentedly broad and heavily manipulated ‘pro-government media’ landscape, shaped by a wide array of interventionist methods. Because of this, the media is no longer able to approach such issues freely and organically. Therefore, either these interventionist practices must be swiftly abandoned, or the media must be encouraged to open space for genuine discussion on these matters."

Truth and justice commissions will allow society to confront the past

Bostan Ünsal emphasized that one of the most crucial stages for the societal acceptance of peace processes is enabling collective confrontation through Truth and Justice Commissions. She continued: "As Turkey enters a peace process, the public must shift its deeply polarized perspective on this issue. Yet even the way we name and describe the problem continues to reflect sharply opposing views among different segments of society.

In general, peace processes involve commissions such as Truth and Justice Commissions that enable society to enter a new phase. Through mechanisms like seeing events from the other side’s perspective, understanding, forgiving, expressing remorse, or offering compensation, societies can begin to heal. Unfortunately, in Turkey, we know just how hard the political climate is.

Today’s so-called ‘martyrs of democracy’, Adnan Menderes and his two cabinet ministers, were once condemned to the gallows by coup-era courts as ‘criminals.’ Merve Kavakçı, who entered parliament wearing her headscarf, was suddenly vilified and labeled as someone who ‘defied the state,’ purely because of the political climate at that moment.

I believe that reminding people, especially Turkish nationalist and conservative segments, of these past practices by the authorities and the powerful and showing them how the attitudes of the current political elite have shifted, could encourage a greater sense of empathy when approaching this question."

The AKP must seek alternatives to coercion and repression

Bostan Ünsal responded to debates over whether the ruling party genuinely supports the peace process by noting that two opposing political orientations exist within the AKP. She warned that the AKP must abandon its reliance on force and pressure-based policies.

She explained: "The AKP is caught between two contradictory political tendencies. On the one hand, it is compelled to initiate and sustain this process at a time when it can no longer be postponed. Naturally, this requires the opening of democratic channels. On the other hand, since 2015, the party has seen a steady decline in its public support. As Sedat Peker has also stated, maintaining power under such conditions has only been possible through the creation of a climate of fear and repression.

Now, while there is increasing pressure to open democratic channels, doing so could further weaken the party’s grip on power. As a result, repression has also intensified. We are seeing expanded use of state-appointed trustees, bans on protests, violent crackdowns on demonstrators who defy these bans, mass detentions, and judicial interventions targeting opposition figures and political rivals. All of this raises the question: does the AKP even want the peace process?

The real issue is not whether the AKP wants peace, but rather its determination to hold onto power. That insistence has led to an over-reliance on coercion, which in turn has destabilized the political balance and caused even greater erosion of public support. At this point, the AKP must seek alternative methods, new alliances, and even institutional reforms. As a seasoned politician once said, ‘In democracies, there is no end to possible solutions.’ I believe it is now unmistakably clear that we stand on the threshold of new solutions."