The new phase that began following the historic Öcalan's call on 27 February gained further significance with the announcement that the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) had dissolved itself. After declaring its intent to abandon armed struggle on February 27, the PKK held its 12th Congress between May 5 and 7, during which it officially announced the end of its organizational structure and its decision to cease armed activities.

Following this statement, people in Turkey began debating questions such as “What will happen next?” and “How will this process unfold?” Figures known for their closeness to the government, among many others, began to emphasize the need for the state to take concrete steps toward democratization.

Gülseren Yoleri, a human rights activist and lawyer who served for many years as Chair of the Istanbul Branch of the Human Rights Association (IHD), talked to ANF about the PKK’s announcement and the emerging public discussion around societal reckoning.

The PKK is taking the right steps toward the process it has defined

Regarding the dissolution decision, Yoleri said: "While there are ongoing debates around dissolution and peace, many assessments point out that there had been no prior declaration of dissolution. Therefore, I see this dissolution as a step foreseen by the parties toward a resolution based on consensus and peace. However, there is a lack of clarity in how the process is defined by each side. Are we talking about a ‘Turkey without terrorism’ or a ‘Democratic Republic’? That remains unresolved.

With this declaration, the PKK appears to be giving substance to the process it has outlined. In this context, what we refer to as conflict resolution, through the lens of both negative and positive peace, can be understood as the first step of a broader peace process. A true societal peace, one where peoples live equally, freely, and democratically, requires democracy. It requires equality, human rights, and a reformed legal framework that can guarantee all these principles."

The PKK wants the process to evolve into societal peace

Yoleri noted that the PKK’s statement, when considered more broadly, implies that resolving the conflict alone is not sufficient to conclude the process. She said: "This statement reminds us that resolving armed conflict alone is not enough to bring the process to an end; it must be completed with societal peace. At the same time, this is not something entirely new. It is not that everything is just beginning now. But something I’ve always emphasized in previous discussions is this: the PKK did not emerge on its own, it arose out of a need. And I believe the public has shown us, through its reactions and actions, that this need has a deep societal foundation."

The PKK has a base in society

Yoleri emphasized that the PKK did not emerge spontaneously, but rather as a movement deeply rooted in society and integrated with the people. She continued: "For instance, tens of thousands of people have marched through the streets on many occasions, chanting slogans like ‘The PKK is the people, the people are here.’ Many have openly declared Abdullah Öcalan as their leader and carried out actions in support of him. This clearly reflects a strong societal foundation.

Why is that? Because when society was seeking solutions to numerous problems, rights violations, inequality, torture, and violence, it felt the need to possess tools equal in strength to the attacks it faced. In the face of state violence, with soldiers, police, weapons, tanks, and artillery used against the people, there emerged a need for an organized force capable of responding. That need led to the formation of a movement that could resist on equal footing. And that meant armed struggle.

It is also important to note that the organization did not act alone. If it had, it would have become marginal, and today we would be having a very different conversation. The people embraced it. The people believed that this model of organization was legitimate. That is why the Kurdish people became so deeply politicized, capable of showing the courage and resolve to claim a leader the world labeled ‘terrorist,’ while also holding their own politicians accountable when they deviated from the path."

The public is being persuaded through these statements

Yoleri pointed out that the nature of the statements being issued reveals a certain complexity, and that these announcements are actually part of a broader process to persuade society. She continued: "Even I sometimes find myself thinking, should these statements really be this complex? It seems clear that this process will unfold step by step. First, weapons will be laid down, then a ceasefire, and eventually steps will need to be taken toward societal peace.

But then you realize that people will ask what comes next. Will this process truly lead to societal peace? Should they place their hopes in it? Should they begin to organize their lives accordingly? These questions will only be answered as people are convinced by these perspectives. There is a real need for this, and I believe both the PKK and others engaged in this struggle recognize that need. That is why these statements may, in a sense, appear complex."

We leave the struggle to the people

Yoleri described the PKK’s statement 'We leave the struggle to the people,' as a meaningful and well-considered expression within the context of the new process. She explained: "When an organization dissolves itself, it must entrust the struggle to others. What stands out here is the rare ability of a movement to so deeply internalize and own its actions, actions that have come at great cost. This is not something we frequently encounter. Perhaps if there were another structure capable of carrying this trust, responsibility could be transferred. But in this case, placing it in the hands of the people seems to say, ‘It was you who sustained us, and now your will shall guide the future.’

There will, of course, be institutions and organizations that carry the process forward. The people will rely on the representatives and structures they trust. But the underlying message here is essential. It tells people, 'Your will matters. Your will shall lead this process.' For a politicized population, this is a powerful and timely message that encourages ownership of the process."

Mechanisms of restorative justice must be established 

Yoleri emphasized that one of the most debated issues in this new process will be the question of healing, and that it is crucial to consider how this healing will take shape and what kind of roadmap will be followed. She said: "The armed conflict may have started in the 1980s, but the history of the Republic of Turkey is filled with countless attacks in which this people were massacred. If we are to speak of healing, we must look at the system from the very moment it organized and asserted itself, and we must assume that people will have to be part of this healing.

Will genuine healing emerge from this? That is a critical question, as is the question of what we actually mean by healing. What does healing mean? For example, if you ask people, they might say, ‘I will only find peace if those who wronged me suffer as I did,’ or, ‘Only if they pay the price can I feel justice has been served.’ But can this be achieved? No, it cannot.

Take, for instance, the issue of enforced disappearances. Sometimes we know who was responsible, sometimes we don’t. But let’s say we do. What then? Should we make them disappear too? Should we kill them? That is clearly not an option. If we agree not to respond to death with death, then how can justice be realized in this context?

What we call healing is the emergence of a feeling among people that justice has been served. But how can that happen? Many things that once could have been done are now no longer possible. That is why, in this context, healing cannot be achieved through simple reciprocal punishment. When true access to justice becomes impossible, what we need instead are mechanisms that focus on systemic criticism and on restructuring the system itself. And while doing that, we can look at examples from other countries. We know that certain practices, such as issuing public apologies to oppressed peoples, compensating for damages, and taking positive measures for future generations, can help heal past destruction. These are all elements that can be included in such a restructuring process.

For instance, the Kurdish language was banned and denied from the very beginning. If it could now gain equal status with the official language, if people were free to organize cultural and artistic events in Kurdish, if platforms were created for younger generations to learn their language, then that would be one concrete example.

This is just one example. More broadly, we must examine where and how restorative justice mechanisms might be applied in looking back at the past. What can truly be repaired? To what extent? We must assess all of this. What is needed is the sincere establishment of all mechanisms of restorative justice. And by sincerity, I mean the integrity of the program itself. There must be a genuine, mutually agreed-upon roadmap that all parties can trust."