As discussions around a political resolution to Turkey’s decades-long Kurdish conflict gain new momentum—especially in light of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)’s decision to end its armed struggle—questions of democratic reform, autonomy, and constitutional change have returned to the centre of public debate. In this context, journalist Fırat Can Arslan explores the relevance of the 1921 Constitution in an article first published by Mezopotamya Agency on 28 May. Medya News presents an English translation of his analysis below.
Fırat Can Arslan
As Turkey enters a new phase in its long-running political debate, supporters of a peaceful resolution to the Kurdish question are calling for the revival of the multi-ethnic legacy embedded in the 1921 Constitution. Meanwhile, opponents of a settlement insist on upholding the centralised, assimilationist tradition rooted in the 1924 Constitution, which many argue has deepened the Kurdish issue.
Following Kurdish leader Abdullah Öcalan’s ‘Call for Peace and a Democratic Society’, public discussions have intensified over the steps needed to resolve the Kurdish question. Among the most debated topics is the possibility of drafting a new constitution—something even government figures have indicated they are open to.
In these constitutional debates, two opposing views have taken centre stage. Those who oppose a recognition-based resolution of the Kurdish issue support preserving the first four unchangeable articles of the 1982 Constitution, which inherited the rigid, mono-ethnic character of the 1924 Constitution. In contrast, advocates for peace are urging for the revival of the inclusive, multi-ethnic spirit of the 1921 Constitution. But under what conditions was the 1921 Constitution created, and what kind of governance model did it propose?
Abdullah Öcalan has frequently referred to the 1921 Constitution in favourable terms. He has even proposed it as a potential model. During a meeting with the İmralı Delegation on 3 January 2013, Öcalan remarked: “You can take the 1921 Constitution and the 20-article Kurdish Reform Plan as a basis. They acknowledge the existence of the Kurds.” In the same meeting, he described the 1921 Constitution as a historic model that strengthened the Kurdish-Turkish alliance. Could the philosophy behind this constitution, which Öcalan urged to be taken seriously, provide a suitable foundation for a peace-oriented process?
A Foundational Social Contract
The collapse of the Ottoman Empire created a vacuum of authority and a rapidly shifting political landscape. In this context, Turkish and Kurdish communities were brought together under the shared identity of the “Islamic nation”. This renewed sense of unity between Kurds and Turks found expression in the 1921 Constitution. It proposed a decentralised model of governance, reflecting a spirit of inclusive partnership. However, it was soon replaced by the 1924 Constitution, which enforced a mono-ethnic state structure and laid the groundwork for the Kurdish issue.
The 1924 Constitution aimed to assimilate Kurds into a singular Turkish identity through coercion, suppression and violence. This approach not only failed to resolve the Kurdish question but made it a chronic problem. Those seeking a democratic solution argue that revisiting the 1921 Constitution’s legacy could pave the way forward—through a model of constitutional citizenship, strengthened local governance, and a multi-ethnic social contract as the backbone of the peace process.
Understanding the significance of the 1921 Constitution requires a look at the period following the Ottoman Empire’s collapse. The 1918 Armistice of Mudros and the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres brought deep uncertainty across Anatolia and Kurdistan. The Treaty of Sèvres proposed Kurdish autonomy east of the Euphrates, with the possibility of applying for full independence within a year. At the same time, it sought to assign six predominantly Kurdish provinces—Erzurum (Erzîrom), Van (Wan), Bitlis (Bedlîs), Diyarbakır (Amed), Kharput (Xarpêt, now part of Elazîz) and Sivas (Sêwas), known collectively as the ‘Six Provinces’—to a prospective Armenian state. This fuelled widespread fears among Kurds about the creation of an Armenian state on their lands.
Simultaneously, the weakening authority of the Ottoman government in Istanbul triggered the emergence of local resistance movements in Anatolia and Kurdistan. These movements came together at the Erzurum and Sivas Congresses, laying the foundation for the establishment of the First Grand National Assembly (BMM).
The 1921 Constitution emerged from this context of resistance and cooperation. Its multi-ethnic and decentralised vision—though short-lived—continues to serve as a reference point for those advocating for peace, inclusion and a reimagined political future for all communities in Turkey.
The First Parliament
The First Grand National Assembly played a pivotal role in mobilising resistance against occupation, abolishing the Ottoman sultanate, signing the Treaty of Lausanne, and ultimately founding the Republic. Throughout this process, efforts focused on forging the broadest possible alliance. Diverse political perspectives were united around the goal of national salvation, while ethnic diversity was brought together under the concept of the “Islamic nation” and the principle of equal representation. These ideas found formal expression in the 1921 Constitution, which became a foundational social contract. Adopting a multi-ethnic governance model that included both Turkish and Kurdish communities, the constitution marked a bold and progressive step for its time.
After the Partition: The Kurdish Position
In the aftermath of the First World War, the position of the Kurdish people was shaped by both internal and external dynamics. Under the Sykes-Picot Agreement, Kurdistan was divided among the victorious Allied powers, with no status granted to the Kurds themselves. The Treaty of Sèvres offered a limited promise of autonomy but also proposed transferring parts of Kurdish-majority areas to a future Armenian state. Historically, Kurds had enjoyed a degree of semi-autonomy within the Ottoman system. However, 19th-century centralisation efforts severely curtailed this autonomy, with traditional Kurdish leaders such as tribal chiefs and sheikhs reduced to holding restricted privileges through structures like the Hamidiye Regiments.
Strategy of the Kemalist Movement
Between 1919 and 1923, the Kemalist movement sought to re-establish authority within the borders defined by the National Pact (Misak-ı Milli) and to found an independent state. In doing so, it faced three major challenges: the Greek occupation in the west, the prospect of an Armenian state in the east, and the emerging possibility of Kurdish aspirations for independence. While waging war against Greek forces on the western front, the Kemalists adopted a multifaceted approach in the east, addressing both the Armenian question and the Kurdish issue.
The central strategy was to rally Kurdish support through the shared identity of the “Islamic nation”. Emphasis on loyalty to the institution of the Caliphate, coupled with rhetoric around the “Armenian threat”, proved effective in drawing Kurds into the nationalist cause. Mustafa Kemal skilfully appealed to Kurdish tribal leaders, invoking fears of an Armenian state and using religious brotherhood as a unifying narrative. For instance, Kazım Karabekir noted that highlighting the Armenian threat alone would be enough to counter what he called “Kurdish currents”.
Kurdish leaders, in turn, were strongly motivated by a desire to avoid any further partition of Kurdistan, which had already been divided by the Treaty of Qasr-e Shirin. As a result, they pushed for recognition of a Kurdish homeland within the National Pact borders—stretching from Mosul and Kerkûk [Kirkuk] to Kobanê [Kobani] and Qamişlo [Qamishli] —so that Kurds could play a meaningful role in the national struggle. Ironically, these same National Pact borders, which today are frequently invoked by Turkish nationalists seeking regional expansion, were among the first demands abandoned during the Lausanne negotiations.
The promise of Kurdish autonomy was also crucial in securing Kurdish participation in the emerging alliance. Prominent Kurdish figures were invited to the Erzurum and Sivas Congresses, elected to representative bodies, and granted meaningful representation in the First Parliament. Within the National Pact borders, a governance model was proposed that would allow Kurds to pursue autonomous development—an idea later enshrined in the 1921 Constitution.
The 1921 Constitution: A Multi-Ethnic Social Contract
The 1921 Constitution reflected the spirit of the national struggle, proposing a governance model rooted in autonomy and ethnic pluralism. Its founding principles continue to offer valuable insights for today’s peace debates. The term “State of Turkey” in the constitution was not used to denote a single ethnic group, but rather to represent all peoples living within the National Pact’s boundaries. In parliamentary speeches, Mustafa Kemal repeatedly emphasised that Turkey was home not only to Turks, but to various ethnic groups. In a speech on 24 April 1920, for example, he openly declared: “Within the borders of this homeland, there is not just one single kind of people,” clearly affirming the country’s multi-ethnic nature.
This inclusive view was echoed in the Amasya Protocol, which acknowledged that the proposed borders covered areas where both Turks and Kurds were in the majority. During the Lausanne negotiations, İsmet İnönü defended this multi-ethnic reality on the international stage, arguing that Turkey was the shared homeland of Turks and Kurds alike. This vision found tangible form in the constitution, which avoided privileging any one ethnic group and used the term “Turkey” as a unifying, inclusive identity.
By embracing this inclusive framework, the 1921 Constitution continues to serve as a historical model for those seeking a democratic and peaceful resolution to the country’s most entrenched problems.
The Most Striking Feature of the 1921 Constitution: A Model of Governance Based on Autonomy
The 1921 Constitution’s most notable feature was its commitment to a model of governance grounded in the principle of autonomy. Article 14 of the Constitution declared that provinces (vilayets) held corporate status and administrative autonomy. While central authorities retained control over foreign policy, justice and defence, key areas such as education, health, the economy and infrastructure were delegated to local councils. These councils were to be elected by the people every two years. The model bore the imprint of both the localist character of the congresses and the influence of the Soviet system.
Autonomy was envisioned not just for Kurds, but for all ethnic groups; however, the promise carried particular weight in securing Kurdish support for the alliance. Mustafa Kemal’s 1919 letters and orders sent to the El Cezire Front in 1921 explicitly recognised the Kurdish right to autonomous governance. In 1923, when asked by a journalist, he reaffirmed that the constitution already provided for local self-government.
Contemporary Debates and the 1921 Constitution
The process initiated by Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan, now entering a new phase following the PKK’s decision to abandon armed struggle, places a strong emphasis on strengthening local governance, ensuring cultural rights, and pursuing constitutional reform.
In this context, the 1921 Constitution offers meaningful insights for today’s debates for several reasons:
* Inclusive definition of the state: The Constitution’s reference to the “State of Turkey” proposed an overarching identity that encompassed all peoples, without singling out any ethnic group. Today, as discussions around resolving the Kurdish issue intensify, the idea of constitutional citizenship is once again on the table. This concept proposes an inclusive identity that unites all citizens on the basis of equality, without erasing ethnic distinctions.
* Historical precedent for autonomy: The Constitution’s model of autonomy provides a historical reference point for current discussions on decentralisation. In 2025, the pro-Kurdish DEM [Peoples’ Equality and Democracy] Party’s proposals to enhance the powers of local authorities resonate closely with the spirit of the 1921 Constitution. Given that centralist policies have historically deepened the Kurdish issue, models of autonomous governance are being re-evaluated.
* A charter of alliance: The 1921 Constitution was not only a legal text but also a political compact that brought together diverse ethnic and social groups. In today’s peace processes, the need for an inclusive dialogue that ensures the participation of all sectors of society is being strongly emphasised.
* Principle of popular sovereignty: The Constitution’s commitment to populism—understood as the people’s right to determine their own future—continues to inspire. Today, the Kurdish demand for cultural and political rights reflects a modern interpretation of this founding principle.
The Break After 1924 and Its Consequences
The inclusive spirit of the 1921 Constitution was abandoned with the introduction of the 1924 Constitution. The new constitution removed the autonomy clauses and adopted a citizenship model centred exclusively on Turkish ethnic identity. This marked a major rupture in the handling of the Kurdish question. The 1925 Sheikh Said Rebellion was directly linked to the abandonment of promised autonomy. Its suppression, followed by assimilationist policies such as the banning of the Kurdish language, destroyed the fragile spirit of alliance that had existed.
In 2025, Turkey’s search for a solution to the Kurdish question continues to bear the marks of this historical rupture. Kurdish voices frequently call for renewed inspiration from the 1921 Constitution, with its inclusive and autonomous governance model, as essential for any lasting success.
Once the foundation of a Kurdish–Turkish alliance during the early republican period, the 1921 Constitution was cast aside after 1924, deepening the Kurdish issue in the decades that followed. Today, the Kurdish question is not solely a political matter but also a call for historical reckoning and reconstruction. In this regard, the 1921 Constitution remains a hopeful legacy and a potential starting point on the path to peace.
