Amed Dicle
The government employs the same tactic every time it seeks to put pressure on the opposition: portraying any relationship with the Kurds as a crime and launching a smear campaign based on it. This approach is effective because there is an audience for this argument within Turkish society. For years, state-led policies have ensured that anyone engaging in dialogue with the Kurds can be easily accused of being “linked to terrorism”. The state ideology, media apparatus and judiciary work together to legitimise this criminalisation and present it as a justified measure.
A similar method is now being used against Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu. Neutralising İmamoğlu as President Erdoğan’s most formidable political rival is a strategic move for the government. However, this cannot be done openly with the declaration, “We see you as a threat, so we are eliminating you.” Instead, a more effective narrative is deployed—one that fuels societal polarisation and triggers nationalist reflexes:
“He collaborated with the Kurds.” The real issue is not whether İmamoğlu actually reached an understanding with the Kurds in regards to 'urban consensus' [collaboration in the cities during the local elections], but rather the framing of such an agreement as a crime. In this way, the opposition is weakened, while the operation gains legitimacy among Erdoğan’s base.
Can a government that criminalises relations with the Kurds be sincere about resolving the Kurdish issue? The answer is clear: ‘absolutely not!’
The fundamental question here is: Can a political mindset that treats engagement with the Kurds as a crime genuinely seek to resolve the Kurdish issue or initiate a meaningful democratisation process? Despite being one of Turkey’s most pressing issues, the government does not approach the Kurdish question as a matter to be solved but rather as a tool of control. By narrowing the space for Kurdish political participation, suppressing democratic demands, and using the Kurdish issue to corner the opposition when necessary, the government consolidates its own power.
At this point, a small portion of Kurds who remain indifferent to what is happening by saying “This is not our concern” are making a serious miscalculation. The issue at hand is not just about the Republican People’s Party (CHP) or İmamoğlu. If Erdoğan can use this method to eliminate a political rival who engages with the Kurds today, it is a clear warning that tomorrow, Kurdish politics will face even greater repression. This is not just an isolated incident; it is a continuation of a systematic approach that has, in the past, criminalised and punished Kurdish politicians, mayors and MPs in the same way.
Of course, Kurdish criticisms of the CHP are justified. It is unsettling for many Kurds to see a party that once participated in state-led repression and fuelled nationalist reflexes now playing the victim when it becomes the target of the same system. However, merely observing from the sidelines with an attitude of “It is not our concern” ultimately allows the system to completely isolate the Kurds from political engagement. What is happening to İmamoğlu is not just about him personally—it sends a clear message that anyone who engages with the Kurds can be removed in the same way.
Justice cannot be defended only when it affects oneself. For years, Kurds have resisted trusteeship takeovers [where the state deposes elected officials and appoints 'trustees' in their place], arrests and political bans, while those who dismissed these violations by saying “But... the rule of law...” are now crying, “This is a coup d'etat!” when the same repression targets them. Justice is not something to be defended only when it directly affects oneself. The reason this situation has arisen today is precisely because there was no strong resistance against the repression of the Kurds.
To conclude, we need to keep asking if a real democracy may exist in a system where dialogue with Kurds is a crime.
Ultimately, this is not just about the political future of CHP or İmamoğlu. The core issue is whether law and democracy can truly exist in a system where engaging in dialogue with the Kurds is treated as a crime. The Kurds must not focus solely on their own victimhood but instead recognise the broader political design at play. Remaining silent today only means accepting even greater repression tomorrow.
* Amed Dicle was born and raised in Diyarbakır, Turkey. He has worked for Kurdish-language media outlets in Europe, including Roj TV, Sterk TV and ANF. His work has taken him to Rojava, Syria, Iraq and many countries across Europe. Follow him on X (twitter).
