Ali Duran Topuz
Before Öcalan’s “Peace and Democratic Society” call was read out on 27 February, Sırrı Süreyya Önder had told those waiting: “We’ve gone to nurture the sprout of peace.” That historic day now signals that a “sprout of peace” has indeed taken root. Sadly, Sırrı Süreyya didn’t live to see this moment: the anticipated news has arrived, the PKK has held its congress and made its decisions; a detailed statement is expected soon. For now, it’s enough to say that the forthcoming statement will bear Abdullah Öcalan’s signature.
While we wait, let’s take a closer look at some points in the current statement.
To reiterate, the congress effectively began on 27 February 2025, the moment when Öcalan’s call was read out by the DEM Party delegation, led by Sırrı Süreyya Önder. With that call, Öcalan set in motion the congress that would bring to a close the movement he launched on 27 November 1978 in Diyarbakır’s (Amed) Fis village; Fis was where the PKK held its first “congress” and issued its “Founding Declaration.” Öcalan’s call was, in essence, a congress speech; it focused on the fact that the armed struggle begun in Fis was no longer necessary and had, in fact, become a harmful instrument. He was laying out his views to the congress delegates, explaining his reasoning, and declaring his goal: disarmament, dissolution, and “integration with the state and society.”
A historic response to a historic call
I’m not saying the organisation’s forthcoming statement is unimportant—far from it. How it’s worded, how it’s expressed, all of it matters greatly. But one sentence in the current statement makes it clear that the essence aligns with Öcalan’s demands: “In this context, the PKK’s 12th Congress has made decisions of historic significance regarding PKK activities, based on Leader Apo’s [Abdullah Öcalan] call.”
The decisions taken are grounded in Öcalan’s call. Naturally, these decisions concern “PKK activities” and are of historic importance. In other words, a historic response has been given to Öcalan’s “historic call”. Expecting decisions that deviate from the call’s content would be pointless.
The PKK’s brief statement also contains specific responses to Öcalan’s 27 February statement, such as this sentence:
“… (The Congress) called on our patriotic people and all democratic socialist forces to correctly embrace, live and keep alive all the national and democratic values produced by the 52-year great struggle, starting with our martyrs.”
These are a response to the statement Sırrı Süreyya Önder highlighted as a special note after Öcalan’s 27 February call: “In setting out this perspective, it is, of course, necessary for weapons to be laid down and for the PKK to dissolve itself, which requires the recognition of democratic politics and the legal dimension.”
The PKK has embraced Öcalan’s paradigm
Öcalan’s statement, with its reference to “the recognition of democratic politics and the legal dimension,” was addressed to the state, but as a whole, it spoke to the PKK, declaring that he was taking historical responsibility for continuing the “struggle for law and democracy” without weapons. By calling on “the people, democratic socialist forces (…) to correctly embrace, live, and keep alive all the national and democratic values produced by the struggle,” the organisation is announcing that it has adopted the form and direction of struggle Öcalan outlined—his new paradigm.
The organisation’s final demand in the current statement, a call to “further intensify the struggle for Leader Apo’s physical freedom,” expresses its acceptance that this is not a matter of “give-and-take” but of transforming the tools of struggle.
We can now return to Öcalan’s note beyond his call: “In setting out this perspective, it is, of course, necessary for weapons to be laid down and for the PKK to dissolve itself, which requires the recognition of democratic politics and the legal dimension.”
‘The sprout is stronger than the stump’
What does “the recognition of democratic politics and the legal dimension” mean? At this stage of a process that began with Devlet Bahçeli’s handshake gesture on 1 October, the first day of the new legislative year, and has crossed one critical threshold after another, what can we expect? It’s not exactly a beacon of hope for peace, democracy, or the rule of law. After saying on 27 February, “We’ve gone to nurture the sprout of peace,” Sırrı Süreyya Önder added: “The sprout is stronger than the stump.”
The sprouts of peace, the rule of law, and democracy won’t grow on their own. But with the door now ajar to removing the bloodstained stump of violence, it’s better to focus on how these fragile sprouts can grow strong and flourish rather than lamenting their frailty. After Öcalan and, through his call, the organisation [the PKK] have done their part, what can we expect from the state? The oft-abused “right to hope” isn’t enough to inspire hope on its own; this is precisely why the PKK’s statement includes a call for Öcalan’s freedom.
It would, of course, be absurd to cast this historic, critical threshold in a shroud of despair. If we’re to focus on what’s to come and what needs to happen, it might be worth first looking at statements from those in power. Devlet Bahçeli’s gestures, starting with his handshake and culminating in his poignant touch of Sırrı Süreyya Önder’s photograph, were about what has happened so far. The most striking recent comment about the future came from AK Party spokesperson Ömer Çelik: “… every concrete step the organisation takes towards dissolving itself and laying down arms will bring new positive responses and steps in return.”
In other words, we should expect “positive responses and steps.” It’s no secret that these responses and steps must primarily be in the realm of law, with Öcalan’s conditions at the forefront. There’s talk of preparing a penal enforcement law, but Doğu Perinçek is right to call for an amnesty—this issue can’t be resolved through penal enforcement law alone. Öcalan’s conditions don’t just concern him; when “positive responses and steps” are considered in light of the generality and equality principles of law, they also affect the conditions of thousands of detainees and prisoners. In fact, Öcalan’s situation, like that of thousands of others, isn’t a matter of “legal necessity” but rather the unjust outcomes of prevailing lawlessness. Thus, the first “positive responses and steps” that could answer the organisation’s disarmament must involve not just creating “new law” but, before that, abandoning existing lawlessness. From the outset, this point is likely to be where “the rubber meets the road”:
For Öcalan and other detainees and prisoners, can the abandonment of lawlessness followed by the construction of a new, peace-compatible legal framework be possible solely for Kurds—or, if you prefer, solely for Öcalan and the PKK? Kurds know all too well that there’s no such thing as “half-law” [or “incomplete law.” The idea of a legal system that applies justice unevenly—providing rights and protections to one part of the population while leaving another part—Kurds—subject to lawlessness or injustice]. If law applies to one half of the country while lawlessness persists in the other, it’s the Kurds who will ultimately suffer the most. Öcalan’s initial statement (shifting the issue from conflict and violence to law and politics) and his historic call are strong signs that he won’t consent to such a continuation.
From now on, then, our attention must shift from Öcalan or the organisation to the government. How will this process, brought to this point through immense difficulty, continue? Will steps be taken for the rule of law and democracy, or will this be seized as an opportunity to press full speed ahead with a dual legal system, anti-law, and a “democracy for me alone” that eliminates all opposition?
A tough period has ended, but an even tougher one is coming. We’ll live through it and see it together.
This article was first published in Turkish by Artı Gerçek on 9 May; the English translation is provided by Medya News.
