Different Approaches to the Definition of the Kurdish Problem and the Failure of Peace Process

In 2009 and 2013 Turkish government took initiatives to find a peaceful solution to the Kurdish problem. Today it is clear that this initiative, defined as the “peace process” has failed spectacularly. This article argues that this failure is due to a fundamental difference in the conceptualization of the Kurdish problem. While the AKP government considers Kurdish problem as one of human rights violation and limited democratization, the Kurdish movement has a more nationalistic approach to the question. Since the two parties had entirely different conceptualizations of the problem, their solutions were also entirely different and often incompatible. Issues related to the use of Kurdish language is a case in point. For the AKP government solution includes the major step of recognition of Kurdish as a distinct language. This was indeed a major step since until that moment, the Turkish state oddly enough, denied the existence of Kurdish as a distinct language. Steps taken by the AKP government also extended to granting collective rights suchs as right to broadcast in Kurdish or right to have private tutoring in Kurdish. In contrast the Kurdish movement in Turkey demands nothing less than recognition of Kurdish as the second official language. Thus while the government seeked the solution in ending the denial of Kurdish reality and assigning certain collective rights, the Kurdish movement seeked the solution in themes related to self-government such as formation of a federation or an autonomous Kurdish region. Thus the Kurdish question in Turkey is no more limited to problems of human rights violations but deeply linked to power sharing. The absence of such mechanisms in Turkish politics makes the solution to the problem even harder. As such the peace process between AKP and the Kurdish movement was bound to fail from the very moment of its starting. Any sincere attempt to the solution of the Kurdish problem needs to address this divergence in the definition of the Kurdish problem and should bridge the divergence in the process of negotiations.