The PKK’s decision to lay down arms and dissolve itself came at the conclusion of what is reported to be a long-running negotiation process between the Turkish state and Abdullah Öcalan. This development has, for now, disproved the widespread belief—including my own—that a fascist regime cannot resolve a major ethnic conflict.
There’s no doubt that the political earthquakes shaking the region, along with pressure from regional power brokers, played a role in pushing Ankara toward this outcome.
Although Ankara insists there was no behind-the-scenes bargaining, it is widely understood that Kurds have put forward significant demands—most notably a new constitution, equal citizenship, and mother-tongue education. Additionally, pursuant to a meeting between the İmralı delegation and the Minister of Justice, the release of Kurdish political prisoners, as well as all political detainees, is on the table.
What drew further attention was the unexpected emergence of MHP (National Movement Party) leader Devlet Bahçeli as the public face of the process, with Erdoğan also throwing his weight behind it. As Öcalan himself has emphasized, the CHP (The Republican People’s Party) —Turkey’s founding party—is positioned as a key actor in this transformation.
Under Deniz Baykal, the CHP was effectively under the control of the so-called “deep state” structure referred to as Ergenekon. But with Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, the party took a turn. Under Ekrem İmamoğlu and Özgür Özel, it has become a party more at peace with the Kurds and one that recognizes Kurdish political reality. Of course, the desire to build a democratic rule-of-law state has created a strategic need for Kurdish political support.
With the CHP now signaling support for the process, the most significant political obstacle appears to have been removed. Opposition now stems primarily from a narrow group of retired military officers, security pundits, and those known for racist or ultra-nationalist views. Iran—once a major spoiler—has lost much of its regional clout amid growing instability. Contrary to popular belief, Israel may actually benefit from and support the process. This period could allow the Syrian Democratic Forces to persist within a federal system in Syria, thereby preventing the emergence of a centralized entity that could pose a threat to Israel.
Unless the regime backtracks, there appears little reason for derailment. This moment may signify a historic paradigm shift for Turkey.
Although the Republic is most associated with Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, its founding principles and ideological lineage trace back to the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), particularly Talaat Pasha. After their crushing defeat in World War I, CUP cadres formed the backbone of the Turkish War of Independence and subsequently held critical posts in the new Republic—including Mustafa Kemal himself. The movement, which developed ideologically in Salonica and was influenced by Enlightenment ideas, evolved into a racist-fascist trajectory after the Balkan Wars and subsequent waves of Muslim migration. This mono-ethnic vision led to genocide and forced deportations of non-Muslim populations from Anatolia. The Kurds, meanwhile, were subjected to exile in Turkey and forced assimilation.
Mustafa Kemal carried these policies forward without pause—oppressing Christian groups and suppressing Kurdish resistance. The Republic was built upon ethnic and religious exclusion, and military tutelage ensured that no elected government could deviate from this framework. The Turkish nationalist establishment again revealed itself during the anti-Greek pogroms of September 6–7, which succeeded in expelling Istanbul’s remaining Greek community.
Campaigns like “Citizens, speak Turkish!” and slogans such as “Turkey belongs to the Turks” laid the ideological groundwork for the rise of the PKK—the most significant Kurdish political organization of the modern era.
Since its founding in 1978, the PKK has, over nearly five decades, revived Kurdish national consciousness, dismantled feudal structures, expanded space for women’s liberation, and transformed the Kurdish issue into an international concern. The movement even succeeded in creating a semi-autonomous Kurdish entity in Syria with a 100,000-strong armed force, positioning itself as a key regional actor.
So why did the Turkish state pivot?
The state has memory. Those who act in its name read history. As borders shift and military action against Iran becomes a matter of “if” rather than “when,” Turkish officials have clearly recognized the risk posed by losing Kurdish allegiance. During World War I, efforts to Turkify Arab populations—through linguistic imposition and denial of political rights—only pushed them into revolts supported by the British and French. The forced imposition of Turkish alienated Albanians, leading them to secede from the empire. The reentry of global powers into the region likely triggered alarm bells in Ankara. It is now plainly evident that continued suppression of Kurds—who have already carved out autonomy in Iraq and Syria—could end in collapse.
Removing barriers to Kurdish-language education, recognizing Kurdish as a mother tongue, and granting equal citizenship rights would signal the collapse of the Unionist-Kemalist paradigm. But such a collapse also opens the door to the establishment of a truly democratic state. The current Islamist-Turkist paradigm—one that seeks to enforce uniformity and perpetual conflict—has already failed. Today, Turkey ranks among the worst in the world across nearly every metric: from education and women’s rights to labor conditions and economic management.
A state mired in such deep crisis cannot survive without serious structural change. Even the wealthy have begun to complain alongside the poor. The current regime cannot continue through symbolic reforms alone.
The dismantling of the monist paradigm must pave the way for a state governed by democracy and the rule of law. It would be unreasonable to expect Kurds to accept a system where they remain at the mercy of one man. Nor does the PKK’s statement suggest the end of political struggle. It signals only the end of the armed chapter—and the continuation of the struggle through political means. The truth we must recognize is this: when people evoke “50,000 martyrs,” they ignore that the overwhelming majority of those lives lost were Kurdish. The Kurdish people have reached this point by paying an immense price. Unless peace is anchored in democracy and the rule of law, they will never truly feel safe.
The century-old system, upheld through repression and coercion, has reached its limit. Even the Islamist faction of the İttihatçılar can no longer sustain it. A Republic crowned with democracy is the only viable path forward in this troubled region. The wing represented by Bahçeli appears to have recognized this. A new chapter may well be opening in Turkey.
