Is partial or selective peace possible for a cohesive country?

Is Partial or Selective Peace Possible for a Cohesive Country?

As you might have been following in recent days, there is rightful jubilation surrounding the PKK’s announcement of their dissolution, following a call by their founding leader, who has been in a Turkish prison since 1999.

There is plenty of material — both written and audiovisual — available online for anyone wishing to learn more about the conflict, the underlying conditions, and how it escalated into an armed struggle.

Like many states and political entities, Türkiye has often tapped into the power of the “arch-enemy” narrative, portraying existential threats to the nation. Numerous ideological, religious, and ethnic groups have been cast in this role over the years. However, the Kurds have consistently been treated as an out-group by the majority of “nationalist by default” Turks. Their pursuit of basic linguistic and cultural rights has been viewed as a threat to the Turkish character of the state by the founding elites of the Republic of Türkiye since 1923.

Peace Is Better

I must clearly state that peace is always the better option for resolving issues in the long term. A peaceful environment is not only beneficial but essential for peace to take root and for society to become cohesive.

Obviously, many have said this before. So why am I repeating it? Because I want to reiterate that I — and almost everyone around me — support disarmament and peace-building. And, as you might guess, I have a few things to add.

Peace cannot be selective. Peace cannot be conditional. Peace cannot be partial. If the aim is a peaceful society, then no one should be excluded. Selective peace reflects the historical reflexes of an authoritarian state — keeping an “enemy” at hand to mobilize public support when convenient.

What Has Changed?

The Turkish state and some of those now driving this “peace process” were once among the most ardent opponents of the PKK and anything Kurdish. So, we have the right to ask: what has changed? It would be naïve to believe they have suddenly become peace advocates after a lifetime of anti-Kurdish rhetoric. I won’t speculate, as many experts will offer their analysis in the coming days, weeks, and months.

Just days before the PKK’s announcement, 300 young men and women — university students — were detained for alleged links to the Hizmet (Gülen) Movement, accused of trying to revive the movement in Türkiye. I recommend reading about it — you’ll see how absurd the situation is. Previously, a large group of girls was also arrested, and their case is still ongoing in court.

These terrified youths were asked questions such as:

• Which schools and tuition centres did you attend?
• Do you have a driver’s license and passport?
• Which social media accounts have you used?
• What is your monthly income and source of funds?
• Have you attended any camps in Türkiye or abroad?
• Why did you travel abroad?
• Whom did you meet there?
• Why did you go bowling with friends?
• Why do you pray with your friends?

Some of these questions may sound exaggerated — but sadly, the absurdity doesn’t stop there. Activities that should be protected as basic rights and freedoms are being treated as criminal acts.

There are tens of thousands of families in distress because the mother or father is either in jail, in exile, or banned from working in their own profession due to unlawful decrees. Some children are imprisoned with their parents; others are staying with extended families who cannot adequately care for them. And if you’re seen helping them, you could end up in police custody, answering for what should be a basic act of humanity.

Of course, the oppressed and marginalized are not limited to Kurds and followers of Hizmet.

So now I ask again:

Is selective peace possible? Is it desirable? Can it work?
When one armed group lays down its weapons, is it acceptable to continue oppressing another? The Hizmet Movement was once spread across Türkiye. Many in the current government and ruling party have family members who were involved. Yet, anyone who refused to denounce Hizmet as a terrorist group has lost their job, their family, or their entire livelihood — often through a single decree.

We know from the South African experience that achieving social cohesion is a daunting task — it can take decades, even if you get the basics right. A cohesive society is simply not possible if some citizens are still viewed as outsiders.

A serious process of contemplation and retrospection is needed by all segments of society. The privileged must be willing to give up some of their privilege, and the oppressed must be prepared for the reality that transformation is long and often painful.

Hence, my wish and prayer is that those in power come to this realization and take the necessary steps so that every citizen feels like a vital part of the nation’s fabric. And I ask myself: do they not already know this?

Then what?

Perhaps answering that question is part of this long walk toward peace and social cohesion.