The Kurdish Freedom Movement’s unprecedented decision to destroy operational capabilities within Turkish borders has not been met with any corresponding legal safeguards from Ankara. This significant observation comes from a comprehensive evaluation by Mustafa Karasu, a prominent member of the KCK Executive Council, who recently shared his insights on the third year of the Peace and Democratic Society Process. As the year 2026 unfolds, the regional landscape remains fraught with tension, with the Kurdish movement maintaining that it has fulfilled its strategic and military obligations to foster a peaceful resolution. Karasu’s critique, broadcast on Medya Haber, serves as a high-level analysis of a political environment defined by a profound disconnect between the proactive de-escalation of the Kurdish forces and the persistent legislative inertia characterizing the Turkish state’s response. This impasse highlights the precarious nature of the current ceasefire and the urgent need for structural change to prevent a return to active conflict.
Legal Promises and the Right to Hope
The Disconnect: Rhetoric Versus Reality
The discrepancy between the official state rhetoric regarding peace and the actual legislative output has become a central point of contention in the current political discourse. Karasu notes that while high-ranking nationalist figures in Ankara previously alluded to the implementation of the “right to hope”—a legal mechanism that would allow for the eventual review and potential release of life-sentenced prisoners—there has been no movement toward codifying this principle into law. This specific promise was initially presented as a conditional exchange for the dissolution of Kurdish political structures, yet the state has remained silent even as the Kurdish movement took substantial steps toward a cessation of hostilities. This lack of reciprocity suggests that the state’s approach is not grounded in a genuine desire for a democratic solution but is instead a maneuver to gain a temporary strategic advantage without offering meaningful concessions.
The failure to establish legal safeguards for political actors and prisoners has created a vacuum of trust that threatens the stability of the entire peace initiative. Karasu points out that the Kurdish side has transitioned toward a state of “negative peace,” characterized by the absence of active combat and the withdrawal of military units from key operational zones. However, without a corresponding shift from the Turkish judiciary and parliament, this peace remains fragile and one-sided. The absence of legislative progress regarding the rights of political detainees and the status of the leadership indicates that the government is unwilling to move beyond the management of the conflict and toward a structural resolution of the underlying grievances. This stagnation effectively traps the peace process in a cycle of ambiguity, where promises are made for public consumption but never realized through the necessary institutional reforms.
Strategic Shifts: Moving Beyond Back-Channel Diplomacy
For the Peace and Democratic Society Process to evolve into a meaningful “positive peace,” there is a desperate need to transition from secret, informal communications to a transparent and legally recognized framework. Karasu argues that the era of back-channel diplomacy has reached its limits and can no longer provide the necessary momentum to resolve the Kurdish question. A critical component of this transition is the explicit definition of the role of Abdullah Öcalan, whom the movement identifies as the chief negotiator. As long as his status remains characterized by isolation and legal uncertainty, any progress in negotiations will remain stalled. The Kurdish movement asserts that the government possesses the unilateral power to implement the “right to hope” immediately, and the refusal to do so is seen as a deliberate act of bad faith that undermines the credibility of the entire diplomatic effort.
The persistence of isolation measures against key political figures is interpreted by Karasu as a clear signal that the state is not yet ready to engage in a sincere dialogue. He emphasizes that a genuine peace process requires an environment where negotiators can communicate freely with their constituents and the public. By maintaining a policy of total isolation, the Turkish state effectively blocks the channel for a peaceful resolution, leaving the Kurdish movement with few options for democratic engagement. Karasu challenges the ruling coalition to move away from these restrictive policies and to grant the “chief negotiator” the necessary conditions to work openly on a roadmap for peace. Until such structural changes occur, the current efforts will continue to be viewed as a tactical delay rather than a historical commitment to resolving one of the region’s most enduring conflicts.
Political Opportunism and State Recalcitrance
Tactical Delays: Short-Term Gains Versus Historical Necessity
A recurring theme in the critique of the Turkish state’s behavior is the perceived prioritization of electoral survival over the historical necessity of resolving the Kurdish issue. Karasu suggests that the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) and its coalition partners view the peace process not as a moral or democratic imperative, but as a flexible tool for maintaining domestic political power. This opportunistic mindset leads to a strategy of “controlled tension,” where the government engages in just enough rhetoric to placate international observers or manage local sentiment, without ever committing to the fundamental reforms required for a lasting settlement. This approach prevents the peace process from gaining the structural depth needed to survive shifts in the political winds, as the state remains focused on immediate tactical advantages rather than the long-term stability of the republic.
The analysis provided by Karasu highlights that once the immediate threat of military escalation was mitigated by Kurdish withdrawals, the state’s motivation for reform seemingly evaporated. This pattern of behavior suggests that the government only considers the Kurdish question when it is forced to do so by external or internal pressures. By treating the peace process as a bargaining chip for domestic elections, the state risks alienating the very actors who are essential for a peaceful transition. Karasu warns that this lack of sincerity is the fundamental cause of the current political impasse, as the Kurdish movement cannot be expected to continue making unilateral concessions while the state remains entrenched in a mindset of denial and repression. The transition from conflict management to conflict resolution requires a fundamental shift in how the state perceives the Kurdish identity and its demands for democratic inclusion.
Geopolitical Leverage: Regional Dynamics and Global Politics
The Turkish state’s stance on the Kurdish question is frequently influenced by its shifting relationships with global powers such as the United States and the European Union, as well as the volatile dynamics of the Middle East. Karasu observes that Ankara often pauses or accelerates its engagement with the Kurds based on its perceived leverage in international arenas. This habit of using the Kurdish issue as a pawn in foreign policy negotiations further complicates the path to peace, as it introduces external variables that are often unrelated to the actual grievances of the Kurdish people. As long as the resolution of the Kurdish question is treated as a secondary concern to be traded for concessions from Washington or Brussels, a domestic consensus on a just peace will remain an elusive goal for the stakeholders involved.
This external focus is seen as a way for the Turkish government to avoid the difficult internal work of democratization and legal reform. Karasu argues that the state waits for favorable regional shifts—such as changes in the status of northern Syria or Iraq—to determine its next moves, rather than proactively seeking a democratic solution within its own borders. This reactive posture indicates a lack of internal political will to address the systemic marginalization of the Kurdish population. For a genuine solution to emerge, the state must disconnect the Kurdish issue from its broader geopolitical ambitions and recognize it as a fundamental domestic priority. Karasu’s critique emphasizes that the reliance on global leverage as a substitute for internal democratic reform is a strategy that only serves to prolong the suffering of all people involved in the conflict.
The Humanitarian Crisis and Prison Conditions
Moral Authority: The Symbolic Role of the Peace Mothers
The humanitarian dimension of the Kurdish question is perhaps most visibly embodied by the “Peace Mothers,” a group of women who have lost family members to the conflict and now advocate for a non-violent resolution. Karasu draws significant attention to their recent vigils in Ankara, framing these demonstrations as a powerful reflection of the collective conscience of the Kurdish society. These women do not merely represent a protest movement; they serve as a moral barometer for the entire peace process, signaling that the current state of legal and political stagnation is no longer tolerable. Their presence in the capital is a direct demand for accountability and a warning that the patience of the Kurdish community is wearing thin in the face of continued state inaction and humanitarian neglect.
The treatment of these mothers and their demands for justice is a critical indicator of the state’s readiness for peace. Karasu posits that by ignoring or suppressing the voices of the Peace Mothers, the Turkish government is essentially rejecting the possibility of a social reconciliation. These women represent a bridge between the past suffering and a potential future of coexistence, yet their calls for the release of sick prisoners and the end of isolation are met with silence or bureaucratic resistance. The symbolic weight of their activism highlights the deep-seated emotional and psychological wounds that any successful peace process must address. Karasu argues that without acknowledging the moral authority of those who have suffered the most, the state cannot hope to build a sustainable foundation for a democratic republic that respects the dignity of all its citizens.
Institutional Regression: Lawlessness Within the Detention System
The interview highlights a disturbing trend of what Karasu describes as a state of “lawlessness” within the Turkish penal system, particularly regarding political prisoners. He points to the practice of administrative review boards extending the sentences of individuals who have already completed thirty years of incarceration. This practice is identified as a significant regression in the rule of law, with Karasu comparing current conditions unfavorably even to the eras of military coups in previous decades. The use of administrative decisions to override established legal terms is seen as a deliberate form of psychological warfare against the Kurdish movement and its supporters. This systemic mistreatment destroys public faith in the judiciary and reinforces the perception that the law is being used as a weapon of political suppression rather than a tool for justice.
This hardline approach in the prisons is directly counterproductive to any narrative of peace or reconciliation. Karasu emphasizes that the sensitivity toward the plight of political prisoners is a core element of Kurdish social and political identity. When the state treats prisoners with such blatant disregard for legal norms, it fuels public anger and strengthens the resolve of the resistance. In many global conflict-resolution models, the release of political detainees is utilized as a vital first step to build trust and signal a genuine departure from the policies of the past. By doing the opposite, the Turkish government is actively undermining the possibility of a negotiated settlement. Karasu warns that the continued detention of those who have already paid their legal debt is a provocation that could lead to broader social unrest and a complete breakdown of the current peace dialogue.
Conceptualizing the Democratic Republic
Intersectionality: The Link Between Kurdish Rights and National Democracy
Mustafa Karasu’s vision for a resolution goes beyond the immediate mechanics of the peace process, advocating for a fundamental transformation of the Turkish state into a “Democratic Republic.” He argues that the Kurdish question cannot be solved in isolation from the broader systemic issues facing the country. The marginalization of the Kurdish people is viewed as being inextricably linked to the oppression of other groups, including the Alevi community, women, laborers, and various ethnic minorities. Therefore, a true solution requires a holistic approach to democratization that addresses the grievances of all marginalized sectors of society. This intersectional perspective positions the Kurdish movement not just as an ethnic struggle, but as a vanguard for the democratic rights of every citizen in Turkey.
The transition to a Democratic Republic would involve a complete overhaul of the current nationalist mindset that defines the state’s identity. Karasu asserts that a democratic system must be one where the law protects all citizens equally, regardless of their ethnic background or political affiliation. This shift would require moving away from a system where “political will” or the interests of a single party dictate the interpretation of the law. By framing the Kurdish question as a litmus test for Turkey’s overall democratization, Karasu challenges the state to embrace a more inclusive and pluralistic model of governance. This vision suggests that the survival and flourishing of the republic in the modern era depend on its ability to integrate the diverse identities that make up its social fabric into a coherent and democratic political framework.
Decentralization: Pillars of a Proposed Democratic Framework
A key pillar of the democratic vision articulated by Karasu is the concept of local democracy and the devolution of power from the central government to local administrations. This demand for regional autonomy is not only a specific requirement for the Kurdish people but is presented as a necessary reform for the entire Turkish administrative system. Karasu argues that the current centralized model is inefficient and inherently exclusionary, as it prevents local communities from having a direct say in the decisions that affect their lives. By empowering local governments, the state could foster a more participatory form of democracy that reflects the unique needs and identities of different regions. This decentralization is seen as a way to ease the tensions between the center and the periphery that have plagued the republic since its inception.
Furthermore, this framework includes the absolute freedom of thought and the right to political organization without the constant threat of legal or physical suppression. Karasu emphasizes that for a democracy to function, there must be a safe space for dissenting voices and alternative political movements to operate. The current trend of criminalizing Kurdish political activities is viewed as a major obstacle to this goal. The proposed pillars of democracy—local autonomy, legal protection, and freedom of expression—are intended to create a state structure that is resilient enough to handle internal conflicts through dialogue rather than force. Karasu’s discourse is a call for a fundamental restructuring of the state’s relationship with its citizens, prioritizing human rights and local representation over the preservation of a monolithic and exclusionary national identity.
Regional Autonomy and the Case of Shengal
Security and Recognition: Military Integration and Yazidi Safety
The situation of the Yazidi people in Shengal provides a regional context for Karasu’s theories on local democracy and self-organization. Following the catastrophic genocide attempted by ISIS in 2014, the Yazidis established the Shengal Resistance Units (YBŞ) to protect their community from future atrocities. Karasu acknowledges the recent integration agreement between the YBŞ and the Iraqi state as a positive step toward regional stability and the formal recognition of Yazidi defense forces. However, he offers a nuanced warning that military integration alone is an insufficient guarantee of safety for a community that has historically faced systemic persecution. The formalization of local forces must be accompanied by broader political and legal protections that recognize the unique status of the Yazidi people.
Military recognition is only the first layer of security in a volatile environment like the contemporary Middle East. Karasu notes that without a clear administrative framework that allows the Yazidis to govern their own affairs, they remain vulnerable to the shifting priorities of central governments in Baghdad or Erbil. The integration of local units into the national military structure should not result in the loss of the community’s distinct identity or its ability to organize its own defense in times of crisis. For Karasu, the case of Shengal serves as a practical example of why centralized authority often fails to protect marginalized groups. True security, he argues, comes from a combination of recognized local forces and a robust system of self-administration that empowers the community to manage its own social, cultural, and political life.
Autonomy: The Necessity of Self-Organization
The survival of the Yazidi community, and by extension other marginalized groups in the region, is fundamentally dependent on their ability to maintain independent administrative and political institutions. Karasu insists that local democracy and self-organization are the only true guarantees of security against the threat of future genocides or forced displacement. For the Yazidis of Shengal, this means having the right to manage their own education, judicial systems, and social services. This model of autonomy is what Karasu envisions for the Kurds within Turkey as well, suggesting that the path to peace and stability across the region lies in the recognition of local self-governance. He argues that when people are allowed to organize themselves, they become the primary stakeholders in their own security and prosperity.
This emphasis on self-organization is a rejection of the idea that external powers or central governments can provide lasting protection for persecuted minorities. Karasu’s analysis suggests that the Yazidis’ experience after the 2014 genocide has taught them that self-reliance is a survival necessity. By maintaining their own political structures, they can ensure that their specific needs and historical grievances are addressed in any regional settlement. This perspective echoes Karasu’s broader demands for democratization, highlighting that local autonomy is not a threat to the integrity of the state but a prerequisite for a just and inclusive society. The ability of a community to govern itself is seen as the ultimate check against the abuses of a centralized power, providing a sustainable model for peace in a region often defined by conflict and exclusion.
Realizing a Framework for Lasting Reconciliation
The dialogue surrounding the Turkish-Kurdish peace process has reached a critical juncture where unilateral actions and vague promises no longer sufficed to maintain the status quo. Mustafa Karasu’s comprehensive critique demonstrated that the Kurdish movement provided the necessary groundwork for a transition to peace, yet the Turkish state remained fixed in a pattern of political opportunism and legislative stagnation. The historical analysis showed that the failure to codify the “right to hope” and the continued isolation of key negotiators became insurmountable barriers to a positive peace. It was observed that the humanitarian crisis in the prison system further eroded the trust required for a negotiated settlement, as administrative boards replaced the rule of law with arbitrary detention.
To move beyond this impasse, several actionable steps must be prioritized by all stakeholders involved in the regional stability. First, the Turkish government had to immediately implement the legal framework for the “right to hope,” ensuring that all life-sentenced prisoners had a clear path to judicial review and eventual reintegration. Second, the isolation of political negotiators was ended to allow for a transparent and public dialogue that could be monitored by both domestic and international observers. Third, a comprehensive prison reform was enacted to release sick and elderly detainees, serving as a vital trust-building measure. Finally, the state initiated a transition toward a decentralized administrative model that empowered local governments and recognized the cultural rights of all citizens. These measures transformed the peace process from a mere slogan into a concrete reality, providing a roadmap for a truly democratic and inclusive republic.
