Adnan Yılmaz writes: As Turkey's future is reshaped, what did your politics think?

Avoiding taking a common and clear political position on a law that could change Turkey’s future…

In politics, a single vote sometimes says a lot about a party’s future and stance. The Framework Law vote was exactly such a test for the NEW Party.

NEW Party Chairman Özgür Özel announced that he and the party leadership would vote “yes” on the law; however, he left his deputies free to act according to the tendencies of the voters in their respective constituencies.

At first glance, this attitude might be seen as respect for the free will of the deputy. But what if the issue is not an ordinary law? What if the issue is the legal framework of a process that could directly affect Turkey’s security, the Kurdish issue, the liquidation of the PKK, developments in Syria, and the future constitutional order?

Then the question changes: Instead of presenting a common and clear political will on such a historic issue concerning Turkey’s future, should a political party position its deputies according to the pulse of their constituencies?

I think this is the real issue.

DEMOCRACY OR AN ESCAPE FROM POLITICAL RESPONSIBILITY?

Of course, the free will of a deputy is important. However, the reason for the existence of political parties is not limited to sending their representatives to Parliament. Parties also produce programs, set principles, and make clear choices regarding the country’s future. They stand before the voter and say, “This is my solution and proposal for Turkey.”

Especially when the subject is directly linked to the end of terrorism, the liquidation of the PKK’s armed structure, and Turkey’s future political order... The approach of “I say yes, you decide according to the pulse of your constituency” inevitably raises the following question: Does the party have a common idea for Turkey, or does it have flexible ideas that change shape according to every constituency?

Because fundamental issues concerning the future of the state do not change according to the constituency.

THERE CANNOT BE ONE TURKEY IN KAYSERI OR KIRSEHIR AND ANOTHER IN DIYARBAKIR

A deputy should, of course, listen to the sensitivities of their own voters. But a deputy is not only the representative of the city they were elected from, but of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, that is, the entire nation. Turkey’s fundamental approach to terrorism, security, the constitution, and state order cannot be one thing in Kayseri or Kırşehir, another in Diyarbakır, another in Bursa, and another in İzmir.

If a party aspires to govern all of Turkey, it must present a consistent political perspective regarding the country as a whole. A decision made today based on the local pulse of a constituency could affect the fate of all of Turkey tomorrow.

For this reason, reading the different voting preferences that emerged in the NEW Party merely as “freedom for deputies” remains incomplete. Another name for this is the inability to create a common political denominator.

WILL THE OPPOSITION FOLLOW THE VOTER OR SHOW THE WAY?

One of the chronic problems of Turkish politics lies exactly here: Instead of showing the society the way, the politician measures which way the wind is blowing and drifts there.

Yet leadership requires exactly the opposite. The duty of a politician is not just to ask, “What does the voter want to hear?” Sometimes it is to think, “What does Turkey need, and how do I explain this truth to the voter?” Politics is not just taking the pulse of the voter; it is being able to offer a vision and show the way when necessary.

WHILE ERDOGAN TAKES STEPS, WHERE DOES THE OPPOSITION STAND?

Today, there is a much larger equation before Turkey:

The liquidation of the PKK… Moving the Kurdish issue to a new legal ground… The integration of the SDF into Damascus in Syria… The change in the US policy on Syria… The future of Qandil… The political role of DEM… New constitution discussions… The Turkish-Kurdish-Arab discourse…

All these topics will shape Turkey’s upcoming period. The government, despite all its controversial aspects, is trying to combine these topics within its own political project. The opposition, instead of looking at the process from the narrow window of “Yes or no to this?”, needs to answer this fundamental question: “What are we proposing for Turkey’s next decade?”

THE BIG QUESTION BEYOND THE FRAMEWORK LAW

The issue is not just about the Framework Law vote. If the PKK’s armed struggle ends, Turkish politics will change fundamentally. If the SDF is truly integrated into Damascus in Syria, the security balance in our south will be re-established. If the armed capacity of Qandil disappears, a new era will begin in Kurdish politics. If the political role of DEM grows, the parliamentary balances will change. When the new constitution comes to the agenda, Turkey’s understanding of citizenship and the state will be opened to debate.

Therefore, the vote cast today is not just an approval given to a piece of legislation; it is a historic political message given about what kind of future Turkey will walk toward.

THE REAL TEST: CLARITY ON THE KURDISH ISSUE

The most challenging topic before the opposition is the search for clarity on the Kurdish issue.

Yes to the PKK laying down arms? Yes. But how? What will happen to Qandil? How will the role of Imralı be determined? Where will DEM stand in this equation? What kind of status will the PYD/YPG structure in Syria attain? What will be the role of the US? How will the unitary state structure be protected? What will the definition of citizenship in the new constitution cover? Where will the line be drawn between the recognition of Kurdish identity and ethnic political status?

A simple “yes” or “no” said without answering these questions in depth does not mean that a mature policy regarding Turkey’s future has been put forward.

THERE CANNOT BE A SINGLE POLITICAL CENTER REPRESENTING KURDS

There is another critical danger here that should not be overlooked. While the PKK’s armed power is ending, imprisoning the entirety of Kurdish politics within the DEM–Imralı–Qandil axis could create a political monopoly and centralization while solving the armed problem.

Yet the facts are clear:

• Not all Kurds mean DEM.
• Not all of DEM means Imralı.
• Imralı is not the sole representative of the Kurdish society.
• Qandil does not reflect the will of the Kurdish society alone.

The real goal of a democratic solution is not to condemn our Kurdish citizens to a single political center, but to pluralize Kurdish politics. As much as the silencing of weapons, it is of vital importance that politics attains a polyphonic and democratic ground.

THE REAL QUESTION FOR THE NEW PARTY:

“WHAT IS YOUR IDEA?”

The most fundamental need of a new political formation is to build a clear political identity. When the voter goes to the ballot box, they want to know the following clearly:

• Where does this party stand on the state?
• What is its understanding of nationalism?
• How does it view the Kurdish issue?
• What are its red lines regarding the new constitution?
• To which axis does it want to move Turkey’s foreign policy?

If the answer to these questions varies according to the deputy’s constituency, a single question forms in the voter’s mind: “Well, what is your actual idea as an institution?”

Because being a political party is not just bringing different views under the same roof; it is being able to offer a common vision for Turkey under that roof.

TURKEY’S NEED IS CLARITY

Turkey is passing through a historic turning point. The PKK, Syria, SDF, US, Qandil, DEM, new constitution, the Kurdish issue, and the Turkish-Kurdish-Arab discourse... All these topics are not independent events; they are parts of a single big picture that will shape Turkey’s coming decades.

In such a critical period, the primary duty of political parties is not just to take the pulse of the voter or position themselves according to the wind. It is to put forward a brave and clear idea about which direction Turkey should go.

Because tomorrow, history will not ask, “How many deputies said yes that day, and how many said no?” It will ask a much bigger and more jarring question:

“As Turkey’s future was being reshaped, what did your politics think and what did it stand behind?”

This is the whole issue. Politics is not about pandering to the conjuncture, but the courage to show the way to society when necessary. What needs to be discussed in the NEW Party’s Framework Law test is not the vote counts. The real issue is not fragmented votes, but being able to put forward a holistic and clear political will.

Because in the face of decisions that will change the fate of Turkey, what politics needs most is not calculation, but clarity.