Meral Danış Beştaş makes statement on the peace process! She gave a date and said, 'We would talk to the government'

Turkey will head to the polls for local elections on March 31, 2024.

Meral Danış Beştaş, who was nominated by the Peoples' Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party) as a co-mayoral candidate for the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IMM) alongside Murat Çepni, made statements regarding the upcoming local elections and the debates surrounding the peace process.

Speaking to Cansu Çamlıbel of T24, Beştaş said the following regarding the peace process they conducted with the AKP in the past;

"We were in the party at that time, but we were also in Parliament and were engaged in politics. We always said this: The Justice and Development Party is our interlocutor as the government, but it is not our alliance partner. We did not form an alliance with them. We met to resolve this issue. If another party were in power, we would have met with them as well. The same applies today. This is not an issue related to the election. It is a matter that far exceeds the election, is above the election, and is the most vital issue for Turkey's future. Today, we have no alliance with the Justice and Development Party, and we have no meetings."

Beştaş stated, "There are many things in our political struggle that we do not postpone until after the election. For example, there is a campaign underway for the lifting of the isolation. The Freedom March was held. A rally was held in Esenyurt, Istanbul on Sunday. Because we want these paths to be opened. We are putting forth the will for the issue to enter a path of resolution through talking and dialogue. We have such a demand and struggle without distinguishing between pre-election and post-election. We do not see politics as a phenomenon confined only to elections. We also see politics as a social struggle."

"WHAT WE SAY IS MANIPULATED"

In response to the comment, "Commentator friends on opposition channels will now say 'The DEM Party is cozying up to the government' when they read these sentences of yours," Beştaş replied, "Yes, they might say that. As I said, what we say is generally manipulated on purpose."

'OF COURSE WE WOULD TALK'

The dialogue that took place between Çamlıbel and Beştaş is as follows:

You are saying this: "There is no contact or preparation now, but if the government takes a step after the election, your door is open."

"Let's say such an environment is created after the election, of course we are open to a solution. If such a step is taken by the government, we would of course talk, not to form an alliance, but in terms of being interlocutors. We approached the issue in the same way in 2013. Not an alliance, but interlocution."

But in 2013, Turkey was in a completely different political climate. It was a Turkey where the Gezi protests, the most widespread civil society resistance in the country's history, could take place. In the 11 years that have passed, the AKP government has cast aside its agenda for democratizing the country and returned to a security-oriented state mentality and autocratic practices. Today, the probability of someone who says one-tenth of the things that could be discussed on television 11 years ago finding themselves within the scope of a terrorism investigation is extremely high. How realistic do you think it is to expect a sincere step for a solution from today's Erdoğan and AKP?

CRITICISM OF CHP REGARDING THE PEACE PROCESS

We are in a psychology that exceeds expectations here. We are waging a struggle for this. In other words, we are resisting on this issue. Our friends are still in prison. We have no hesitation that a solution is necessary, so we have no 'buts.' While we were conducting democratic politics, we were subjected to many debates on this issue until today. Today, the government sees everyone who does not vote for it as a 'terrorist.' I agree with you on that. But our dilemma today is not just this attitude of the government. Okay, it sees them as 'terrorists' and has the power, but are the CHP and other parties showing any stance on the Kurdish issue? They all have a language that almost codes the peace process as a sin.

In the most significant debates we had with them in Parliament, this was always there. At the slightest thing, they would say, "Sir, didn't you also meet with Salih Muslim?" and a perspective that shows the peace process as the government's greatest sin. For example, there is such a difference in perspective between us and the CHP, and this is a serious difference in perspective. While we argue that the peace process should continue and that the issue should be resolved by talking again today, the opposition of this country uses the exact opposite language. Opposition party politicians who call themselves 'democrats' do not even recognize this problem.