When receiving a 'royal greeting'...

When I read the interview in Cumhuriyet, the following question crossed my mind:

Is Özgür Özel defending the framework law, or is he making it impossible to debate that law by hiding behind moral concepts like “peace” and “disarmament,” which are almost impossible to object to?

While trying to explain his “yes” vote for the framework law, he said, “How are we, who aspire to govern the country, going to say ‘No’ to the PKK laying down its arms?”

This is exactly where the problem lies.

There was no vote in Parliament asking, “Should the PKK lay down its arms or not!”

What was placed before the deputies was a regulation determining the legal framework under which the terrorist organization's disarmament would take place, who it would cover, which institutions would exercise which powers, how the implementation would be monitored, and which obligations the state would undertake.

Özgür Özel is carefully mixing apples and oranges. This way, the people of our country can easily swallow it, and he can manage the situation with a few slogan-like sentences!

We could also call it the cunning of equating a law with the purpose of that law.

However, in democracies, the purpose is one thing, and the means are another.

Wanting weapons to be laid down is one thing; saying “yes” to every legal regulation placed before you on the pretext of laying down weapons is another.

Moreover, in the same interview, Özgür Özel says, “We must act with principles, not emotions.”

So, what is this principle?

Is it to support a law by looking at its declared ultimate goal without debating its content, limits of authority, and oversight mechanisms?

If this is it, what will you say when a constitutional amendment comes before you tomorrow using the same method?

Indeed, while answering another question, he says, “We have been saying from the beginning that this matter should not evolve into a constitutional amendment.”

Good...

But what if the government comes out tomorrow and says, “This constitutional amendment is a necessity of the process”?

“Are you going to block the path to peace?”

“Are you against the laying down of arms?”

“Do you not want terrorism to end?”

That is when today's political argument will hit a wall.

Because if you try to make it morally impossible to question a legal regulation today with the words “How are we going to say no to the PKK laying down its arms?”, you won't have many options left against those who will direct the same moral pressure at you tomorrow.

Then there is the matter of 'receiving a royal greeting'.

We learned about it when Ruşen Çakır reported it; in the Imralı meeting on August 1, Öcalan said, “Special greetings to Özgür Bey. One of his officials must join the Parliamentary Monitoring Committee. I insisted on this committee for the CHP,” and then added, “You must say that opening the channel of law and democracy is the last chance for everyone, especially for you. The path to democracy does not pass through Silivri, but through Imralı.”

The issue is not just “special greetings to Özgür Bey.” There is also a political message and direction for Özgür Özel here. He wants the CHP to provide a representative to the Parliamentary Monitoring Committee and justifies this with his own political assessment.

So, what kind of answer came from Özgür Özel?

“In general, I do not pass the path of democracy through prisons or cities; I pass it through the TBMM (Grand National Assembly of Turkey). It is not ‘it doesn't pass through this prison, it passes through here’; if we are to be a democratic republic, it passes through the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, through the ballot box,” he said.

In other words, another situation of managing the status quo with a few sentences that resemble his own political character...

For instance, why didn't he draw a clearer line?

The answer he could have given was actually extremely simple:

“I cannot have a terrorist organization leader as my interlocutor, therefore I do not accept the greeting from Imralı.”

Why didn't he, or why couldn't he, construct such a sentence?

Why did he not see Öcalan's greeting as a message from which political distance should be maintained?

The issue is not just the few votes that will come from Kurds in the elections. He is eager to be a part of the grand game orchestrated across the Atlantic so that the imperialist masters may bestow power upon him!

If we look at the theory of the matter, of course, the process in which the state is an interlocutor for the laying down of arms and the political relationship assumed to be established by a political party with a terrorist organization leader must be separated from each other.

But precisely for this reason, the line must be clearly drawn.

Saying “I want weapons to be laid down” is one thing;

Saying “The political will that provides the legitimacy of this process is the TBMM” is another;

And saying “I do not accept the greeting of a terrorist organization leader as a political interlocution” is something entirely different.

Another sentence in Özgür Özel's interview draws attention:

“We voted ‘yes’ regarding the end of terrorism and disarmament; we will fight for democratization.”

Then why are you making democratization and disarmament the guarantee of each other within the same political package?

Democratization is not a reward for the end of terrorism! Anyone with a modicum of political literacy can know that the rule of law cannot be a concession given in exchange for laying down arms.

If you stretch legal boundaries today in the name of laying down arms, on what ground will you stand tomorrow to strengthen democracy?

The real issue is here.

No one objects to the silencing of guns. Moreover, in the current state of affairs, there is no guarantee of this either...

The silencing of guns and the law prepared for this are not the same thing. Supporting the former does not require giving up on questioning the latter.

On the contrary...

As great a goal as laying down arms is, the law under which it will be established is just as great an issue. Let us end our article by saying that this is the missing side of Özgür Özel's question, “How are we going to say no to the PKK laying down its arms?”