Does the call include the issue of resolving the problems of the Kurdish peasantry?

Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the separatist terrorist movement PKK, made a call on February 27, 2025, in the direction of "the PKK laying down its arms."

The call was made at a time when the separatist violence, which has led to tens of thousands of casualties and economic damage in Turkey, has reached a stage of largely fading away due to measures taken over many years.

It does not seem possible for now to predict what kind of development this call will lead to in Turkey and the Middle East geography.

Here, it is a reality that the function of the USA, the greatest partner of imperialism, is clear.

IS THIS THE BACKGROUND OF THE CALL MADE BY ÖCALAN?

It is understood that the background of the call made by Öcalan is, at the very least, the establishment of locally governed autonomous regions instead of a classical nation-state approach.

In other words, as a solution to the Kurdish Question, the PKK is bringing up the approach of autonomizing local administrations instead of a federation or an independent state.

In addition to local autonomy, two other issues are expected to come to the agenda.

One of these is the issue of "official language and education in the mother tongue," and the second is the definition of citizenship expressed in the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey.

In this context, former Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım from the AKP had argued at the New Constitution meetings program organized by the Association of Legal Research in İzmir that the definition of citizenship in Article 66 of the Constitution should be changed.

Interestingly, CHP Ankara Deputy Tekin Bingöl has also put forward a similar view in his statement on the TV100 channel.

Needless to say, those from the DEM Party are bringing this issue up at every opportunity.

Commentators, starting from this point, point out that this may be one of the fundamental topics of the call negotiations held with Öcalan.

The Kurdish Question is not a cultural or nationality problem, but directly an economy-political problem.

However, as I have tried to express in my previous articles, the Kurdish Question is not a cultural or nationality problem, but directly an economy-political problem; it is an infrastructure problem.

In my article titled "Why and How Should Land Reform Be Carried Out?", which I wrote recently on this subject;

"In the Southeast and Eastern Anatolia, where the Kurdish issue exists, land ownership is under the control of landlords under tribal organization.

On the lands belonging to the landlords, the poor Kurdish peasant tries to maintain their existence half-hungry, half-full.

During elections, the lords go to Parliament. Members of parliament and mayors are usually either landlords or their relatives.

Industrialists and tradesmen are also of a similar class structure.

Some Kurdish peasants engage in animal husbandry without being tied to the land. However, some of them have had to give up animal husbandry for security reasons.

The masses coming to the cities are unemployed because the industry and service sectors have not developed sufficiently. Education and health services in the region are also far from meeting the demand.

On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that the problem of 'Seasonal Agricultural Workers,' who are open to exploitation, also stems from landlessness or having too much land.

In this case, the solution lies in a 'Regional Development Plan' that will liquidate the feudal structure in the region and is based on 'Land Reform.'

The first stage of Land Reform is, of course, providing sufficient land to landless or land-poor peasants. In fact, Article 44 of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey makes this mandatory.

However, Land Reform should not consist solely of land distribution.

Otherwise, the distributed lands will fall back into the hands of the powerful. To prevent this, it is essential that Land Reform be handled through the cooperative organization of agricultural enterprises. Here, cooperatives should be taken as a basis, starting from the procurement of inputs to the marketing of outputs," I expressed this view.

I want to reiterate.

Because, apart from a very small number of opinion leaders and writers who write on this subject, almost all political parties do not mention the inequality in land distribution.

The problem is the land issue, the issue of land sharing, which creates poverty and inequality in the region.

In other words, the problem is that since the founding of our Republic, despite Atatürk constantly mentioning it in his parliamentary speeches, especially during the Early Republican Period, and later Ecevit partially wanting it and some steps being taken in this direction, the feudal structure could not be liquidated.

In short, the problem is that Land Reform could not be realized, that we could not be successful in organizing the poor peasant in the region, and that we could not raise the level of the working class by establishing factories.

As a result, there is a structure where the laborers of the region send feudal lords to parliament instead of themselves. For this reason, it would not be possible for the parties with groups in parliament to voice the economy-political side of the issue.

I want to reiterate.

The Kurdish Question is a contradiction between feudalism and the landless or land-poor peasant in the first stage; it is a class conflict.

The problem is a class problem in the economy-political sense.

I think anything beyond this is "Lafügüzaf (*)."

(*) According to the Turkish Language Association, Lafügüzaf is a characterization expressing individuals who tend to speak in an empty, meaningless, or unnecessary way, or a type of speech.