Turkey’s fragile peace opening shifted into a new gear this week as President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan received DEM Party’s İmralı delegation members Pervin Buldan and Sezai Temelli Sancar for the third time on October 30, following two symbolic milestones over the summer and fall. On July 11, the PKK announced its intention to lay down arms, and on October 26 it declared the start of a withdrawal from Turkey—developments that injected momentum into the inaugural meeting of the “Terror-Free Turkey” Commission. After that session, Parliament Speaker Numan Kurtulmuş signaled maturity in the process, saying, “We are at the final report stage.”
The moment remains precarious, warns Alpaslan Özerdem in YetkinReport’s opinion article. Özerdem argues that Turkey stands at a fork in the road: continue to “act as if” it is making peace—or undertake the harder task of genuinely building it through transparent, inclusive, and democratic means.
DEM Party’s readout of the October 30 meeting struck an upbeat tone, describing the conversation as “extremely positive, constructive, productive, and hopeful for the future.” The party added that “a period without violence and conflict, in which the democratic and political sphere is strengthened, is vitally important for our country, our citizens, and our region,” underscoring that peace is not only a domestic question but also a regional transformation challenge. That message doubles as a public call: lasting peace, they contend, requires deepening democratization.
Parliament’s National Solidarity, Brotherhood, and Democracy Commission has tried to widen the aperture beyond the state–PKK axis, hearing from diverse constituencies and echoing global best practices for inclusive, empathetic peace processes. Yet, as Özerdem notes, Turkey’s democracy scorecard remains troubled. Political pressure, constraints on expression, and a narrowing civic space erode confidence and legitimacy. The warning is clear: silencing guns may deliver “negative peace,” but without justice, trusted institutions, and equal citizenship, it will not become a durable social peace.
The Syria file looms large. While it is widely acknowledged that peace at home cannot be decoupled from stability across the border, foreign policy has struggled to match the discipline and coherence that real peace demands. Narratives of “gains” in Syria persist domestically, but the ground reality—reshaped by European states, Russia, and regional actors—suggests Ankara is scrambling for crumbs of a cake already divided. That dissonance perpetuates an “as if” posture externally that reverberates back into domestic politics.
A core question still hangs in the air: With whom is the state making peace? Is DEM a genuine interlocutor or a fixture in the choreography? Recent signaling points to an Öcalan-centered track, seemingly without anchoring in broader democratization. Statements by MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli, mirroring a cautious stance toward democratic reform, reinforce concerns about an “authoritarian peace”—a top-down announcement absent societal participation.
Oversight is faltering, too. Independent media often echoes official lines; civil society struggles to be heard; academia retreats inward. Özerdem laments a culture of “as if” ownership of ideas—an intellectual shortcut that mirrors political shortcuts and risks hollowing out any process.
The choice, he argues, is stark: continue with “as if” peace, or commit to the discomfort of real peace—listening, accountability, and rights-based reform. Only the latter can sustain the hope now flickering across Turkey’s political landscape.
Photo: Gemini AI