Türkiye’s New Peace Commission: Controversies and Questions

The Grand National Assembly of Türkiye has taken an important step to discuss and address the long-lasting Kurdish issue via democratic ways, more specifically by forming a new parliamentary body, the “National Solidarity, Brotherhood, and Democracy Commission.” A speaker from the parliament, Numan Kurtulmuş, invited parties to nominate their representatives by July 31.

It is stated that the commission will consist of 51 members, drawn from almost all of the parties in the parliament. It was decided that there will be 21 seats for AKP, the ruling party of Türkiye; 10 for CHP, the main opposition party; 4 for both DEM Party and MHP; 3 for YYP and İYİ Party; and 1 for each of HÜDAPAR, Yeniden Refah, TİP, EMEP, DSP, and DP.

However, İYİ Party has declined to participate in the committee, resulting in the commission members being the majority in the Millet Alliance, the parties aligned with the ruling bloc.

According to Kurtulmuş, the principal aim of the commission is to develop proposals and improve the existing ones for the resolution of the long-lasting question regarding the Kurds in what he called the “Terror-Free Turkiye” process. It was also emphasized that the armed conflicts that happened with the PKK cost the nation an estimated 2 trillion dollars in the last 50 years alone. This number highlights how urgent it is to find a well-structured solution.

Currently, there are discussions about the legislation that will apply to the members of PKK after the completion of its disarmament. The formation of the commission is in line with this event, to draft these legal regulations for the return of PKK members to their homes.

As this commission is not established by the law itself and is not one specialized in the field, it cannot submit a legal regulation change bill itself. Therefore, it is planned that the prepared drafts will be submitted to the actual relevant committee after the Turkish Grand National Assembly convenes in October and that the normal legislative process will then be followed.

Something that sparked debate was the unanimously adopted “strict confidentiality policy.” As a result of this decision, all of the meetings that this committee holds will be completely private. Reports will be taken and written, yet they are not going to be released to the public for a decade; even commission members will not have access to these reports during this time period.

It was pointed out that this measure was taken to “ensure safety and sensitivity,” given the delicate nature of the discussions made. However, this extreme level of secrecy has caused controversy and concerns about transparency. While some argue that this privacy will prevent additional political tensions as well as media speculation that may interfere with the flow of the committee and the decisions made, the others state that this is a sign of weakened accountability.

Despite the discussions at the Grand National Assembly and in society as well as the sparked controversies, the commission’s work is generally seen as a step by some politicians and a part of society to help Türkiye keep its promises regarding human rights, make the democratic environment stronger, and ultimately keep the area and the region stable. A collaborative work of different political parties with varied perspectives on the issue trying to be resolved, this committee can bring a new approach to the abiding problem. Still, the questions are strong about how effective and trustworthy this commission will be; time will show the actual results and answers.

Edited by: Ömer Gökce