By Özgür Çelik
The recent report issued by the Turkish Commission for National Solidarity, Brotherhood, and Democracy appears, at first glance, to be a technical document primarily focused on resolving a long-standing security crisis.
However, if one reads the text with meticulous attention from beginning to end, it becomes clear that the ambitions harbored within go far beyond merely ending terrorism. The report does not just target the disarmament of an organization; it presents a comprehensive framework for establishing a new social and political equilibrium in the aftermath of this process. This is precisely where the true problematic begins.
The text explicitly professes its commitment to a unitary state structure. It emphasizes the official language, the secular republic, and constitutional unity. Yet, when these references to constitutional articles are viewed within the broader conceptual scaffolding of the document, a different picture emerges.
A unitary state is not merely a legal or juristic form; it rests upon a constitutive consciousness. If this underlying consciousness is altered, the legal text remains, but its world of meaning is fundamentally transformed.
The „Right of Brotherhood“ as a Tool for Redefinition
A central concept permeating the entire report is the „Right of Brotherhood.“ This expression is not merely an emotional appeal for unity; it is employed as a strategic instrument to redefine the very understanding of citizenship. Concepts such as „equality-based citizenship,“ „the balance of dignity and pride,“ „social integration,“ „local development,“ and the „Turkey Model“ are systematically interlinked to establish a new political language.
In this lexicon, the concept of the „Nation“ as the central and constitutive political subject recedes into the background, while the negotiation and balance between distinct identities move to the forefront.
Particularly in its historical narrative, the report creates a dual constitutive framework along the lines of „Turkish-Kurdish brotherhood.“ The past—stretching from the Seljuks to the Ottoman Empire—is placed upon the foundation of a pluralistic political founding logic.
Phrases like „Turks and Kurds are the owners of the same geography“ or „Turkish-Kurdish-Arabic brotherhood is the original code of our geography“ appear as calls for unity, yet they simultaneously generate a language that pluralizes the political subject through ethnic references. The founding ethos of the Republic of Turkey, however, did not define the nation as a juxtaposition of ethnic blocks, but as a shared, singular consciousness of sovereignty. This difference is subtle, but it is decisive for the future of the state.
The Symbolic Power of State Terminology
One of the most critical breaking points in the report is the use of the designation „Founding Leader“ (Kurucu Önder) for the individual at the helm of a terrorist organization responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people.
That an official state document employs such a term is no mere terminological preference. The word „Founding“ implies historical legitimacy and a constructive role; „Leader“ evokes associations of representation and guidance. The combination of these two terms transcends the description of a criminal hierarchy and signifies the construction of a historical and political actor.
The language used by the state is never neutral. Every term the state employs determines the boundaries of legitimacy. If a person convicted of terrorism, leading a violent organizational structure, is referred to as a „Founding Leader,“ it generates a form of normalization on a symbolic level.
In established state terminology, designations such as „terrorist ringleader,“ „organizational head,“ or „founder of the organization“ maintain a clear criminal context. „Founding Leader,“ however, elevates the organization to the level of a political „founding subject.“ This is not just a matter of semantics; it is a profound recoding of political memory.
Beyond Security: A New „Social Contract“
The autonomous and temporary legal regulations, oversight mechanisms, and new democratization frameworks proposed later in the text demonstrate that the process is not confined to a security dimension. The cessation of terrorism is presented as the beginning of a new „social contract.“ This implies a total redefinition of the understanding of political unity.
The true danger here does not lie in an overt call for secession. Rather, it is a more subtle, creeping transformation. If political unity is founded upon a balance between identities, this balance will not remain restricted to a single identity. Once identity-based political equality is legitimized, it becomes inevitable that other communities will raise similar demands for recognition. The experiences of modern multi-identity societies show how such a chain reaction can unfold. The foundation of a unitary state is not negotiation between identities, but one and indivisible sovereignty.
Conclusion: The Erosion of the Sovereign Spirit
The report contains no explicit proposal for federalism and no open call for a constitutional amendment. Yet, the terms it employs reconstruct the political subject on the basis of plural identities. States usually do not collapse overnight; they change direction when their fundamental concepts shift. When the concept of the „Nation“ recedes and is replaced by a „balance of identities,“ the unity of sovereignty may, over time, become a mere matter of interpretation.
True peace cannot be established by blurring the boundaries of legitimacy. Peace arises through legal clarity, by maintaining the line between criminal acts and political representation, and by strengthening a shared sense of citizenship. If state language begins to position a violent structure as a historical actor, it is not merely a change in style, but a fundamental shift in mental direction.
Ultimately, this is not about „word-splitting“ or pedantry; it is about the very language through which the state speaks. The unitary structure is not protected by constitutional articles alone, but by the consciousness upon which those articles rest. If this consciousness is damaged, the law may persist for a time, but the supporting spirit erodes. The most serious dimension of this report lies exactly here: without proposing an overt break, it attempts to erect a new political design through the manipulation of concepts.
Therefore, this issue should not be approached with pathos, but the meanings of the terms used must be questioned with absolute seriousness. For sometimes, it is not loud proclamations that shake a state, but words quietly exchanged. In other words, sometimes states do not change through a constitutional amendment, but through a transformation of their vocabulary.
Guest commentaries reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of NEX24.
About the Author
Özgür Çelik studied Political Science, Sociology, and Philosophy at the University of Duisburg-Essen. His areas of expertise include German security and defense policy, German-Turkish and EU-Turkish relations, Turkish domestic politics, as well as the Turkish migration and diaspora in Germany.
THIS ALSO MIGHT INTEREST YOU
-Turkey –
Drone mogul Bayraktar announces Turkish high-speed train
Selçuk Bayraktar, the Turkish visionary behind the world-renowned Baykar drone technology, has unveiled ambitious plans to diversify his company’s portfolio.
