Is the process geared towards the election?

A MATTER OF OBJECTIVES FOR ERDOĞAN

Erdoğan said that he regarded the dissolution of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) as a positive development and spoke in glowing terms about the jihadist Colani, who was installed as Syria’s leader. “Mashallah, he has successfully steered difficult processes and continues to do so,” Erdoğan said. “I believe that the process will open the door to a new era not only for Turkey and Syria, but for the entire region.” Erdoğan also stated that they regarded the process not as a question of a programme, but of an objective.

THE REGIME SEES THE ELECTION AS THE PROCESS’S ENDPOINT

Erdoğan’s emphasis on time and objectives attracted attention. Ever since he began losing public support, Erdoğan has sought to establish contact with the Kurdish movement at every critical juncture. His latest remarks are therefore also being interpreted as part of an electoral scenario. At a time when attempts are being made to place Turkish–Kurdish relations on a new footing amid the shifting balances in the Middle East, integrate the Kurdish armed formation in Syria into the state system and bring Iran’s regional influence decisively to an end, the process is being viewed less as one grounded in peace and democracy than as an opportunity created by the conditions of the day.

From the regime’s perspective, the process is being advanced in line with US policies, while domestically the Palace wants the electoral process to constitute the light at the end of the tunnel.

As discussions concerning a new constitution and changes to the electoral system proceed alongside the process, a new narrative of Turkish–Kurdish brotherhood under the banner of Islamic unity is being promoted as a useful scenario for the regime’s future calculations.

SIMILAR RHETORIC IS CAUSING CONCERN

Meanwhile, in response to Erdoğan’s desire to extend the process over a long period and his electoral calculations, broad sections of society continue to warn that the process must not pave the way for the regime to consolidate itself once again. Similar debates within the Kurdish movement, another party to the process, are also continuing to raise questions.

Most recently, remarks attributed to PKK leader Öcalan concerning Yavuz Sultan Selim and İdris-i Bitlisi which were subsequently denied by the DEM Party have created a separate source of concern within the framework of Islamic unity.

In assessments made particularly by sections of the Alevi community, Öcalan’s statement that what is called the ummah is the internationalism of Islam and the Middle East has also been raised as one dimension of a new Sunni-Islamist alliance.

The references made by both the Kurdish movement and the Palace regime to the Ottoman Empire, Islam, the ummah and a shared Sunni identity have, together with developments across Syria, Iraq and Iran, brought the ideological foundations of a new Turkish–Kurdish alliance to a point at which they too are being questioned.

The invocation of Yavuz Sultan Selim and İdris-i Bitlisi, associated with what is known as the Sunni-Islamic alliance and remembered for massacres of Alevis, is likewise raising further questions. The view that such an analogy must be considered in the context of a Middle East now being redesigned in accordance with the interests of imperialism has also gained widespread currency.

I DO NOT SEE ANY ANTI-ALEVI SENTIMENT

The remarks made by DEM Party Co-Chair Tuncer Bakırhan regarding these debates also attracted attention. Bakırhan criticised the recently published ‘Declaration of Alevi Intellectuals’.

“İdris-i Bitlisi is a historical figure. His good and bad deeds are plain to see. Yavuz Selim, too, was an Ottoman sultan, a ruler. I cannot see any basis for drawing an anti-Alevi interpretation from the fact that the two appear in the same sentence,” he said.

Criticising some of those who had signed the declaration, Bakırhan said: “There are also people whom we picked up off the street and made MPs. I do not know what intellectual credentials they have, either. If criticising the Kurdish movement and criticising Öcalan is what it means to be an ‘intellectual’, then I am sorry, but that was yesterday; nobody buys it any more today.”

CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS FILED

Alevi organisations in Istanbul filed criminal complaints against Kemal Öztürk and former HDP MP for Diyarbakır Altan Tan over their remarks concerning Alevis. A press statement was also made outside the courthouse after the complaints were filed.

The statement condemned Kemal Öztürk for targeting Arab Alevis with the words, “I heard such horrific stories that you almost feel like saying, ‘It would be only right if all these Nusayris were massacred,’” and Altan Tan for describing Alevis as “so-called atheist Alevis without Ali”.

“Alevis are not afraid of you or your intentions, and they never will be,” the statement said. “They will not be moulded to suit your designs. Nor will they ever abandon either their humanity or the principle of a secular, democratic state governed by the rule of law for which they are fighting.”

∗∗∗

WHENEVER THEY SPOKE OF ISLAMIC UNITY, ALEVIS WERE MASSACRED

Cuma ERÇE, Chair of the Pir Sultan Abdal Cultural Association: The current debates are not solely about developments that began with a declaration. They have become the combined outcome both of the operations against the CHP and of those connected with the process under way in parliament, which is being referred to by various names. At this point, particularly when developments in the Middle East are taken into account, there is an attempt to create division and fragmentation among Alevis. From another angle, seeds of hatred are also being sown between Kurds and Alevis.

As matters stand, people whose commitment to peace should be beyond dispute are being pushed into different camps. It must be stated particularly clearly that the declaration in question is not binding on our association.

The debate concerning İdris-i Bitlisi and Yavuz Sultan Selim is not a matter for discussion as far as we are concerned either. Yavuz Sultan Selim was a perpetrator of massacres against Alevis, while İdris-i Bitlisi was his collaborator.

Our greatest concern is the democratisation of Turkey. The policies pursued behind the scenes by the political authorities through racist, fascistic and Islamist approaches are liable to strengthen the nationalist and, in quotation marks, ‘racist’ camp.

For this reason, the Kurds, as parties to the issue, must exercise care in every statement and declaration they make. It is perfectly clear that Alevis in this country would never be part of any approach that placed an obstacle in the way of peace.

However, every text that begins by invoking Islamic unity and Islamic brotherhood gives us cause for concern. Throughout history, whenever Islamic unity was invoked, Alevis were massacred. Çaldıran, Maraş, Sivas and Çorum were each processes constructed around Islamic unity, ending in massacres and implemented to enable those in power to protect themselves and preserve their rule.

For this reason, we are, of course, in favour of peace. We respect the right of nations to self-determination, but we also oppose that right being transformed into something that eliminates the rights of another community or prolongs the life of a fascist government.

We see that Türkiye stands to lose out in the process of redesigning the Middle East. At a time when those fighting for rights, truth, equal citizenship, labour and the environment are already present, we are striving to bring these struggles together.

Therefore, as Alevi institutions, we will fulfil our responsibility in matters concerning us by standing on the side of genuine peace and helping to ensure that the process proceeds in a healthy manner. However, we will not refrain from voicing our concerns and fears, and we will also act as a shield against what is being called peace causing harm to other sections of society.

A process confined to a single community is therefore inadequate. The path to peace runs not only through İmralı and Diyarbakır, but also through the massacre of miners in Soma, through Dersim, Thrace and the Black Sea, and through every arena in which we defend our living spaces and democratic values.

Finally, while numerous demands remain that can be met without constitutional amendments, we do not consider it appropriate to insist on making the question of peace contingent upon legislation.

We do not need a framework law to turn the Madımak Hotel into a museum of shame. Nor do we need a new constitutional amendment to abolish compulsory religious education, halt assimilation policies or withdraw the Ramadan circulars.

Note: This article is translated from the original article titled Sürecin zembereği seçime mi ayarlı?, published in BirGün newspaper on September 3, 2026.