2004 Local Elections in Turkey and the Kurds Mutlu Civiroglu - Former Coordinator of HADEP International Relations On March 28, 2004 the local elections are going to be held in Turkey. While on one hand the Kurdish people are hopeful with the elections, on the other hand, there are serious concerns about participating in the elections under the SHP banner. The local elections will be held to choose new mayors and municipal council members. The local elections in Turkey are held every 5 years and unlike the general elections, no threshold is implemented in these elections. Therefore, all parties, regardless of their size or whether they are either in the parliament can win mayor ships or municipal council seats. Clearly, this has a great significance for the Kurdish people as it is the only time that Kurdish cities can be easily represented by a Kurdish party Rather than foregoing DEHAP, Medya-TV and Ozgur Politika urged DEHAP to join with other parties, particularly with small Turkish leftist parties such as Socialist Democracy Party (SDP) and Labour’s Party (EMEP). This proposed unity was labelled as the “Bloc of Labour, Peace and Democracy.” This bloc was discussed many times, and there were many people who believed this unity wouldn’t bring anything and instead would damage the party. The bloc did end up taking place along the lines envisioned and DEHAP participated in the elections to receive the shock of its life. In spite of much propaganda, meetings, rallies that praised unity, DEHAP received only 6.2 % and failed to enter the Turkish parliament. The other striking fact is that, although DEHAP formed a bloc with Turkish parties, in many western Turkish cities like Artvin, Bayburt, Sinop, Ordu, Rize, Kastamonu, Gumushane, Edirne, Denizli and Burdur votes for DEHAP surprisingly decreased. It seemed that however much DEHAP tried to identify itself as a party of Turkey, addressing to all people of the country, the idea was not found convincing and was not supported by the non-Kurdish population in Turkey. Turks and other non-Kurdish ethnic groups continued to perceive DEHAP as a Kurdish party. Furthermore, all the international sources, including all Internet sources, identify HADEP/DEHAP as a Pro-Kurdish party It is difficult to grasp how a party like DEHAP, which comes from the tradition of People’s Labour Party (HEP), Democracy Party (DEP) and the People’s Democracy Party (HADEP), can accept to join under the SHP banner at this time. What kind of benefit do DEHAP administrators see on the SHP banner? Some may argue that an alliance with the former Social Democratic Populist Party (SHP) back in 1991 is what allowed Kurdish DEP members like Leyla Zana and Hatip Dicle to enter the parliament. However, there is a significant difference between now and then. First, these are not the general elections but local ones which give the Kurds an opportunity to be represented by a party that reflects their values and culture. In 1991, the SHP was the second largest party in Turkey and controlled tens of municipalities, including the largest cities like Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir. Today, on the other hand, the current SHP is almost a non-existent party. It is DEHAP which received 6.2 % in the general elections and has control of 37 municipalities including Diyarbakir, the most important city of Kurdistan as well as Batman, Siirt, Hakkari, Van, Agri, Bingol. Why not collaborate or create a bloc with other Kurdish parties, organizations or personalities? Isn’t it more important and more meaningful to act together with your fellow Kurds ? A party claiming to defend the constitutional and cultural rights of the Kurdish people should seek unity with the other Kurdish and pro-Kurdish parties. Instead of making useless collaborations with powerless Turkish parties to prove “Turkish-Kurdish brotherhood”, DEHAP should seek unity among Kurds and try to reach all Kurds in Turkey. In a truly "democratic Turkey" where "education and broadcast in Kurdish are freed" the real necessity would be for DEHAP to call itself a Kurdish party and to re-organize itself by creating new policies appealing to all Kurds. Such a vision would seek to embrace those residing in mixed populated cities like Elazig, Malatya, Erzurum, Konya, Kirsehir, Ankara, Urfa and Adiyaman -- who are traditionally voters of pro- Islamic parties and Antep, Sivas, Erzincan, Maras and partly Tunceli -- who traditionally vote for the pro-kemalist CHP. These cities have both Kurdish and Turkish populations, as well as Alevi and Sunni believers. Whereas the Sunnis are close to pro-Islamic fundamentalist parties, Alevis are traditionally pro-state, Kemalist Republican Peoples Party (CHP) voters

2004 Local Elections in Turkey and the Kurds

On March 28, 2004 the local elections are going to be held in Turkey. While on one hand the Kurdish people are hopeful with the elections, on the other hand, there are serious concerns about participating in the elections under the SHP banner. The local elections will be held to choose new mayors and municipal council members. The local elections in Turkey are held every 5 years and unlike the general elections, no threshold is implemented in these elections. Therefore, all parties, regardless of their size or whether they are either in the parliament can win mayor ships or municipal council seats. Clearly, this has a great significance for the Kurdish people as it is the only time that Kurdish cities can be easily represented by a Kurdish party.

In the upcoming March 28 local elections besides Independent candidates only one Pro-Kurdish party; the Democratic People’s Party (DEHAP), is going to participate. Although DEHAP does not want to be recognized as a Pro-Kurdish party and tries to approach Turkish parties, since the overwhelming majority of DEHAP voters are all Kurds, there is sufficient reason to call it a pro-Kurdish party.

It is well known that although the Kurds in Turkey gave an exaggerated importance to the general elections, unfortunately, DEHAP failed to pass the 10 % national threshold to enter the parliament. There were many critics who criticized DEHAP candidates for not having participated in the elections as independents. If this was done at that time, now there would be enough Kurdish MPs to set up a group in the Turkish parliament.

There are some reasons why DEHAP rejected the idea of entering the elections as independents. First of all, as mentioned above, there was an exaggerated self-confidence among the Kurds both in the country and in Diaspora that victory would be certain. Some Kurdish media outlets like Ozgur Politika and especially the broadcasts of Kurdish Satellite Medya TV played a major role in this self aggrandizing. This general policy caused DEHAP administrators not to take the elections as seriously as they otherwise would have and closed the way for other alternatives such as joining the elections as independent candidates.

Rather than foregoing DEHAP, Medya-TV and Ozgur Politika urged DEHAP to join with other parties, particularly with small Turkish leftist parties such as Socialist Democracy Party (SDP) and Labour’s Party (EMEP). This proposed unity was labelled as the “Bloc of Labour, Peace and Democracy.” This bloc was discussed many times, and there were many people who believed this unity wouldn’t bring anything and instead would damage the party. The bloc did end up taking place along the lines envisioned and DEHAP participated in the elections to receive the shock of its life. In spite of much propaganda, meetings, rallies that praised unity, DEHAP received only 6.2 % and failed to enter the Turkish parliament. The other striking fact is that, although DEHAP formed a bloc with Turkish parties, in many western Turkish cities like Artvin, Bayburt, Sinop, Ordu, Rize, Kastamonu, Gumushane, Edirne, Denizli and Burdur votes for DEHAP surprisingly decreased. It seemed that however much DEHAP tried to identify itself as a party of Turkey, addressing to all people of the country, the idea was not found convincing and was not supported by the non-Kurdish population in Turkey. Turks and other non-Kurdish ethnic groups continued to perceive DEHAP as a Kurdish party. Furthermore, all the international sources, including all Internet sources, identify HADEP/DEHAP as a Pro-Kurdish party.

In spite these facts, DEHAP administrators do not seem to have understood the lessons they should have learned from the general elections. Although collaboration or election blocs with such tiny and marginalized Turkish leftist parties do not bring any benefit to the Kurds, DEHAP is determined to follow the same line in these elections as well. This is particularly distressing since the 10 % threshold does not apply and DEHAP is guaranteed a victory in cities where it can obtain a majority vote. According to the public statements, DEHAP and the Social Democrat People’s Party (SHP) have agreed to participate in the elections together, under the SHP banner.

It is difficult to grasp how a party like DEHAP, which comes from the tradition of People’s Labour Party (HEP), Democracy Party (DEP) and the People’s Democracy Party (HADEP), can accept to join under the SHP banner at this time. What kind of benefit do DEHAP administrators see on the SHP banner? Some may argue that an alliance with the former Social Democratic Populist Party (SHP) back in 1991 is what allowed Kurdish DEP members like Leyla Zana and Hatip Dicle to enter the parliament. However, there is a significant difference between now and then. First, these are not the general elections but local ones which give the Kurds an opportunity to be represented by a party that reflects their values and culture. In 1991, the SHP was the second largest party in Turkey and controlled tens of municipalities, including the largest cities like Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir. Today, on the other hand, the current SHP is almost a non-existent party. It is DEHAP which received 6.2 % in the general elections and has control of 37 municipalities including Diyarbakir, the most important city of Kurdistan as well as Batman, Siirt, Hakkari, Van, Agri, Bingol. Why not collaborate or create a bloc with other Kurdish parties, organizations or personalities ? Isn’t it more important and more meaningful to act together with your fellow Kurds ?

If we look at the joint program of SHP and DEHAP, we come across many interesting details. According to Ozgur Politika, these two parties agreed on many principles. I want to begin with the most interesting one : “to create a strong unity in order to stand against the policies of Justice and Development Party (AKP) with their 60 % majority in the parliament, which endangers the founding principles, philosophy, freedom and faith and unity of the country in our republic which was created after the Independence War.
Also, as a response to some commentaries that appeared on Turkish media, Murat Karayalcin, the chairman of the SHP, states that, “Both in political and social aspects, I find it very necessary for Independent Republican Party (BCP), Republican Democracy Party (CDP), Democratic People’s Party (DEHAP), Democratic Left Party (DSP), Labour’s Party (EMEP), Workers’ Party (IP), Freedom and Solidarity Party (ÖDP), Socialist Democracy Party (SDP), New Turkey Party (YTP) and all other personalities and organizations who are loyal to Ataturk Principles and Revolutions to participate in the elections under the banner of the Republican People’s Party (CHP)

Tuncer Bakirhan, the chairman of DEHAP in his statement also mentions similar ideas. Bakirhan mentions that “I hope that thanks to this unity, they would reach the goals for 80 years (since the establishment of the Turkish Republic).”… “We, with the declaration of our unity with SHP, one more time proved that DEHAP is not making ethnic politics”. “We believe that, we strengthened the bridge built between Edirne and Hakkari during the (Turkish) Independence war. All these statements give us enough evidence to understand the real meaning of DEHAP’s elections unity with SHP.

Furthermore, among these parties mentioned above by Murat Karayalcin, there are very famous anti-Kurdish personalities as well. Mumtaz Soysal, the chairman of the BCP, for instance, is a very fervent Turkish nationalist. He is notorious for being anti-Kurdish and closing any solution proposals in Cyprus. He is the proud political advisor of Cypriot Turkish leader Rauf Denktas. Another notorious anti-Kurd is the chairman of the CDP, and former head of the Constitutional Court,Yekta Gungor Ozden, a self-avowed Kemalist and an anti-Kurd who closed down pro-Kurdish parties such as People’s Labour Party (HEP), Democracy Party (DEP), Freedom and Democracy Party (OZDEP), Democratic Mass Party (DKP) and the People’s Democracy Party (HADEP). Luckily these two parties renounced to join the election bloc under the SHP and will not run under the same banner as the rest of the parties. One would have b expected DEHAP to have rejected such a union even before Soysal and Ozden.

Even setting this aside, a more significant concern is the leader of the SHP, Murat Karayalcin. Have DEHAP administrators forgotten that Murat Karayalcin was the Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister of Tansu Ciller’s cabinet at a time when the Headquarters of the Democracy Party (DEP) was bombed (February 19, 1994), when the DEP parliamentarians including Leyla Zana, were arrested in the Turkish parliament (March 2, 1994), when DEP MP Mehmet Sincar and the party official Metin Ozdemir were murdered in Batman (September 4, 1994) and when thousands of Kurdish villages were systematically being burned down, millions of Kurds were being forcibly displaced and thousands of Kurdish patriots were being killed ?

A party claiming to defend the constitutional and cultural rights of the Kurdish people should seek unity with the other Kurdish and pro-Kurdish parties. Instead of making useless collaborations with powerless Turkish parties to prove “Turkish-Kurdish brotherhood”, DEHAP should seek unity among Kurds and try to reach all Kurds in Turkey. In a truly "democratic Turkey" where "education and broadcast in Kurdish are freed" the real necessity would be for DEHAP to call itself a Kurdish party and to re-organize itself by creating new policies appealing to all Kurds. Such a vision would seek to embrace those residing in mixed populated cities like Elazig, Malatya, Erzurum, Konya, Kirsehir, Ankara, Urfa and Adiyaman -- who are traditionally voters of pro- Islamic parties and Antep, Sivas, Erzincan, Maras and partly Tunceli -- who traditionally vote for the pro-kemalist CHP. These cities have both Kurdish and Turkish populations, as well as Alevi and Sunni believers. Whereas the Sunnis are close to pro-Islamic fundamentalist parties, Alevis are traditionally pro-state, Kemalist Republican Peoples Party (CHP) voters.

Past local elections which saw Kurdish parties like HADEP obtaining local administrations like Diyarbakir, Van, Batman, Siirt, Hakkari, Bingol and Agri proved to the rest of the world the real will of the Kurdish people. If DEHAP continues to pursue such a line and enters the current elections under the SHP banner, the mayor of Diyarbakir will end up being chosen from the SHP list with an SHP program. This will be a major step back for the Kurdish people who have gained an international prestige by the representation of their cities by pro-Kurdish parties.

The lessons of past elections teach us that for a Kurdish party, there is little to be gained by appealing to Turkish voters in general elections and especially in local elections. It is clear from Karayalcin’s public pronouncements that the SHP is far from accepting the Kurdish reality. If DEHAP-SHP unity will be based on Turkish-Kurdish brotherhood, it must pass from a full acceptance of the Kurdish culture and identity. As it stands, the current amalgamation of these two parties consists of DEHAP setting aside its Kurdish color and integrating itself into the SHP program. There is a 20 million strong Kurdish population in Turkey, whose particular views and interests are not reflected in the parliament. Being a party of Turkey does not necessarily require an official abandonment of the sensitivities and values of Kurds. If anything, rather than diluting and polluting the Kurdish platform by associating it with “the philosophy and principles of the republic”, a more complex and subtle approach is needed to embrace more Kurds under the pro-Kurdish banner. By formulating itself for the Kurds, irrespective of religion, or political ideology, DEHAP can increase its votes and gain more municipalities and even perhaps gain the necessary votes from across Turkey to cross the 10% threshold for the general elections.

Mutlu Civiroglu - Former Coordinator of HADEP International Relations
Fevruary 2004

summary