Democracy has never fully taken root in the state or society in Turkey. The Turkish Republic was established with the goal of modernization. However, this modernization was explicitly predicated on homogenization, rather than the recognition of different ethnic and religious identities. This created the modern ‘Kurdish question’ – the struggle of the more than 20 million Kurdish people who live within Turkey’s borders for rights, recognition, and identity. The Kurdish question has defined the limits of Turkish democracy for over a century.

Today, a political resolution to the Kurdish question is back on the agenda. This is not just a security issue, as the government frames it; a matter of negotiations between two warring parties; or a challenge of ‘minority policy.’ It can and should be a redefinition of the Republic in Turkey’s second century based on democratic reorganization.

The ‘resolution process’ carried out between 2013 and 2015 made historic progress towards this goal. During this period, when direct negotiation channels between the state and the Kurdish movement were open and the idea of peace was widespread at the societal level, ‘democratic politics’ found a strong response in the Turkish public sphere for the first time. However, these talks ended with a resurgence of the state’s security-oriented reflexes and nationalist politics. Since then, the state’s policy has turned into a suppression strategy based on the so-called ‘fight against terrorism’ that quickly expanded to target any and all dissent.

Peace, which is back on the agenda today, is not an ideal but an urgent necessity for social stability. At the heart of multiple problems ranging from economic crisis to international isolation lies Turkey’s lack of democratisation. The Kurdish issue is at the centre of this deficiency. The concept of democratic integration is the solution that we believe can resolve these crises and bring a new era of peace and stability to the Middle East.

Democratic Integration: Redefining the Republic

The Republic of Turkey was founded on the basis of national unity; however, this unity was built by denying the existence of different identities. Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan believes the rewriting of Turkey’s social contract on the basis of a democratic national unity that respects diversity can bring the country into its second century on a foundation of peace and prosperity. His concept of democratic integration does not seek to assimilate Kurds into the Turkish nation-state, but to transform the state into a political framework for the coexistence of all ethnic and religious communities on the basis of equal citizenship.

Ocalan’s concepts of the ‘Democratic Republic’ and the ‘Democratic Society’ form the intellectual basis of this idea. According to him, the nation-state form is inherently undemocratic due to its imposition of homogeneity. Within this model, the ‘integration’ of Kurds turns into assimilation. Democratic integration opens up a new political space where different identities are equally represented.

As early as 1993, when the PKK declared its first ceasefire, Ocalan clearly the direction of the solution. He defined the Kurdish issue not merely as an ethnic issue, but as a political problem that necessitated the democratisation of the republic. He advocated not the destruction of the state, but its reconstruction with democratic content. In this sense, the idea of democratic integration is the mature form of this political orientation that took shape after 1993.

Since then, Ocalan has sought the solution neither in ethnic separation nor in the expectation of unilateral reform; he has defined the solution as the democratic re-founding of the Republic of Turkey. While the specific steps that must be taken to achieve such a re-founding are still under discussion as peace talks progress, we can point to some broad areas where change is necessary. The transition from the state’s uniform concept of citizenship to a pluralistic concept of citizenship that recognizes ethnic and religious diversity is a prerequisite for democratic integration. So is an end to the suppression of local self-government. Like equal citizenship, local self-government is a founding principle of a democratic republic. In both cases, as the pressure of central authority on people’s identity, culture, and political engagement decreases, the people’s direct participation in politics increases.

Kurdish Experiences with Democratic Integration: North and East Syria

Many political circles in the region still claim that Kurds are trying to ‘break up’ the region. For a long time, this was discussed solely in ‘military’ or ‘security’ terms. However, the reality on the ground shows the opposite. In northeast Syria, Kurdish parties and movements inspired by Ocalan’s ideas have established a laboratory for democratic integration in the Middle East. Their experience shows the benefits that it can bring for peace and unity.

Rojava, or the Democratic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (DAANES), represents a form of pluralism that institutionalises coexistence, not fragmentation. The DAANES is founded on the principles of religious freedom, participatory democracy and gender equality. Arabs, Kurds, Syriacs, Armenians and Turkmen all enjoy protections for their languages and cultures in the Social Contract and places in the same administrative structure. The region’s governance is decentralized, with different municipalities, cantons and regions having their own local governments. This system is not perfect, but it has made it possible for peoples to live together while preserving their unique identities, free from the kind of sectarian and ethnic violence that has wracked the region. The successful fight against ISIS and the international cooperation that it brought are proof of these achievements.

The dialogue process between the administration in North and East Syria and Damascus is an attempt to expand this model of democratic integration to all of Syria. While the Damascus government has focused almost exclusively on the question of security integration, the DAANES is linking their participation in Syria’s new army to a pluralistic and democratic constitution and the protection of local government.

The demands highlighted in these talks are clear: recognition of local self-governments, constitutional guarantees for freedom of religion, linguistic and cultural diversity, and women’s representation, and the preservation of multi-ethnic structures. This is a democratic vision that concerns not only the Kurds but the future of Syria as a whole.

If this dialogue progresses on a democratic basis, Syria could evolve towards stability based on local self-governance rather than renewed civil war. This would effectively eliminate the rationale for Turkey’s cross-border operations, which are conducted on security grounds. The democratic presence of the Kurds is a source of stability, not instability, in the region. A democratised Syria would lay the groundwork for a multi-ethnic and secular society that leaves no room for radical groups. In this context, the role played by the Kurds is decisive not only regionally but also in terms of international security.

Why It Matters

If the democratic integration process succeeds, it will allow not only the Kurds but the entire Turkish society to breathe freely. Furthermore, it will create a new democratic foundation in relations with neighboring countries and even with the European Union. The Kurds’ demand for a democratic solution is one of the strongest internal dynamics that will bring Turkey closer to Western standards. When translated into concrete policy terms, many of the concepts at the heart of democratic integration align with E.U. and United Nations human rights and governance standards.

A democratized Turkey:

• transitions from securitized to pluralistic governance internally;
• produces dialogue, rather than intervention, externally;
• and creates a new axis in the region based on civil partnerships rather than authoritarian poles.

Such a Turkey would accelerate not only its own internal peace but also the democratization of the Middle East. A democratic Turkey becomes a central country that produces stability and security. A democratic orientation elevates Turkey to the position of an exemplary, influential, and respected actor both in its region and on the international stage.

The Kurds’ struggle for a democratic solution is not only a national issue, but also a factor in the regional and global balance. Turkey’s rhetoric of ‘fighting terrorism’ gained legitimacy in NATO and international public opinion for a long time, but this argument is increasingly losing its credibility. This is because the social system represented by the Kurds is seen as the only secular and democratic alternative standing in direct opposition to jihadist groups.

A democratic, peaceful Turkey would strengthen its relations with Europe and the United States, becoming a reliable actor in the region. Resolving the Kurdish issue within a democratic framework would also transform Turkey’s policies towards Syria and Iraq. In such a scenario, Turkey could become a bearer of dialogue rather than conflict. The democratic integration vision developed by the Kurds offers a civil alternative to the authoritarian regimes of the Middle East. This vision has strategic value not only for the Kurds but for the future of all peoples.

What Comes Next?

The coming weeks and months will offer many opportunities for democratic integration to progress — or regress.

Today‘s National Solidarity, Democracy and Brotherhood Commission’s meeting with Abdullah Ocalan is a historical step that can strengthen democratic integration. It reaffirms that Ocalan is a legitimate interlocutor for political actors in Turkey who seek to solve this problem, not only for Turkey’s intelligence and security services. His theoretical insights and practical recommendations should assist in the commission’s efforts to make legal reforms towards a structure for Kurdish democratic, legal participation the politics and governance that the Kurdish movement would accept. In this context, the CHP‘s decision not to join the delegation is concerning. Their participation in the commission, as the country’s main opposition party, is important. Any party that would join in a meeting like this one would have benefitted from it. Failure to engage may damage the CHP’s outreach to Kurdish voters and marginalize opposition views from the process.

The biggest obstacle to Turkey’s refoundation as a democratic republic is the state’s constant definition of itself through the lens of security threats. Kurdish identity has become the historical symbol of an imagined threat to the state. As long as the state codes Kurds not only as an identity but also as a political threat, democracy will remain suspended.

Today’s cross-border operations in Iraq and Syria are a continuation of this mindset. Turkey legitimises these interventions on the grounds of ‘combating terrorism’; however, in reality, these operations become a means of postponing a democratic solution. The same argument applies domestically. The appointment of trustees to municipalities, the arrests of opposition politicians, and the judicial pressure extending to the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) are all extensions of this security-oriented paradigm.

Will the second century of the Republic be a closing chapter marked by deepening authoritarianism and international isolation, or a democratic opening based on the equality of peoples and a new approach to regional and global relationships? The answer to this question depends on how Turkey will relate to the Kurds in these critical processes.