Why Autonomy Hasn’t Been Possible for Kurds in Turkey

doi:10.1017/9781108623711.014

13 - Why Autonomy Hasn’t Been Possible for Kurds in Turkey

from Part III - Domestic Political Developments and the Kurds in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 April 2021

Edited by

Cengiz Gunes and

Hamit Bozarslan: Affiliation:
Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris
Cengiz Gunes: Affiliation:
The Open University, Milton Keynes
Veli Yadirgi: Affiliation:
School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London

Book contents

Get access

Summary

The chapter examines the antagonism of the Turkish political elite towards Kurdish autonomy claims in a broader historical and ideological context with a view to understanding how that antagonism has been codified into law and jurisprudence in Turkey. It explores answers to the question why autonomy has not been a viable political project for Kurds in today’s Turkey and one that can be realized through democratic and legal means. The chapter also explains how the enduring trajectory has led the country into an unprecedented centralist system and authoritarian rule in recent years and the repression of Kurdish claims for autonomy. In so doing, it concentrates on three main reasons behind the impossibility of Kurdish autonomy in the current political and legal status quo. First, a dominant anachronistic reading of the centralist state legacy overlooks the Ottoman legacy for organizational diversity and the Kurdish conventional self-rule. Second, a dexterously designed legal system has made unlawful autonomy as a political project, while presenting the unitary state model as the only one conceivable and fundamental to political and legal order. Third, the mainstream political elites’ ideologically driven response to the Kurds’ claim for autonomy and failure to comprehending or to deal with Kurdish nationalist sentiments and aspirations attached to it.

Keywords

autonomy Kurdish nationalism and history judicial politics Turkish political system Turkish law

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge History of the Kurds , pp. 333 - 361

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108623711.014 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Agos (2013). ‘“Kürdistan” kelimesi anayasal suç’. www.agos.com.tr/tr/yazi/5540/kurdistan-kelimesi-anayasal-suc.Google Scholar

Akbulut, O. (2018). Legal background of autonomy arrangements in Turkey from historical perspectives. In Akbulut, O. and Aktoprak, E. (eds), Minority Self-government in Europe and the Middle East (pp. 228–45). Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill.Google Scholar

Akil İnsanlar Heyeti Güneydoğu Raporu (2013). www.mazlumder.org/webimage/akil%20insanlar%20heyeti%20guneydogu%20raporu.pdf.Google Scholar

Aktar, C. (2014). Ademimerkeziyet Elkitabı. Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları.Google Scholar

Aljazeera Turk (2014). ‘Arınç: Mısır ile İlişkileri Düzeltmemiz Lazım’. www.aljazeera.com.tr/al-jazeera-ozel/arinc-misirla-iliskileri-duzeltmemiz-lazim.Google Scholar

Aljazeera Turk (2015). ‘Ortak Açıklamanın Tam Metni’. www.aljazeera.com.tr/haber/ortak-aciklamanin-tam-metni.Google Scholar

Atmaca, M. (2017). Three stages of political transformation in the 19th-century Ottoman Kurdistan. Anatoli, 8, 43–58.Google Scholar

Barkey, K. (2009). Empire of Difference: The Ottomans in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bataković, D. T. (2006). A Balkan-style French revolution? The 1804 Serbian uprising in European perspective. Balcanica, 36, 113–28. www.doiserbia.nb.rs/Article.aspx?ID=0350-76530536113B#.XlKLWi10fIE.Google Scholar

Bayır, D. (2013). Minorities and Nationalism in Turkish Law. Farnham: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bayır, D. (2014). The role of the judicial system in the politicide of the Kurdish opposition. In Gunes, C. and Zeydanlioglu, W. (eds), The Kurdish Question in Turkey: New Perspectives on Conflict, Representation and Reconciliation (pp. 21–46). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bayır, D. (2017). Türk Hukukunda Azınlıklar ve Milliyetçilik. Istanbul: İstanbul Bilgi University Publishing House.Google Scholar

Bayraktar, S. U. and Massicard, E. (2012). ‘Decentralisation in Turkey’. www.afd.fr/en/ressources/decentralisation-turkey.Google Scholar

Bayramoğlu, A. (2015). ‘Çözüm Süreci: Siyasetten Silaha’. Democratic Progress Institute. www.democraticprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Ali-Bayramoglu-Assessment-TUR.pdf.Google Scholar

BBC (2015). ‘Turkey’s Erdoğan: Demirtas Kurdish autonomy plea is treason’. www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35192854.Google Scholar

BBC Türkçe (2016). ‘Erdoğan’dan “Özerklik” Tepkisi: Dünyayı Başlarına Yıkarız’. www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler/2016/01/160128_erdogan_yeni_anayasa.Google Scholar

Belge, M. (2003). Türkiye’de Zenefobi ve Milliyetçilik. In Bora, T. and Gültekingil, M. (eds), Modern Türkiye’de Siyasi Düşünce (Vol. 4, pp. 179–92). Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları.Google Scholar

Bianet (2013). ‘BDP’nin Çözüm Süreci Önerileri’. http://bianet.org/bianet/toplum/151696-bdp-den-cozum-sureci-onerileri.Google Scholar

Bianet (2015a). ‘Erdoğan: Çözüm Süreci Mümkün Değil, Herkesten Hesap Soracağız’. https://m.bianet.org/biamag/siyaset/166358-erdogan-cozum-sureci-mumkun-degil-herkesten-hesap-soracagiz.Google Scholar

Bianet (2015b). ‘Özyönetimlerle İlgili Siyasi Çözüm Deklarasyonu’. http://bianet.org/bianet/siyaset/170561-dtk-sonuc-bildirgesi-turkce-ve-kurtce-tam-metin.Google Scholar

Bianet (2016). ‘Adalet Bakanı Bozdağ’dan Belediyelere Kayyum Açıklaması’. http://bianet.org/bianet/siyaset/178644-adalet-bakani-bozdag-dan-belediyelere-kayyum-aciklamasi.Google Scholar

Binkley, R. C. (1935). Realism and Nationalism, 1852–1871. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.Google Scholar

Bora, T. (2015). Medeniyet Kaybı: Milliyetçilik ve Faşizm Üzerine Yazılar. Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları.Google Scholar

Bothe, M., Ronzitti, N. and Rosas, A. (1997). The OSCE in the Maintenance of Peace and Security: Conflict Prevention, Crisis Management and Peaceful Settlement of Disputes. The Hague, London and Boston, MA: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar

Bullain, I. (1998). Autonomy and European Union. In Suksi, M. (ed.), Autonomy Applications and Implications (pp. 343–55). The Hague: Kluwer Law.Google Scholar

Çavuşoğlu, N. (1995). Parti Yasaklaması Rejiminde Azınlıklar Problemi: Türk Anayasa Mahkemesi Kararları Üzerine Bir Not. İstanbul Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 10, 35–42.Google Scholar

Çetin, B. (2018). Türk Hukuk Düzeninde Yetki Genişliği İlkesi. Uluslararası Yönetim Akademisi Dergisi, 1 (2), 94–112.Google Scholar

Cihan, E. (1979). Milli Duygulara Aykırı Propaganda Yapma Suçu (TCK. m. 142/b.3). İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuası, 43 (1–4), 45–63.Google Scholar

Conference on Near Eastern Affairs (1922–1923). Records of Proceedings and Draft Terms of Peace, 1923. London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office.Google Scholar

Coşkun, V. (2015). 7 Haziran Seçimlerine Doğru Halkların Demokratik Partisi. SETA Analiz, No. 124.Google Scholar

Council of Europe (2017). ‘Fact-finding mission on the situation of local elected representatives in Turkey’. https://rm.coe.int/16806fbf0d.Google Scholar

Cumhuriyet (2015). ‘Bahçeli: Sevr Anlaşmasıyla İhanet Metni Arasında Fark Yoktur’. www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/bahceli-sevr-anlasmasiyla-ihanet-metni-arasinda-fark-yoktur-225385.Google Scholar

Cumhuriyet (2018). ‘Çözüm Sürecini Bitiren Ceylanpınar Davasında Karar: Tüm Sanıklar Beraat Etti’. www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/cozum-surecini-bitiren-ceylanpinardaki-iki-polisin-cinayeti-davasi-da-beraatle-sonuclandi-935930.Google Scholar

Davison, R. H. (1977). Nationalism as an Ottoman problem and the Ottoman response. In William, W. H. and William, O. (eds), Nationalism in a Non-national State: The Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (pp. 25–56). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar

Demokrat Haber (2017). ‘Anayasa Mahkemesi’ne TKDP Tepkisi’. www.demokrathaber.org/guncel/anayasa-mahkemesi-ne-tkdp-tepkisi-h91820.html.Google Scholar

Elazar, D. (1997). Contrasting unitary and federal systems. International Political Science Review/Revue Internationale De Science Politique, 18 (3), 237–51.Google Scholar

Euronews (2018). ‘Demirtaş: Hendek barikat var diye demokratik özerklikten vazgeçemezdim’. https://tr.euronews.com/2018/04/11/demirtas-cezaevine-gonderilecegimi-bile-bile-turkiye-ye-dondum.Google Scholar

Evrensel (2017). ‘Șırnak’ta Kayyım Atanmayan DBP’li Belediye Kalmadı’. www.evrensel.net/haber/312599/sirnakta-kayyim-atanmayan-dbpli-belediye-kalmadi.Google Scholar

GABB (Union of Southeastern Anatolia Region Municipalities) (2016). ‘Report on local governments and appointments of trustees to municipalities’. www.hlrn.org/img/violation/KayyumDosyasi.pdf.Google Scholar

Gençer, F. (2011). ‘Merkezîleşme Politikaları Sürecinde Yurtluk-Ocaklık Sisteminin Değişimi’. http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/18/1627/17446.pdf.Google Scholar

Genell, A. M. (2016). Autonomous provinces and the problem of ‘semi-sovereignty’ in European international law. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 18 (6), 533–49.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gözler, K. (2000). Türk Anayasa Hukuku. Bursa: Ekin Kitabevi Yayınları.Google Scholar

Güler, B. A. (2000). Yerel Yönetimleri Güçlendirmek mi? Adem-i Merkeziyetçilik mi? TODAİE. Çağdaş Yerel Yönetimler, 9, 14–29.Google Scholar

Hafızoğulları, Z. (2015). Devletin Birliğini ve Ülke Bütünlüğünü Bozmak Suçu. In Prof. Dr. Nevzat Toroslu’ya Armağan (Vol. 1, pp. 557–67). Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Yayınları Ankara.Google Scholar

Henning, B. (2018). Narratives of the History of the Ottoman-Kurdish Bedirhani Family in Imperial and Post-imperial Contexts: Continuities and Changes. Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press.Google Scholar

Hürriyet (2014). ‘Buradan Bu Irkçıya Oy Çıkmayacak’. www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/buradan-bu-irkciya-oy-cikmayacak-26894227.Google Scholar

Hürriyet Daily News (2012a). ‘Euro speaker links Kurdish autonomy to EU accession’. www.hurriyetdailynews.com/euro-speaker-links-kurdish-autonomy-to-eu-accession-21929.Google Scholar

Hürriyet Daily News (2012b). ‘BDP free to advocate break-up: AKP official’. www.hurriyetdailynews.com/bdp-free-to-advocate-break-up-akp-official-10775.Google Scholar

Karataş, Y. and Karasu, D. (2017). Osmanlı’dan Cumhuriyet’e Miras Kalan Bir Mesele: Yurtluk-Ocaklık ve Emlak-ı Mazbuta Mukabili Maaşların Tasfiyesi. International Journal of Social Science, 56, 369–81.Google Scholar

Karpat, K. H. (1972). The transformation of the Ottoman Empire, 1789–1908. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 3 (3), 243–81.CrossRef Google Scholar

Karpat, K. H. (1982). Millets and nationality: The roots of incongruity of nation and state in the post-Ottoman era. In Braude, B. and Lewis, B. (eds), Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: Functioning of a Plural Society (Vol. 1, pp. 141–67). New York and London: Holmes and Meier Publishers.Google Scholar

Kılıç, O. (1999). Yurtluk-Ocaklık ve Hükûmet Sancaklar Üzerine Bazı Tespitler. OTAM, 10, 119–37.Google Scholar

Kılıç, O. (2001). Van Eyaletine Bağlı Sancaklar ve İdarî Statüleri (1558–1740). Osmanlı Araştırmaları, 21, 189–210.Google Scholar

Kostopoulou, E. (2013). Armed negotiations: The institutionalization of the late Ottoman locality. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 33 (3), 295–309.Google Scholar

Lewis-Anthony, S. (1998). Autonomy and the Council of Europe. With special reference to the application of Article 3 of the first protocol of the European Convention in Human Rights. In Suksi, M. (ed.), Autonomy Applications and Implications (pp. 317–41). The Hague: Kluwer Law.Google Scholar

Machiavelli, N. (1998). The Prince. Chicago, IL, and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Milliyet (2014). ‘85 Yillik maasimizi Faiziyleistiyoruz!’ www.milliyet.com.tr/gundem/85-yillik-maasimizi-faiziyle-istiyoruz-1852631.Google Scholar

Milliyet (2016). ‘“Kürdistan” Adli Üçüncü Parti Geliyor’. www.milliyet.com.tr/siyaset/kurdistan-adli-ucuncu-parti-geliyor-2253929.Google Scholar

Mynet (2010). ‘Selim Sadak 1 Yıl Hapis Cezasına Çarptırıldı’. www.mynet.com/selim-sadak-1-yil-hapis-cezasina-carptirildi-110100508295.Google Scholar

OHCHR (2017). ‘The report on the human rights situation in south-east Turkey (July 2015–December 2016)’. www.ohchr.org/documents/countries/tr/ohchr_south-east_turkeyreport_10march2017.pdf.Google Scholar

Ortaylı, İ. (2010). Türkiye Teşkilat ve İdare Tarihi. Ankara: Cedit Neşriyat.Google Scholar

Özbudun, E. (2012). 1924 Anayasası. Istanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.Google Scholar

Özoğlu, H. (2004). Kurdish Notables and the Ottoman State: Evolving Identities, Competing Loyalties, and Shifting Boundaries. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Pelek, S. and Benlisoy, F. (2011). ‘AKP’s passion for Kurds: Either you belong to me, or to the courts’. www.jadaliyya.com/Details/24590.Google Scholar

Reyhan, C. (2006a). Ademi-merkeziyet: Bir Kavramın İçerik Analizi. Folklore ve Edabiyat Dergisi, 2 (46), 207–24.Google Scholar

Reyhan, C. (2006b). Osmanlı’da Millet Nizamnameleri: Avrupa ile Uyum Sürecinde Rum-Ermeni-Yahudi Cemaat Düzenlemeleri. Belgeler, 27 (31), 33–90.Google Scholar

Reyhan, C. (2007). Türkiye’de Yüzyıllık Gündem: Federalizm. Memleket Siyasi Yönetim, 2 (5), 107–18.Google Scholar

Reyhan, C. (2015). 1864–1871 Vilayet Nizamnameleri İdare Meclisleri: Osmanlı Taşrasında – Bir örnek Yönetim Model’inin Kuruluş Sorunu. In Tural, E. and Çapar, S. (ed.), 1864 Vilayet Nizamnamesi (pp. 51–68). Ankara: Türkiye ve Orta Dogu Amme Idaresi Enstitüsü.Google Scholar

Reyhan, H. and Şenalp, M. G. (2005). Emperyalizmin Kurumsallaşma Süreci: Yönetişim, Yönetişimci Devlet ve STK’laştırılan Sendikal Hareket. Siyaset ve Toplum, 126–52.Google Scholar

SAMER (Siyasal ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Merkezi) (2012). Toplumsal Sorunlar and Yeni Anayasa: Algı, Beklenti ve Talepler Ön Raporu. www.slideshare.net/BizsizAnayasaOlmaz/134840-toplumsal-sorunlar-ve-yeni-anayasa-algbeklentitalepler.Google Scholar

Şerif Paşa (1919). Memorandum on the Claims of the Kurd people. Paris: Imprimerie A.-G. L’Hoir.Google Scholar

Sobacı, M. Z. (2015). Türkiye’nin Avrupa Yerel Yönetimler Özerklik Şartı’na Uyumu: Özerklik Miti. Seta Analiz, 120. http://file.setav.org/Files/Pdf/20150403121644_turkiyenin-avrupa-yerel-yonetimler-ozerklik-sarti’na-uyumu-ozerklik-miti-pdf.pdf.Google Scholar

Soyaslan, D. (2010). Ceza Hukuku Özel Hükümler. Ankara: Yetkin.Google Scholar

T24 (2013). ‘Güçlü Türkiye Asla Eyalet Sisteminden korkmamalıdır’. https://t24.com.tr/haber/ocalana-ev-hapsi-soz-konusu-degildir,226728.Google Scholar

TC Başbakanlık (2015). ‘64. Hükümet Programı’. www.aa.com.tr/uploads/TempUserFiles/64.hukumet_programi.pdf.Google Scholar

TCCB (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Cumhurbaşkanlığı) (2015). ‘Silahların Bırakılması Çağrısı Çok Önemli Bir Beklentiydi; Ancak Uygulanmasını da Görmek Lazım’. www.tccb.gov.tr/haberler/410/29607/silahlarin-birakilmasi-cagrisi-cok-onemli-bir-beklentiydi-ancak-uygulamasini-da-gormemiz-lazim.Google Scholar

Time Turk (2015). ‘Demirtaş’tan Özerklik Açıklaması’. www.timeturk.com/demirtas-tan-ozerklik-aciklamasi/video-50058.Google Scholar

Toros, T. (1978). ‘Dosya Adı: Prens Sabahattin’. http://earsiv.sehir.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11498/9985/001580939010.pdf?sequence=1andisAllowed=y.Google Scholar

Ülke, C. (2014). Kürdistan Eyaleti’nin İdarî Yapısı. Unpublished MA thesis, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. https://docplayer.biz.tr/57041436-Kurdistan-eyaleti-nin-idari-yapisi.html.Google Scholar

Venice Commission (2000). ‘Self-determination and secession in constitutional law’. www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-INF(2000)002-e.Google Scholar

Watts, N. F. (2010). Activist in Office: Kurdish Politics and Protest in Turkey. Washington, DC: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar

Yaşar, O. G., Gökcan, H. T. and Artuç, M. (2010). Yorumlu Uygulamalı Türk Ceza Kanunu, C. IV. Ankara: Adalet Yayınevi.Google Scholar

Yeğen, M. (2006). Müstakbel-Türk’ten Sözde-Vatandaşa: Cumhuriyet ve Kürtler. Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları.Google Scholar

Yeğen, M. (2011). İngiliz Belgelerinde Kürdistan 1918–1958. Ankara: Dipnot Yayınları.Google Scholar

Yeğen, M., Tol, U. U. and Çalışkan, M. A. (2016). Kürtler Ne İstiyor? Kürdistan’da Etnik Kimlik, Dindarlık, Sınıf ve Seçimler. Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları.Google Scholar

Yeni Șafak (2010). ‘Kürt Meselesinde Siyasetin Dönüşümü(mü)?’ www.yenisafak.com/yazarlar/yasinaktay/kurt-meselesinde-siyasetin-donuumu-25384.Google Scholar

Yıldırım, R. (1993). Kanuni-Esasi’ye Gore Tevsi-i Mezuniyet İlkesi. Dicle Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, 6, 231–48.Google Scholar

Yılmazçelik, İ. (2010). Dersim Sancağının Kurulmasından Sonra Karşılaşılan Güçlükler ve Dersim Sancağı ile İlgili Bu Dönemde Yazılan Raporlar (1875–1918). OTAM, 28, 163–214.Google Scholar

Zharmukhamed, Z. (2006): Ottoman Kurds of the First World War era: Reflections in Russian sources. Middle Eastern Studies, 42 (1), 67–85.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.