For the last two days of 2010, Diyarbakır hosted the President Abdullah Gül “in its own style”. The thing that caught the attention first about this style was not Kurdish. Moreover, this style was beyond Kurdish that we were not familiar with.

In every step you feel it in your bone that the city is really different and variable and like all other big cities it is multilingual, polyphonic, and multidimensional.   

The love for Mr.Gül is not artificial and reluctant. In every corner there are some people waiting for Mr.Gül to express their love for him. However, the political discontentment in the city due to the National Security Council’s announcement one day ago does not affect this demonstration of love. Either the people in Diyarbakır see Mr.Gül innocent in these political debates or these debates have no vital meaning for these people. And in that case, we see Diyarbakır “from a different perspective”.

Indeed the announcement of the National Security Council is not different from the state discourse in the 1990s. It is quite natural to cause discontentedness because even the last debates do not deserve such a reaction stated in the announcement. No one reacts against “one nation”, “one state” theoretically; but because these were coded with a thirty-year- violence practice of the state, they came differently to people’s ears here. Therefore, they had a meaning in one context, and they had a totally different meaning in another context. And this proves how active political hermeneutic skill of people works.

Mr.Gül said that Diyarbakır was economically underdeveloped in comparison to other cities in the region. He explained this situation with examples and showed excessive politicization as one of the reasons. Of course politicization and identity are not unimportant and thinking that their problems will end when they are not hungry is a humiliating approach and it also does not explain the situation. However, identity and culture are not the only problems of some people in Diyarbakır; because there is another Diyarbakır where people think this kind of problems are over exaggerated and have utterly different demands. Without a doubt, considering this analysis there is no need to prefer one of these Diyarbakırs. But, a voice which is able to have dominance over the others should not be considered “the only Diyarbakır”.

On the other hand it needs to be stated that Democratic Society Party (DTP)’s draft plan on autonomy and bilingualism which caused the National Security Council’s announcement after the Presidency of General Staff’s statement was taken seriously a lot. Those who brought it up for discussion already said that it was just a draft and they did not have an aim to separate or discuss bilingualism. What is said about self defense and the practice of autonomy is not possible not only for the state but also for the Kurds in the region.

“We do not want to live under such an autonomous state regardless of its name, even if it is Kurdistan” said a great majority of the people we talked to in Diyarbakır. Indeed from this perspective there is even no need to be afraid of an organization that accepted disarmament, is open for politics and discussion. During discussion, reason and nationality win in one way or another. Since the draft was opened to discussion, the people in Turkey have talked about the desire to be all in one which never happened in Diyarbakır’s history in that way. Furthermore, we can say that since it was opened to discussion, the political actors in the region became evident and the armed guardianship on Kurdish policy has been questioned deeply.

The people in Diyarbakır are more open to discuss about the meaning of being “one nation” on a land where differences are welcomed. People should not think that people in the city are disturbed by the discussions on “one nation”. Without a doubt, a regulation that welcomes differences “officially” will develop a description of a “nation” which will not disturb anyone. And it will be definitely accepted by the people.

It should also be mentioned that from the most conservative people to the most secular ones, from the most pro-organization people to the anti-PKK ones, all people agree on the right of mother tongue. The demand for mother tongue is all people’s demand and of course its content and technique are open to discussion. Contrary to autonomy demand and only the demands of organization, this matter can be generalized as “Kurds’ demand” without discrimination by saying “some Kurds’ demands”. Turkey needs to consider this agreement as a data while handling this problem. Otherwise, it should be recognized that a packet under this demand will not contribute to the ultimate solution of the problem.

Through Mr.Gül’s visit to Diyarbakır, the state witnessed this reality from the top.

As a response to those who say that the initiative policy has ended and there has been nothing done to solve the Kurdish problem, Mr.Gül asked them to “question their conscience”. “Can you honestly say that there has been nothing done for three years?”

Even there has been nothing done for three years, was not the Kurdish problem, which had been a taboo, opened to discussion from all aspects? If a problem is opened to discussion, it means that the majority of the way is taken to solve the problem. There remains nothing but to discuss the matter properly.

(Published on Yeni Şafak [newspaper] on 01.01.2011)