The CHP and the Kurds: The Impasse of Progressive Politics in Turkey
By Halil Karaveli
The reconciliation with the PKK has effectively laid the ground for a de facto alliance between the right-wing AKP-MHP bloc and the ostensibly left-wing Kurdish movement. The main opposition CHP faces a difficult task. It suffers under the crackdown of the regime, is increasingly isolated and is stigmatized as the purported enemy of the Kurds by its erstwhile, “progressive” allies.
Credit: PICRYL
BACKGROUND: The Republican People’s Party (CHP) has enjoyed a lead in the polls since it dethroned the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) as Turkey’s leading party in the local elections in 2024. Since the election of Özgür Özel as party leader in 2023, the CHP combines an unprejudiced, inclusive stance towards conservatives with an attempt to chart a social democratic course. Just as crucially, the CHP has succeeded in appealing to Kurdish voters, notably in Istanbul, which is home to the largest concentrated Kurdish population in Turkey.
In a conversation with the Turkey Analyst in Istanbul on November 5, CHP leader Özel explained that the party’s strategy is to sway conservative voters with leftist policies that address poverty and inequality, but to do so without brandishing a leftist banner that would put off conservatives and “workers that are right-wing.”
That’s obviously a sensible strategy in a country where inequalities in wealth and income have increased dramatically during the AKP’s more than two decades in power, but where nonetheless only a minority of the population identifies as leftist. Özel recognizes that the CHP has become a pole of attraction by default as societal discontent “seeks an address.” In other countries, he noted, discontent and anger have found an address in right-wing populism and extremism. Policies must necessarily be framed in a language that speaks to all citizens. “In the fight against fascism, we need to maintain as broad an alliance as possible,” Özel stressed. Yet the prospects of maintaining -- or rather building -- such a broad democratic alliance looks increasingly unpromising in the wake of the reconciliation between the Turkish state and the Kurdish political movement.
The pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Equality and Democracy (DEM) Party and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) -- that represent the civilian and armed wings respectively of the Kurdish movement -- are ostensibly left-wing. Selahattin Demirtaş, the former co-chair of the previous iteration of the pro-Kurdish party, known as the HDP, who has been imprisoned since 2016, in 2021 called on Turkey’s left-wing forces to form a “strong left bloc” to build democracy after the rule of the AKP. Demirtaş argued that democracy was going to elude Turkey in the absence of the left and “the voice of the labor.” Indeed, CHP leader Özel recognizes that the weakness of organized labor is a handicap. The last time the CHP was the leading party of Turkey, in the 1970s, it drew strength from a labor movement that organized 90 percent of the workforce. When Recep Tayyip Erdoğan came to power in 2003, 58 percent of the workforce was unionized; today less than 15 percent is. Removing the obstacles to unionization is going to be crucial for the future prospects of social democracy in Turkey. But more immediately, the CHP needs to retain the support of the Kurds.
Özel says that a progressive alliance – that would bring Turkish social democrats and Kurdish leftists together -- is “fine,” but that it nonetheless imports not to lose others – presumably conservatives and Turkish nationalists – “who are also oppressed.” But in any case, the Kurdish movement itself is today displaying little interest in embarking on the path that Demirtaş earlier advocated for. Demirtaş has himself since shifted course and more recently recommended that the DEM Party position itself as a third force, equidistant to the AKP and the CHP.
Meanwhile, the reconciliation with the PKK that began a year ago, when Devlet Bahçeli, the leader of the far right Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), called on the PKK’s imprisoned leader Abdullah Öcalan to dissolve the militant group and in return sensationally held out the prospect of his release, has effectively laid the ground for a de facto alliance between the right-wing AKP-MHP bloc and the Kurdish movement.
In February 2025, Öcalan called on the PKK to dissolve, a call that the organization heeded in May. However, the Turkish state has so far not responded by releasing any imprisoned Kurdish politicians; on the contrary, it has ignored the recent ruling of the European Court Human Rights to release Demirtaş. Nor has the Kurdish mayors who have been removed from their posts been reinstated. CHP leader Özel points out that Erdoğan’s “potential to deceive” is significant. Özel expressed the belief that the Kurds will ultimately “not forget what they have suffered at Erdoğan’s hands” and rally to him. Indeed, according to surveys, a vast majority of the DEM Party voters would not vote to reelect Erdoğan. Yet the calculations and motives of the Kurdish leadership are an entirely different matter.
IMPLICATIONS: The priority for the Kurdish leadership – of the DEM Party and of the PKK – is the release of Öcalan, the pardon and release of all other PKK militants in Turkish prisons and the return of the PKK leadership to Turkey where they would engage in “democratic politics.” The contours of the deal between the Turkish state and the PKK are not difficult to discern: in return for Öcalan’s freedom, the Kurdish leadership will cease to be part of the opposition – which it effectively already has -- and enable the reelection of Erdoğan. Meanwhile, the co-optation of the PKK would ensure Turkish influence in northern Syria which is controlled by the PKK’s affiliates YPG/PYD.
As the crackdown on the CHP has demonstrated – 17 CHP mayors, including the party’s presidential candidate Ekrem İmamoğlu, have been incarcerated this year – Erdoğan is intent on establishing a full-blown autocracy. Democrats in Turkey have long held that the solution of the Kurdish problem would usher in full democratization. Yet it is now clear that the Kurdish leadership is pinning its hopes on a revival of some version of the old feudal deal between the Turkish state and Kurdish tribal leaders. Under it, from the 1950s to the late 1970s, Kurdish tribal leaders were by and large left socially and economically in control of the country’s Kurdish region in return for delivering the votes of their tribes to the ruling conservative parties, the AKP’s predecessors. That was the reason the PKK began as a Marxist revolutionary movement in opposition both to Kurdish feudalism and the Turkish state. Today, ironically, Öcalan seeks to re-enact the erstwhile feudal power-sharing arrangement with the state. He has a partner in the nationalist leader Bahçeli, who Öcalan recognizes as “the voice of the state.”
In 2000 it took much persuasion by the democratic leftist Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit before Bahçeli, who then served as deputy prime minister, accepted a moratorium on the execution of Öcalan, who had been sentenced to death after he was captured in Nairobi, Kenya in February 1999 and extradited to Turkey. Today, Bahçeli goes out of his way to endow Öcalan with legitimacy. Bahçeli reverentially refers to Öcalan as the “founding leader,” in lieu of “baby slayer,” as he had until recently been called in Turkish public discourse. Bahçeli has also insisted that members of the parliamentary commission that has been set up to promote the reconciliation process visit Öcalan on his prison island İmralı. Bahçeli claimed that “visiting İmralı is not different than visiting Silivri,” the location of the prison where among others Istanbul’s mayor İmamoğlu is incarcerated, astoundingly equating the innocent political prisoners of the AKP-MHP regime with the convicted leader of a terrorist organization.
The visit to Öcalan finally took place on November 24, with parliamentarians from AKP, MHP and DEM Party, but not CHP, participating. The decision of the CHP not to participate in what amounted to an endeavor to bestow legitimacy on Öcalan, who is widely detested in Turkish society, drew the ire of the DEM Party and the PKK. The CHP argues that the elevation of Öcalan to the official representative of the Kurds jeopardizes the reconciliation process, rendering it difficult to secure public consent for steps that promote Turkish-Kurdish equality. Public support for the process has fallen from 80 percent in September to under 60 percent. DEM Party representatives have put the blame on Turkish nationalist media outlets. Pervin Buldan, a leading spokesperson of the party, reported that “Öcalan is unhappy with the media,” and called on the AKP government to take action against critics in the media, pointing out that the government enjoys discretionary power, as it controls the judiciary.
CONCLUSIONS: In a new party program, the CHP promises to promulgate the right to education in the mother tongue and to apply the European charter of local self-government. Both promises meet the demands of the Kurdish political movement. Yet Kurdish representatives slammed the CHP as the enemy of the Kurds. Tülay Hatimoğulları, co-chair of the DEM Party, accused the CHP of “reviving the codes of a century of denial and annihilation.” Murat Karayılan, a leading PKK representative, “warned” the CHP that “it will pay a price for its mistake.” Mustafa Karasu, another PKK representative, claimed that CHP has now showed that its earlier attempts to prove that the party is “the friend of the Kurds” were “insincere.”
CHP representatives recognize that their refusal to contribute to the elevation of Öcalan is bound to cost them crucial support among Kurdish voters and that the party needs to make a sustained effort to convince the Kurds of its sincerity. Yet the CHP faces a difficult task. It suffers under the crackdown of Erdoğan, is increasingly isolated and is stigmatized as the purported enemy of the Kurds by its erstwhile, “progressive” allies.
“Why should it be impossible for those who call for equality and fraternity to win a majority? Why can’t we come together and form a democratic bloc? Are we condemned to a fascist bloc?” the Kurdish leader Selahattin Demirtaş asked in November 2016, days before he was arrested. It’s the self-professed Kurdish democrats who owe the answer to those questions today.
AUTHOR'S BIO: Halil Karaveli is a Senior Fellow with the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program Joint Center and the Editor of the Turkey Analyst. He is the author of Why Turkey is Authoritarian: From Atatürk to Erdogan (Pluto Press)
Peace at Home, Security in Syria: Turkey’s Kurdish Dilemma
In order to ease the concerns of skeptics who fear that the domestic peace process with the Kurds could, over time, undermine Turkey’s territorial integrity and national unity, the Turkish government is compelled to demonstrate that it will not tolerate the presence of a heavily armed Kurdish group in Syria with broad autonomous powers. Turkey, though, has little room for maneuver. Attacking the Syrian Kurdish militia YPG would not only jeopardize its newly improved relations with Washington, but it would deal a fatal blow to Turkey’s domestic peace process. Ethnic reconciliation in Turkey and peace and stability in Syria are inseparable. 
BACKGROUND: On July 29, U.S. Ambassador to Ankara Thomas Barrack posted a message of appreciation for Mazloum Abdi, the Kurdish commander of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF): “Your leadership and the SDF’s perseverant efforts, alongside the Syrian government’s resolute commitment to inclusion under President Sharaa, are pivotal to a stable Syria of one army, one government, one state.” Barrack, who is also the Trump administration’s Syria envoy, has met Abdi several times and was present during talks between him and Damascus’ new rulers as he keeps a close eye on the dialogue between the SDF and the transitional government headed by Ahmet al-Sharaa.
For many years, Turkey refused to use the name SDF, claiming that the United States introduced the name to sugarcoat the People’s Protection Units (YPG) -- an offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers´ Party (PKK) -- that makes up the bulk of the SDF. The U.S. decision in 2014 to arm and support the YPG against the Islamic State (IS) was viewed as a hostile act by Ankara. Since 2015, YPG/PKK forces have been repeatedly targeted by Turkey, and Turkish cross-border incursions into Syria have at times risked pitting Turkish forces against the U.S. forces protecting the Kurdish militia.
However, the growing U.S. involvement in Syria after the fall of Bashar al-Assad has been welcomed by Ankara. Ankara has expressed appreciation for Barrack’s mediation efforts between Damascus and the YPG. “Barrack represents a new approach—one that understands the regional dynamics, strives for neutrality, and believes that American interests lie in winning hearts across the region. We appreciate this as well. It’s the genuine vision we’ve been waiting for years,” said Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan.
As a strong backer of Sharaa and his efforts to reunite Syria, Barrack has been on the same page as Ankara, which similarly advocates for a centralized Syrian state. But after a wave of mass killings in July in Sweida, a Druze-majority city, Barrack acknowledged that Syria might need to consider alternatives to a highly centralized state. “Not a federation but something short of that, in which you allow everybody to keep their own integrity, their own culture, their own language, and no threat of Islamism,” he told reporters.
As talks were being launched between Damascus and the YPG, the PKK’s imprisoned leader, Abdullah Öcalan, on February 25, called on the PKK to lay down its arms and dissolve itself. On March 10, President Sharaa and SDF chief Mazloum Abdi signed a landmark agreement to integrate “all civil and military institutions in northeast Syria under the administration of the Syrian state, including border crossings, the airport, and oil and gas fields,” according to a statement by the Syrian Presidency. On July 11, the PKK began to lay down its arms in a symbolic ceremony in northern Iraq, but the March 10 agreement in Syria remained unimplemented. That, in turn, jeopardizes the domestic peace process in Turkey, which is intimately linked to the developments in Syria.
IMPLICATIONS: Critics in the opposition in Turkey claim that the decision of the Turkish state last year to embark on a new peace process with the Kurds was motivated by domestic political concerns. The real purpose, they claim, is to secure the reelection of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Erdoğan is constitutionally barred from seeking reelection, unless snap elections are called by parliament, or the constitution is revised, for which he needs to mobilize the support of the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Equality and Democracy (DEM) Party in return for concessions on Kurdish rights. On July 6, the PKK’s imprisoned founding leader, Abdullah Öcalan, reportedly told a visiting delegation from the DEM Party that he will not stand in the way of the reelection of Erdoğan.
While securing the reelection of Erdoğan is undoubtedly an important driver of the peace process, the Turkish state also has geopolitical motives for seeking to secure the loyalty of the Kurds that it fears would otherwise be tempted to gravitate toward Israel, the new hegemonic power in the Middle East. Israel has been vocal in its support for Kurdish autonomy in Syria, and Israel’s foreign minister has stated that the Kurds are Israel’s “natural allies against Turkey and Iran.”
In contrast to Turkey’s policy of promoting Syria’s territorial and political unity, Israel favors a fragmented and weak Syria. Turkey suspects that Israel is encouraging unrest within the Druze community, and is also intent on strengthening Kurdish positions, leaving Damascus facing military challenges on multiple fronts. The Syrian minority groups remain distrustful of President Sharaa, who has struggled to control jihadist elements, which have been blamed for atrocities against Alawites and against members of the Druze community, who are supported by Israel.
On August 13, Turkish Foreign Minister Fidan issued a strong warning, urging the SDF to abandon hopes of cooperating with Israel against Damascus and to honor its agreement to integrate with the central government. "The YPG/SDF must stop its policy of playing for time," Fidan told a press conference with his Syrian counterpart al-Shibani in Ankara. "Just because we approach (the process) with good intentions does not mean we don't see your little ruses," Fidan said.
Turkey and Syria signed a memorandum of understanding on military training during the visit of al-Shibani. Turkey will help Syria with the provision of weapons systems and logistical tools, and will also train Syria’s army, according to the statement made by Turkish Defense Ministry officials. Meanwhile, Turkish pro-government outlets have raised the possibility of a military offensive by the Syrian army against the YPG.
There are strong suspicions both at the governmental and societal level in Turkey that—with strong U.S. military backing—the Kurds in Syria will continue to pursue separatist ambitions under the banner of the YPG. While Ankara is pressuring Damascus to resist YPG’s demands for a decentralized system, few in Turkey believe the YPG will abandon the gains it acquired.
On September 2, Pervin Buldan, a member of the delegation from the DEM Party that has been meeting with Abdullah Öcalan on the prison island İmralı south of Istanbul, informed that the founding leader of the PKK had emphasized that “Syria and Rojava is my red line,” making clear -- if anyone had believed otherwise -- that he will not call for the dissolution of the YPG or for the dismantlement of the autonomous structure that has been put in place by the Kurds in northeastern Syria.
“Turkey needs to side with the Kurdish people regarding Rojava and Syria. Turkey has nothing to gain from trying to deprive the Kurds of what they’ve gained, and the Kurds in Turkey will never accept this,” Buldan insisted.
However, in order to ease the concerns of skeptics who fear that the domestic peace process with the Kurds could, over time, undermine Turkey’s territorial integrity and national unity, the Turkish government is compelled to demonstrate that it will not tolerate the presence of a heavily armed Kurdish group in Syria with broad autonomous powers. Turkey, though, has little room for maneuver.
Launching military assaults against the YPG would not only jeopardize Ankara’s newly improved relations with Washington, but it would deal a fatal blow to its domestic peace process. Instead, Ankara might try to entice Sharaa to take military action against the YPG, but that would face U.S. resistance, and Sharaa cannot afford to alienate Washington, on whose political and economic support he critically depends.
CONCLUSION: Representatives of the pro-Kurdish DEM Party are calling for a paradigm shift; one that sees the YPG in Syria not from a security perspective but from a “confidence” perspective. They argue that the Turkish nation should rely on a strong secular force in Syria that has its ethnic kin in Turkey, rather than relying on an Arab Sunni force that harbors Islamist tendencies. They also point out that pursuing peace in Turkey while simultaneously threatening the Kurds in Syria -- as Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan is doing –– defies logic.
Meanwhile, President Erdoğan evokes the supposedly primordial Islamic alliance of Turks, Kurds, and Arabs. History teaches that Turks, Kurds, and Arabs prevail when they are united, and succumb when they are not, Erdoğan claimed. “The victory at Manzikert, the conquest of Jerusalem, the conquest of Istanbul, the defense of Gallipoli, and the War of Independence were all the common wars and victories of Turks, Arabs, Kurds, and of many other Muslim peoples,” he said in a recent speech.
Turkey has come to enjoy good relations with the Kurdistan Regional Government in northern Iraq after having resisted the establishment of a Kurdish administrative entity there. That may provide a blueprint for the future relationship between Turkey and Rojava.
Yet the Turkish public remains skeptical that the PKK – although officially dissolved is endowed with a territorial base in Rojava -- has abandoned its nationalist aspirations. The involvement of the United States and Israel in Syria and their backing of Kurdish aspirations validate longstanding Turkish nationalist fears that “Western imperialists” seek the establishment of an independent Kurdistan.
And after having insisted for the past ten years that the Kurdish autonomy in Rojava represents an existential threat to Turkey, the Turkish government must now convince a skeptical public that Turkey’s national security interests in fact call for an entente with the erstwhile enemy.
This is a watershed moment in both Turkey and Syria. The domestic peace process in Turkey and the concurrent attempts to secure peace and stability in Syria are inseparable.
Barçın Yinanç is a foreign policy commentator at the Turkish news site t24.
Turkey and the United States: A Relationship Restored?
By Barçın Yinanç
March 11, 2024
The diplomatic traffic between Ankara and Washington on handling Sweden’s NATO entry process is emblematic of the erosion of trust between the two allied countries. Nonetheless, Turkey’s ratification of Sweden’s NATO membership and the Biden administration’s subsequent acquiescence to the F-16 sale to Turkey – and the suggestion that Turkey might even be invited back to the F-35 program if it gets rid of its Russian S400 missiles – have restored the bilateral relationship, even though there is still a gap of mistrust between the two allies that will take time to bridge. The crisis in the Middle East compels the U.S and Turkey to cooperate closer but Ankara and Washington will still need to make a sustained effort to rebuild their mutual confidence that the missteps of both sides have eroded.
Closing Down Democracy – The Prosecution of the HDP
By Sarah Glynn
March 10, 2022
Despite the Turkish government’s current efforts to portray itself as a peacemaker who cannot countenance unprovoked aggression, its assault on the Kurds continues both within and beyond Turkey’s borders. Turkish democracy, always a sickly creature, is undergoing a judicial asphyxiation. Tens of thousands of opposition figures are in prison, including thousands of members of the third largest party in the Turkish Parliament, the pro-Kurdish, leftist Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP). Two ongoing court cases could see leading party members jailed for life, and the enforced closure of the party. These cases commit the state even further to violent suppression of Kurdish hopes rather than a political solution.
Is There Any Solution to Turkey’s Kurdish Problem?
By Halil Karaveli
September 29, 2021
While a solution to the Kurdish problem will likely continue to remain out of reach, Turkey has no alternative but to muddle through, alternating between cautious reform and clampdown. Turkey can only hope that regional developments, and in particular American policies in its neighborhood, will not contribute to bringing things to a calamitous head between Turks and Kurds. The recent decision of the United States to allocate $170 million to the Kurdish militia in Rojava will certainly not alter the perception in Ankara that it faces an American-Kurdish threat against which it must remain vigilant.
Visit also
