Are Kurds worthy of ditch politics?

The Kurdistan Workers' Party's (PKK's) claims that it is defending the rights of Kurds, struggling for their identity and fighting to liberalize them, signifies to Kurds nothing more than ditches dug in front of their houses. The Peoples' Democratic Party (HDP), which has found a base to actualize all the pledges it has made to the Kurdish people, is wasting this opportunityfor independence by singing praises to ditches dug by PKK youth.

HDP deputies have gone beyond just praising and tend to appear behind a ditch every time the Turkish Armed Forces appear to take precautions. HDP deputies are on a roster to watch over these ditches. Their duties appear to be by these ditches, rather than in Parliament.

The HDP continues to praise the PKK, with its “ditch politics” for theurban wars it has created, which have made life unbearable for ordinary Kurdish citizens. However, these ditches are obstacles standing in the wayof politics.

Turkey has probably endured the HDP's impertinence and relations with the PKK up until now thinking that they might fill the ditches and persuade them to disarm. The HDP's institutional entity and representation in Parliament should have been enough to persuade the PKK to disarm. However, the exact opposite is happening every passing day. The HDP is doing nothing more than representing the PKK and its war activities in Parliament. The HDP is nothing more than an opportunity to propagate for the PKK – the real boss.

The HDP does not seem to have a problem with this role prescribed for it by the PKK. In a democracy, a parliamentarian is expected to stand against arms and violence. Yet, instead of stopping the digging of ditches, HDP parliamentarians are going to quieter cities to initiate ditch-digging activities. They are not abstaining from declaring these quieter cities as traitors.

Despite all the mutual efforts of the PKK and HDP, ditches are not as widespread in the region as they wish. The Kurdish people clearly see that this attitude adopted by the HDP and PKK is not politics, thus they have left them alone in this sense.

It is not possible for the HDP or the PKK to convince anyone that their “ditch politics” is for the benefit of Kurdish society. The attitude the HDP/PKK has adopted against the government's approach in the last 10 years is causing them to grow further away from Kurdish politics. However, this is causing their ill temper to further increase. The “ditch politics” is the PKK's effort to hold on to the ground that they are losing.

The more they are disenchanted with Kurdish society, the more they go into the psychopathic attitude of, “If I can't have you, no one can.” The ditches have already caused 200,000 people toleave the region. The HDP however, is not feeling any despair about this migration, and instead is seeing this as a gain.

Besides, as the government makes a distinction between terrorists and the public while dealing with these ditches, the PKK's fury increases. The PKK's attempts to accuse the government of murders of people they themselves kill is enraging. Yet, this presents plausibility that is inversely proportional with the degree of this performance, because it is the Kurdish people that experience, feel and pay the price for ditch politics.

The Kurdish people now clearly see that the HDP's demand for “self-government” and “democratic autonomy” is turning into a “mafia organization.” They clearly see that “self-rule” means to dig ditches at their doorsteps and make the city unlivable. Therefore, those who have the opportunity escape.

Kurds are actively seeing that there is no democracy in “democratic autonomy.” They realize that they are not the ones that are autonomous, but the armed organization. The PKK was demanding democratic autonomy and self-rule from the government. This is what this literally meant: Leave the Kurdish people to us and we will govern them. This was not a request for a right, but a concession. This was a request for fief, through Kurdish society, from the state. And they actually believed that they could attain this concession through the language of terrorism by harassing the state and society.

How was the PKK going to receive the consent of Kurds, when requesting to govern the Kurds, from the state? Orhan Miroğlu's detection sufficiently explains this: “The PKK is not concerned with convincing Kurds. The PKK has a slave-servant relationship with Kurds. The PKK thinks and performs. The Kurdish people have to support them and sacrifice their daughters and sons.It has continued like this for years. The ditch wars have already forced 200,000 people to migrate. This is a problem for the state, but is exactly what the PKK wants! Those who go are more than welcome, but those who stay should obey! Those who stay have no option but to obey.”