|
PREFACE
The papers published in this small volume were presented at the First Utrecht Biannual Conference on Ethnicity and Ethnic Identity in the Middle East and Central Asia, which was held on the 7th of June 1990. With its focus on "Kurdistan in Search of Ethnic Identity", the conference brought together scholars familiar with different linguistic, historical and socio-political aspects of Kurdish ethnicity, in the hope of encouraging interdisciplinary discussion. Indeed, the relatively small number of participants in this first gathering made it possible to carry on an intimate and unusually stimulating discussion and exchange of views after the papers were read.
At the time of the conference’s organization, there was no indication that Kurdish affairs would soon take on such tragic dimensions and become the focus of international attention. In view of the magnitude of the Kurdish tragedy, it might seem futile to be bringing out this small volume whose contents are primarily concerned with historical, cultural and linguistic matters. It is worth remembering, however, that the high profile which the Kurdish cause has acquired in the world press, and for which, alas, it would seem nothing less than a major disaster was required, has been long overdue. We therefore feel it is an opportune moment and especially appropriate to give all possible support and encouragement to conferences and workshops like the one at which the present papers were read.
Irrespective of the geo-political strategic importance of Kurdistan, we wish to emphasize the extent to which Kurdish studies are worthy of serious academic attention. Linguistically, the Kurdish dialects have preserved a rich diversity and hold an important position within the Iranian language family. But above all, being geographically located at the crossroads of all the main Near Eastern cultures, the Kurdish people possess a unique cultural and historical richness.
The Conference was organized on the initiative of the Department of Oriental Studies of the University of Utrecht and was made possible financially by the Houtsma Foundation in conjunction with the Utrecht University Fund. We would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude for their generous support. In view of the enthousiastic response to our first Conference on Ethnicity and Ethnic Identity in the Middle East and Central Asia, we feel encouraged to proceed with our intended project of offering a setting within which scholars active in this field may exchange ideas and present their latest research.
An effort has been made to publish the present papers in a form which is as close as possible to the original text. However, some changes in phrasing have occasionally been introduced where the editors felt it was necessary, and we must assume full responsibility for any such "corrections".
In closing, we would like to offer our warmest thanks to John O’Kane for the assistance he has given us in preparing the final version of the text as it appears in this volume. We also wish to thank Dory Heilijgers for her patient work of preparing the typescripts.
April 1991
Turaj Atabaki
Margreet Dorleijn
The Kurdish Question in Turkish Political Life: The Situation as of 1990
Hamit Bozarslan
So much violence has surrounded the Kurdish question in Turkey that observers - including the Turkish and Kurdish political elites -have come to perceive it in terms of a simple dichotomy, of a conflict between the Kurds on the one hand, and the state and the Turkish political elite on the other. Too often it is only the nationalist dimension of the problem that observers take account of, neglecting other social realities. The Middle East is a complex mosaic of local communities, in which people are bound by various types of communal and ethnic loyalties. The ideal model of society as an association of free citizens that is implicit in nationalist discourse, ill fits this situation. Solidarity groups such as the tribes or religious orders continue to play an important role in political life - at least whenever this role is not subjected to the strong arm of one-party or military regimes.¹ Because of the violent response of the Turkish state to Kurdish demands, and the emergence of Kurdish radical movements opting for a military alternative, the quite significant role played by Kurdish traditional dignitaries in the Turkish political system has received little attention.
But the Kurds have not merely been victims of Turkey’s repressive policies. Many Kurdish personalities - although usually not identified as such - have nonetheless often been among the primary actors in the government’s policy making. This was already apparent at the very beginning of the new Turkey, in connection with the Treaty of Sevres.² Likewise, over the past four decades under the pluralist regime, Kurdish notables have helped determine the course of political life in Turkey. In spite of numerous conflicts of interest, Kurdish personalities have been deeply involved in the Turkish political system. It is this active participation to which most of the Turkish political parties owe their legitimacy in the Kurdish region, and which has allowed them to function there.³ When the armed forces brutally interrupted the pluralist process in 1960, 1971 and 1980, it was the entire political system as such, and not just its Kurdish components, which suffered from the repression.
The political groups and movements of Marxist inspiration that were active among the Kurds in the 1970’s, form in fact the only exception to the pattern just sketched. These radical groups that initially emerged in student circles and soon attracted marginalized and declasse elements, sought to "Kurdicize the working class" as a way of remedying the "decline of society". It is probably due to their Kemalist education that they conceived of the nation-state as the universal, that is, the only natural form of political existence. To Kemalist Turkey they opposed the idea of the Kurdish nation-state. In the municipal elections of 1977, these groups, that until then had been thought very marginal, showed for the first time that they could make a significant political impact in the urban environment. A surprising number of their candidates were elected, bypassing the traditional political machines. However, the traditional "masters of the political game" remained reluctant to put forward specifically Kurdish demands or, for that matter, even to identify themselves explicitly as Kurds.
"Kurdish Marxism" was not a freak incident or a temporary fad. A strong Marxist strain still persists in Turkey,⁴ even though many …
1 On this subject see the discussion of L. Valensi: "La Tour de Babel: Groupes et relations ethniques au Moyen-Orient et en Afrique du Nord", Annales, ESC, no. 4, 1986, pp. 817-838; for an important case study, see M. Seurat: "Le quartier de B5b TebbflnS 4 Tripoli (Liban): 6tude d'une asabiyya urbaine", in Mouvements communautaires et espaces urbains au Machreq, Beyroth, CERMOC, 1985, pp. 45-86.
2 At the time, most Kurdish notables rejected the Treaty of Sdvres (1920) which actually granted the Kurds the right to their own state. Likewise, at the Conference of Lausanne (1923) a large part of the Kurdish leaders supported the action of the Kemalist delegation.
3 Exceptions are parties such as the MHP (Nationalist Action Party) of Tilrke?, later known as the MQP (Nationalist Labor Party) and the MGP (National Confidence Party) of Feyzioglu.
4 It is sufficient to note that the Marxist party, the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan), exercises a considerable influence in Turkey. "The expelled members" of the Social Democratic Party (SHP), together with certain trade union Marxists, have founded the People’s Labor Party (HEP).
|
