Description
The origins of the Kurdish Conflict in Turkey go back to the mid-19th century. The conflict has a deep and violent history consisting of cycle upon cycle of conflict. The most recent armed conflict between the PKK (Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan/Kurdistan Workers Party) and the Turkish Republic has been ongoing since the mid-1970s. Since then the political, human and economic cost of war have been staggering with a price tag over $300 million, an increasing death toll, and the sheer number of displaced people.
That is why, the peace process in Turkey (Dec 2012 - July 2015) was hailed as the long-waiting attempt to resolve the Kurdish Conflict that had become a Gordian knot. However, while it was considered as the best chance for lasting the conflict, the peace process failed, and the conflict has escalated again. This paper argues that without understanding the hegemonic discourse on the Kurdish Conflict, it is not possible to account for the reason as to why the conflict has remained unresolved and why there has been a resistance towards peace. This is because since its foundation, the Republic of Turkey has systematically backgrounded the political dimension of the conflict and actively prevented the public/political contestation by maintaining a hegemonic discourse: “There is no Kurdish Conflict”. This was also the case during the peace process. The outcome of the peace process remained limited in the extent to which it challenged the hegemonic discourse. And like previous resolution attempts, it suffered from an inability to re-articulate the hegemonic discourse on the meaning and the being of the conflict. This paper therefore argues that understanding the nature, form and dynamics of this de-politisation strategy can cast a different light upon the resistance towards the peace and the resolution/transformation of this intractable political conflict and account for the resistance towards its resolution.
Typically, the hegemonic discourse on the Kurdish Conflict is structured around two discursive strategies. The first concerned strict regulation and control of the public discourse on the conflict, and the second concerned keeping the political dimension of the conflict at bay with the articulation of “There is no Kurdish Conflict” discourse. Taking the hegemonic discourse on being and meaning of the Kurdish Conflict as its research object, this paper raises the following questions: How does non-recognition of the political character of the Kurdish Conflict work? What does "There is no Kurdish Conflict" discourse exactly consist of? and How does this discourse become possible? Drawing on post-foundational theory of discourse and subjectivity, the paper aims to make visible the logics behind the hegemonic discourse on meaning and being of the Kurdish Conflict.
