Turkey’s EU Path and the Peace Process

Turkiye (Brussels Morning) Turkiye’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has again renewed overtures toward the Kurdish political movement, a development that, at first glance, could signal a constructive shift after years of securitized stalemate. Turkish politics has long fluctuated between militarized containment and tentative engagement with Kurdish actors, yet every “opening” has historically collapsed the moment it threatened political authority.

The recent gestures deserve attention but also careful scrutiny, because Turkiye’s current trajectory suggests something tactical rather than transformative. At a moment when basic democratic checks and balances are absent, credibility becomes the central question.

For many, the possibility of dialogue evokes a long-awaited promise: acknowledgment of identity, cultural rights, and a political solution that moves beyond securitization. Yet optimism feels muted. The AKP speaks of reconciliation with one hand while waging a relentless institutional campaign against democratic opposition movements with the other.

The same political system preparing symbolic gestures toward Kurdish politics is simultaneously criminalizing dissent and imprisoning elected mayors, including Istanbul’s. A total of 15 opposition mayors remain in jail. Pre-trial detentions are enforced in ways that deepen the impression that political prisoners are now produced through a system increasingly resembling a kangaroo-court logic. Dialogue under such conditions begins to appear less like a peace process and more like asymmetric bargaining.

Turkiye’s democratic environment has deteriorated dramatically, with mass prosecutions, political detentions, and extensive judicial manipulation. Elected opposition figures have faced pre-trial detention on dubious charges. The imprisonment of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu has become the defining example: a fabricated legal case engineered to neutralize the president’s most significant challenger and deter competitive pluralism. Ankara cannot credibly speak of reconciliation with one community while simultaneously dismantling the democratic rights of another.

The continued imprisonment of Kurdish political leader Selahattin Demirtas, despite binding ECHR rulings and the determined imprisonment of the currently elected MP Can Atalay despite a binding Supreme Court ruling illustrate that democracy in Turkey is increasingly treated like a menu, where some rules are followed while others are ignored.

A genuine peace process demands institutional legitimacy, judicial independence, and equal citizenship before the law. Without these democratic safeguards, no peace effort can be sustainable. Yet Turkiye’s judiciary has become a political instrument, operating through selective enforcement and partisan double standards. Court decisions targeting opposition leaders are executed immediately, while rulings unfavorable to the ruling party are ignored or circumvented.

The European Courts of Human Rights (ECHR), whose rulings Turkey is legally obligated to implement, has repeatedly ordered the release of political detainees, yet Ankara continues to cherry-pick compliance. A state that refuses to implement its own constitution cannot credibly promise constitutional recognition to all citizens.

Moreover, Turkiye’s expanding use of pre-trial detention has transformed legally innocent individuals into political hostages. Detainees suffering from serious health conditions (cancer, severe diabetes and life-threatening conditions) have been denied house arrest on the basis of “flight risk”, a pretext rarely applied to ruling party allies. Pre-trial imprisonment now functions as a whip of punishment itself, long before any verdict is reached. The message is clear: opposition politics remains permissible only when it does not threaten power.

This contradictory environment raises a deeper question: why embark on reconciliation while simultaneously weakening every democratic safeguard needed for reconciliation to succeed? The simplest answer is also the most uncomfortable: electoral mathematics. Kurdish voters played a decisive role in 2024 local elections for the opposition and hold strategic influence in major cities.

A tactical alliance, however temporary, could reshape parliamentary arithmetic and determine the next presidential race. The risk is that instead of addressing historical memories, cultural rights, and equal citizenship, the peace process becomes a tool of short-term leverage motivated primarily by political gain.

For Europe and the broader transatlantic community, this moment requires careful differentiation between authentic reform and performative normalization. Ankara has learned how to speak the language of democratic restoration without executing democratic change. Without judicial independence, rule of law, and credible political freedoms, reconciliation risks becoming a form of political theater rather than a path to durable peace.

Europe must also confront its contradictions