Agos, 16 June 2006

The Support Coexistence campaign initiated by the Freedom and Solidarity Party (ÖDP) is an appropriate and well-conceived initiative.

At a time when deep-seated ruptures are being experienced on all sides, when factionalization and attempts to bring about greater polarization are on the rise, a stance that rejects taking sides with any one faction, and instead points to a third way, that of ‘supporting coexistence’, is truly the essence of democracy itself.

To support coexistence is, in fact, the one and only solution.

And it is what both our reason and our conscience demand.

It is what reason demands, because the alternative to coexistence, that of living parallel lives, has never been able to solve the problems of this world. On the contrary, it has caused nothing but destruction and clashes between peoples that live separately because of differences in interest — we can see examples everywhere from small communities to nation-states.

The separation of neighbourhoods and the drawing of borders between countries have made the living of parallel lives a commonplace form of existence in the last few centuries; however, throughout the process of human civilization this has been proven to be flawed, and today, rather than simply living in parallel, attempts are being made to live together, intermingled in a shared environment. When viewed even from this angle alone, the European Union project, which continues to be the most magnificent programme in support of coexistence, appears to be the most important project of peace in the world.

If we turn to examine our own position and look at our recent history, we can observe that supporting coexistence is not at all a new phenomenon for us; we were wrestling with this issue a hundred years ago.

With the restoration of the Constitutional Monarchy in 1908, those remaining within the borders of the Ottoman Empire, which had spent its final century continuously haemorrhaging both land and population, poured out into the streets. Turks, Greeks, Armenians and Jews celebrated hand-in-hand for days, drunk on songs of freedom, equality and justice.

However, coexistence was not a blessing to be bestowed from above, but a form of civilization that the people who lived together had to create for themselves.

And ultimately, it was because this was not achieved that only a few months after the restoration of the Constitutional Era and the euphoria of unity that ensued, the Ottoman Empire witnessed one of its most cruel massacres: The 31 March Incident, in which more than 30 thousand Armenians in the city of Adana were massacred by people living in nearby neighbourhoods.

There is only one solution to avoid falling into the despair of, “They tried but failed, so we will not succeed either.” And that is to try, try, and try again.

We should not forget that the heavenly utopia of coexistence has not yet been achieved anywhere in the world. There are enviable efforts, but more is needed.

Coexistence is not something that can be made to order. It requires serious labour and even a price to be paid. Without that labour or that price, true togetherness will never be achieved.

The weight of the price to be paid is directly proportional to the lessons to be learned from experiences where people have tried but not succeeded.

For us, the people of Turkey, this is our greatest trouble: We have not come to terms with our history.

And because we have not managed to come to terms with our history, we relive our experiences in almost the same manner and taste the same defeat over and over again.

For all sections of society to get behind the ÖDP’s call to support coexistence this call must go beyond being the initiative of a political party, and turn into the common demand of the whole society. The ÖDP is already prepared for this and, as always, is acting more as a civil society movement than a political party.

The only question is, how can the ÖDP reach all sections of society in the most widespread and comprehensive manner, and how can they be given a share in this responsibility?

It is necessary to work with the meticulousness and determination of missionaries, and to reach almost all sections of society.

On my own behalf, I wholeheartedly join the Support Coexistence movement initiated by the ÖDP. I am ready to do all that is within my power so that this campaign I believe in reaches all sections of society in Turkey.

All different groups living in this country must of course be addressed by this call; and to be specific, it should not be addressed only to the Kurds.

But with your permission, in next week’s column I would like to address my Kurdish brothers and sisters in particular, and leave other sections of society to those who are capable of getting a message across to them.

If you ask why, the reason is that a certain group of people from other sections of society — and that includes Turks and Armenians, by the way — seem conditioned to misinterpret my words, whatever I say.

I do hope the Kurds will correctly interpret what I say. And I believe they will.

After all, I understand them, and they understand me.