The lasting consolidation of resolution processes is closely linked not only to diplomatic talks and legal regulations, but also to how they are communicated to the public. The fact that the talks are conducted largely behind closed doors is increasing distrust by allowing the lack of information to be filled with backstage speculation, claims and differing interpretations. Although it is not necessary to disclose every detail of the negotiations, secrecy should not mean a lack of communication; regular, clear and confidence-building briefings should be provided. The latest debate over Alevism demonstrated this need. A statement signed by 53 people, including Alevi intellectuals, academics and well-known figures, directed criticism at the Kurdish movement and the resolution process; however, it does not represent the entire Alevi community. A large number of Alevi institutions and organizations support the process. Nor is it right to dismiss the concerns expressed in the statement because of the identities of its signatories. The historical and contemporary presence of Alevis in the Kurdish movement makes the claim that the movement is anti-Alevi debatable. DEM Party Co-Chair Tuncer Bakırhan emphasized the role and sacrifices of Alevis within the movement, saying that the issue of Alevism had been discussed during his meeting with Abdullah Öcalan; he argued that some circles were trying to sabotage the process by portraying the movement as anti-Alevi.
Why it matters
The central issue here is that the peace process should be conducted not only through contacts between political actors, but also through communication that takes into account the concerns of different segments of society. The limited availability of information can lead to different positions within the Alevi community being perceived as a single view and to the debate becoming more polarized along identity lines. For this reason, although the statement signed by 53 people does not represent all Alevis, it shows which concerns have become visible during the process. Bakırhan’s statements, meanwhile, highlight the historical dimension of the debate by pointing to the presence of Alevis within the Kurdish movement and indicating that the issue was addressed in the talks. The open question is how these differing views will be conveyed to the public in a regular and inclusive manner.