Research finds distrust among Kurds, state unity concerns among Turks over peace report

A new study has found that social media reactions to a draft report by a parliamentary commission tasked with advancing peace efforts with the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) reveal deep polarization, with distrust dominating Kurdish responses and concerns about state unity shaping discourse among Turks.

The qualitative analysis by the Socio-Political Field Research Center (SAMER), which examined tweets shared between February 11 and 24 — before and after the National Solidarity, Brotherhood and Democracy Commission finalized its draft peace report — suggests that public reactions were influenced not only by the text itself but also by long-standing grievances, expectations of justice and collective memory tied to previous failed peace efforts.

The parliamentary commission, formed after jailed PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan’s February 2025 call urging the group to lay down arms and dissolve, recently finalized a draft outlining legal reforms linked to the new peace initiative.

The PKK announced its dissolution in May 2025, ending a four-decade armed insurgency that has claimed more than 40,000 lives since 1984.

According to SAMER, distrust was the dominant tone online even before the report was released. Many users said past experiences had created a credibility problem for the state, with some describing the new initiative as a “delaying strategy” rather than a genuine effort to resolve the conflict.

The study identified three main themes in posts shared before the draft became public: skepticism about the legitimacy of the process, concerns over Kurdish identity and status and demands for justice and equality.

Under the first theme, phrases such as “the same scenario again” and “there is no real process” reflected what researchers described as collective caution rooted in earlier failed negotiations.

A similar peace effort collapsed in 2015, paving the way more violence.

On identity, some Kurdish users expressed concern that the initiative risked assimilation rather than meaningful recognition of Kurdish political and cultural rights.

Peace was also described in concrete legal terms. Posts frequently called for a general amnesty, recognition of the “right to hope” and the release of political figures such as former Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP) co-chair Selahattin Demirtaş.

The “right to hope,” derived from European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence, holds that prisoners serving life sentences must have a realistic prospect of release after a sufficiently long period.

In the current context the principle is often associated with Öcalan, who has been imprisoned on İmralı Island since 1999 serving an aggravated life sentence for leading an armed insurgency.

Under Turkish law those sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment for crimes against the state are not eligible for conditional release.

Although the parliamentary draft does not explicitly refer to the “right to hope,” it cites ECtHR and Constitutional Court case law on sentence enforcement. Legal observers say the language appears to reference the principle indirectly.

After the draft was made public, Kurdish reactions focused on what SAMER described as unmet expectations. Many users criticized the continued use of “terrorism” terminology and argued that repeated references to the “unitary state” failed to offer concrete rights guarantees.

The study also found that some Kurdish users questioned the representational capacity of lawmakers from the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Equality and Democracy Party (DEM Party), suggesting a perceived gap between parliamentary negotiations and grassroots expectations.

By contrast, nationalist-leaning posts focused less on the technical content of the report and more on state integrity. Concerns about the unity of the state were central, with some users portraying the initiative as a concession or retreat, even though the draft does not include demands for autonomy or a separate Kurdish state.

Another recurring argument in nationalist discourse was that equal rights already exist under current law, describing the report as an unnecessary political agenda rather than a required reform effort.

In its conclusion SAMER said the draft does not close the door to peace but highlights the conditions under which different segments of society define it.

For Kurdish respondents, peace appears to require tangible guarantees of equality, justice and inclusion. For nationalist respondents, the overriding concern remains the preservation of state unity and territorial integrity.

Rather than resolving the debate, the report appears to have opened a new phase of public discussion in which distrust, legal expectations and questions of political representation have become more visible.