The people of Turkey are facing an historic turning point, one that demands the simultaneous pursuit of two inseparable goals: peace and democracy. At this critical juncture, two seemingly unrelated developments occurred: the PKK, following Abdullah Öcalan’s call, announced its self-dissolution during its 12th Congress, and on March 19, 2025, the authoritarian regime launched a judicial operation to politically eliminate Istanbul’s elected mayor, Ekrem İmamoğlu—a move widely seen as a “civilian coup.” While these events may appear distinct, they point to a shared imperative: the unification of peace and democracy within a common struggle that will determine the future of Turkey.

The ruling power’s strategy is clear: it will not hesitate to erect formidable obstacles to peace by intensifying repression of democratic opposition. In this context, the longstanding debate acquires new urgency: does peace lead to democracy, or must democracy pave the way for peace? The answer carries profound implications for any meaningful transition.

This article examines the conditions under which a peace process might unfold amid Turkey’s increasingly authoritarian landscape. It identifies the obstacles and risks involved and proposes a comprehensive strategy rooted in the mutually reinforcing relationship between democratization and peace-making.

The Dialectic of Peace and Democratic Change

In conflict-affected societies, peace involves far more than the silencing of weapons. It requires the legitimization of political demands, the protection of freedom of expression, adherence to the rule of law, and expanded democratic participation. Peace, in this fuller sense, can trigger and sustain democratization. Yet authoritarian regimes typically suppress these dynamics, reducing peace to a matter of national security while resisting structural change.

The Risks of Peace Under Authoritarian Rule

Pursuing peace within an authoritarian framework presents deep contradictions:

• Lack of transparency: Decisions are made by a narrow power elite, shutting out the broader public.
• Exclusion of civil society: Opposition groups and civic actors are sidelined; participatory mechanisms are suspended.
• Instrumentalization of the process: Peace is used as a political tool to reinforce the regime’s legitimacy rather than to resolve the underlying conflict.
• Rhetorical peace without reform: The state promotes “peace” discourse without implementing any meaningful democratic reforms.

These dynamics may yield a short-term ceasefire, but they obstruct the path toward lasting, transformative peace.

Comparative Lessons

Historical examples illustrate the critical link between democratization and durable peace:

• South Africa achieved peace through a parallel process of democratic transformation, ensuring inclusivity and justice.
• Colombia’s peace deal with the FARC lacked adequate democratic safeguards and remains fragile and contested.
• Spain saw no real progress on the Basque question under the Franco regime; only with democratic transition did meaningful negotiations become possible.

These cases show that authoritarianism and peace are fundamentally incompatible in the long term.

Turkey in 2025: Authoritarianism Consolidated

As of 2025, Turkey is attempting to initiate peace efforts under profoundly undemocratic conditions: judicial independence has collapsed, the media is heavily censored, the opposition is persecuted, and the regime was further centralized by the March 19 civilian coup. In such an environment, no peace process can gain traction or legitimacy unless it is anchored in democratic guarantees.

Even if negotiations were to begin, a sustainable and just peace will remain out of reach without constitutional protections, legal reforms, and open political participation.

Where Hope Lies

Despite these challenges, there are still grounds for cautious optimism. Three promising developments stand out:

1. Persistent public support for peace: A substantial portion of Turkish society continues to demand a peaceful resolution to the Kurdish question and other social conflicts.
2. Growing recognition of Kurdish rights: Increasing segments of the population now view the Kurdish issue as one of constitutional citizenship and equal rights—not merely a security concern.
3. Potential for a democratic alliance: A coalition grounded in dialogue and shared democratic values could emerge among civil society organizations, opposition parties, and the Kurdish political movement.

These dynamics, though fragile, may provide the foundation for a democratic breakthrough—pushing back the boundaries of authoritarianism.

Toward a Double Strategy

In authoritarian regimes, peace can only take root if pursued in tandem with democratization. Any serious peace process must be:

• Socialized, engaging the public at every level; Transparent, with full inclusion of opposition and civil society; Legally guaranteed, through constitutional and institutional safeguards.

This leads us to the necessary conclusion: peace and democracy must be pursued together through a double strategy—a concurrent struggle to end armed conflict and to construct a democratic constitutional order.

The principle of “democracy for peace, peace for democracy” offers a vital compass for those seeking a just and lasting resolution in Turkey. It is not merely a slogan, but a strategic imperative in the pursuit of genuine change.