The Role of the Turkish State in Conflict Resolution

Executive Summary

This paper aims to observe the role of the Turkish state in conflict resolution (CR). The validity of conflict resolution depends on implementing immediate or time-sensitive measures toward a temporary or lasting solution. The state’s conflict resolution roles emanate from the state’s capabilities, usage of power, and strategic environment. This paper addresses the following questions to make sense of the role of state in conflict resolution in Turkey: What is the role of state in conflict resolution? What defines this role? In what ways do the state’s conflict resolution roles differ in domestic and foreign policy? What are the repercussions of these roles? It concludes that the need for change in the state’s CR role is essential and in many ways paramount to the provision of basic public goods such as security and stability. The current approach harms Turkish interests and deprives Turkey of its ability to solve deep-rooted socio-political problems. It would be wise for policy makers to work toward the consolidation of democracy and rule of law in order to set the stage for a more constructive and results-oriented, state-led CR effort in Turkey.

Conclusion

The Turkish state’s binary CR approach of maintaining negative peace has fallen short of resolving complex political and social conflicts in Turkey. This paper made a preliminary attempt to depict the state’s approach and exemplified general and specific conflicts to demonstrate the state’s ingrained preference for either co-optation or coercion. This paper puts forth that this traditional approach, which considers state and society as exclusive interlocutors and builds on the belief that “state interests trump all others,” has failed to comprehend that modern and post-modern conflicts are played and resolved before a wider audience of multiple domestic actors and international community with different stakes and priorities. With multiple actors involved the vectors of the conflict are not unidirectional, and even settlements entail multidimensional formulas. As a result, the need for change in the state’s CR role is paramount and in many ways essential for the Turkish polity to perpetuate its ability to provide basic public goods such as security and stability. The currently held approach harms Turkish interests and deprives Turkey of the ability to solve its deep-rooted social problems. An alternative approach could, first, change the framing of conflicts away from the “us vs. them” dichotomy; second, engage multiple actors interested in the conflict; third, seek out professional assistance from academia and experts; and last but not least, begin the process of developing institutional capacity in CR. To that end, it would be a wise approach for policy makers to work toward the consolidation of democracy and rule of law in order to set the stage for a more comprehensive, politically and culturally oriented approach to state-led CR efforts in Turkey.