In recent days, some circles have frequently raised the claim that there is a contradiction, even a conflict and rivalry between Öcalan and Demirtaş. It is clear that it is not a coincidence that claims such as ‘Öcalan wants to liquidate Demirtaş, sees him as a rival, keeps him out of the equation by trying to break his political influence, even threatens him, scolds him, and makes an agreement with the government to prevent his release’, which have no relation with concrete reality, are intensively kept on the agenda. It would not be wrong to say that such allegations are directed from a certain center.
Is Demirtaş an alternative leader to Öcalan?
Perhaps the most embodied reflection of the subconscious is the perception that ‘Demirtaş is brought to the forefront against Öcalan’. The tendency of the Kurdish movement to take a reactionary stance due to Öcalan's sensitivity has always been on the agenda. This sensitivity is being provoked.
Is Demirtaş a leader? Yes, he is. Demirtaş is a leader in the field of legal politics in Turkey, a leader who makes politics within the system. He is recognized as a leader who has a certain sphere of influence and produces politics. Almost everyone knows and accepts that this is very natural given his position.
Öcalan, on the contrary, is seen as a strategic leader who has acted with the perspective of armed struggle for many years, who has created an ideological-political-organizational structure, and whose ideological evolution has led to significant changes in his basic theoretical theses. His sphere of influence covers the entire Kurdish geography outside Turkey. We can see this influence concretely in Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. For this reason, confusing the role Öcalan has played or will play with the role Demirtaş plays within the system, and pitting them against each other, is essentially a failure to understand Öcalan's role in particular. Öcalan was kept in isolation for many years. He was isolated even from his family, let alone the political and social sphere. The main reason for this is Öcalan's influence on the Kurds in the Middle East. In the new solution process, Öcalan's role was once again seen very clearly. Öcalan's sphere of influence and his absolute role was recognized by both the state and global powers. The international repercussions of the PKK's decision to lay down arms and dissolve itself upon Öcalan's suggestion and the statements made give an idea of Öcalan's sphere of influence.
Demirtaş knows where to position himself
Demirtaş knows very well that he will not play or assume a role in strategic issues such as the silence of the guns, the call for a ceasefire, the strategic cessation of the armed struggle, the dissolution of the PKK and the creation of a new political paradigm. He is aware that no one but Öcalan can take the initiative in such strategic changes.
Demirtaş has no ambition to strategize and mobilize the future of Kurds in the Middle East. For example, Demirtaş cannot give instructions to an organization like PJAK in Iran on what to do. Only Öcalan can do that. As the leader of legal politics, Demirtaş knows where and how to position himself in his public statements.
Demirtaş's being a part of the Dem Party's ongoing process or being one of the interlocutors in the solution of the Kurdish question within democratic politics, that is, in parliament, will not diminish the role of strategic actors such as Öcalan, on the contrary, it will increase his mission and role much more. Demirtaş taking an active role in the solution process does not diminish Öcalan's role, on the contrary, it strengthens Öcalan much more.
Today, the solution of the Kurdish question within democratic politics in parliament has moved to the domestic political sphere of the system. The process initiated by Öcalan on February 27, 2025, with the call of MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli, has begun to change the political equation of Turkey significantly. Demirtaş's support and even responsibility in the ‘new’ process led by Öcalan would make a significant contribution to the solution process. On February 27, 2025, Demirtaş, one of the political leaders of legal politics, has been supporting the ongoing process in every way.
The situation that emerges here is that when Öcalan's role and Demirtaş's role are confused in a very wrong way, such a crisis emerges. Moreover, someone very consciously insists on creating an artificial crisis like the ’Öcalan-Demirtaş contradiction'. Demirtaş has no claim to assume a role in Öcalan's place, nor does such a situation cross his mind. Anyone who reads, evaluates and interprets Demirtaş's statements knows that Demirtaş in no way puts himself in Öcalan's place.
Since February 27, 2025, the allegations that Demirtaş is positioning himself against Öcalan in the ongoing ‘new’ process, that he opposes Öcalan's role in the process, are based on a completely conscious manipulation that has nothing to do with reality, are essentially moves to expend Demirtaş. If the state were to make a proposal such as ‘we will meet with Demirtaş and release you immediately, but instead of Öcalan, you should be the chief negotiator and lead the process’, Demirtaş would reject this proposal without hesitation. Anyone who knows Demirtaş's point of view would make such an assessment.
Öcalan allegedly belittled or insulted Demirtaş
Those active on social media such as Ruşen Çakır, Levent Gültekin, Halk TV, Sözcü Group, Cumhuriyet Newspaper, and some of the ruling media frequently state that Öcalan wants to liquidate Demirtaş and even takes steps to do so. What is wanted to be created here is: ‘Reasonable Demirtaş, Unacceptable Öcalan.’ Thus, ‘Öcalan should be put in the background and Demirtaş should be brought to the forefront as an actor.’
These circles continue to push the imagination too far and continue to make claims that have nothing to do with reality, such as “Öcalan silenced Demirtaş”. Can these circles, who project what they want to happen as if it happened, provide any concrete evidence? No, they cannot. They want to create distrust, especially in the Kurdish community, by projecting their guesses as if they were true.
Öcalan says in an interview note: “I will solve this problem. I have the power to do so. If you want to solve it with Barzani, you can try. Can Selahattin solve it? How much can he do.” Is there any condescension here? There is not. There is a determination. And he makes this determination on the real situation according to him.
Taking different parts of some of Öcalan's evaluations, putting them side by side, distorting them in a way and presenting them as fact does not deepen the Öcalan-Demirtaş contradiction. For example, an interview note dated March 2026 was served to the public. This interview note reads as follows: “Either he will contribute to the process or he will shut his mouth. If he doesn't, I will. Doesn't Demirtaş know that I am the chief negotiator? So what happened? The original interview notes were published. It was seen that there was no such evaluation at all. The question is; why does someone insistently want to develop the perception that Öcalan is against Demirtaş and wants to liquidate him?
It is known that Öcalan wants Demirtaş to take office if he is released.
After the process that started on February 27, 2025, Öcalan's words about Demirtaş were reflected to the public. For example, while making evaluations on the 2015 solution process; ’Selahattin's approach of “we will not make you president‘ was wrong. However, the failure of the solution process has nothing to do with this. It would not be right to blame Selahattin for this or to put the responsibility on him.’ In another interview note, he believes that Demirtaş will be released and asks the delegation: ’Can Selahattin and Figen legally take office when they are released?” The delegation states that ‘there will be no legal obstacle’. Öcalan then says: ‘Send my greetings to Selahattin, let them continue where they left off’. But how can Öcalan, who says this, ‘try to neutralize or humiliate Demirtaş?.
It is worth asking these circles. Could Demirtaş, who actively supports the new solution process, have conveyed his views and suggestions to Öcalan in writing or orally? It is very likely that he has done so. Is there a possibility that the İmralı delegation established a relationship between Öcalan and Demirtaş? It would be strange not to. Let's say Demirtaş is released. Would one of the first things he would do be to request a visit to İmralı? I think he would send the request for a meeting immediately.
What those who are trying to replace Öcalan with Demirtaş fail to realize is that Öcalan's leadership mission and Demirtaş's leadership mission are different. The role they both play and the political and social impact they will create are different. But at the same time they complement each other. Those who fail to understand the role Demirtaş will play as an actor in legal politics and the role Öcalan, who can have a regional impact, will play are harming Demirtaş with their statements.
Legal and political efforts continue, such as the discussion of the Kobani case and the release of Demirtaş. The fact that Demirtaş has not been released shows that the state is not yet convinced about the solution to the Kurdish question. The fact that actors such as Demirtaş, Figen Yüksekdağ and Selçuk Mızraklı have not yet been released, and that Ahmet Türk and Ahmet Özer have not been reinstated as mayors of the municipalities that were usurped by force, in other words, the trustee decision is persistently maintained, shows that there is not yet the expected will in the solution strategy of the state in the solution process. Therefore, putting forward baseless claims such as ‘Öcalan is preventing the release of Demirtaş’ is essentially an effort to conceal the state's role in the solution of the Kurdish question.
Therefore, it is an activity of the psychological warfare center to try to create the perception that Demirtaş is reasonable and acceptable, and Öcalan is unacceptable and demonized. The purpose of such statements and evaluations: To attack Öcalan through Demirtaş and to weaken Öcalan's role. Conversely, it is to neutralize the role that Demirtaş can also play. Moreover, Demirtaş is a political leader who is smart and foresighted enough to know that such attempts are a ’trap‘.
Dr. Mustafa Peköz