Political Analyst: Leader Ocalan isolation reflects complex political landscape in Turkey

Debate continues in Turkey over the future of the peace process and the possibility of reaching a political settlement to the Kurdish issue, amid the ongoing isolation imposed on leader Abdullah Ocalan and his detention in Imrali Prison, despite reportedly meeting the conditions for obtaining the “right to hope.” This has raised questions regarding the impact of his isolation on the chances of success for any potential negotiation process.

In this context, the Kurdish Freedom Movement announced in a statement published on May 5, marking the anniversary of the declaration to dissolve the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and end armed struggle, that the success of the “peace and democratic society” process requires enabling leader Abdullah Ocalan to carry out his role as a key interlocutor and chief negotiator. The statement added that achieving tangible progress in the process requires defining his legal status and providing him with free working conditions as a fundamental condition for any breakthrough.

For his part, Iraqi political analyst Asaad Al-Abadi said the imposed isolation “is not merely a purely legal matter, but rather the result of a complex overlap of political, security, and legal considerations inside and outside Turkey.”

Al-Abadi explained that the issue can be understood through several dimensions, the first being “the internal security and political dimension,” as the Turkish state believes that leader Abdullah Ocalan still holds significant symbolic influence over the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). Therefore, Ankara views any easing of the isolation or broader communication with him as potentially reviving his political or organizational influence, especially during periods of tension or negotiation.

He added that the second dimension relates to the sensitivity of the Kurdish issue within Turkish politics, noting that the Kurdish question in Turkey is not treated solely as a human rights issue, but is linked to state unity and national identity. Any move toward easing restrictions on Öcalan could therefore be interpreted domestically by some political forces as a “concession,” prompting successive governments to exercise extreme caution, especially during elections or periods of political polarization.

On the third dimension, Al-Abadi pointed to the collapse of the previous peace process between 2013 and 2015. He explained that although leader Abdullah Ocalan played a central role in de-escalation at the time, the failure of the process brought the security-oriented approach back to the forefront. Since then, isolation has been tightened as part of a broader strategy to contain the conflict, alongside declining trust between the parties.

As for the fourth dimension, Al-Abadi linked the issue to the legal framework and the concept of the “right to hope,” explaining that this concept is tied to rulings by the European Court of Human Rights, which called for a legal horizon to review life imprisonment sentences. He noted that the implementation of these principles within Turkey remains limited due to the lack of legal reforms in line with those standards, in addition to the authorities’ view that Ocalan’s case is “exceptional” and carries special security dimensions.

In the fifth dimension, Al-Abadi stressed that leader Ocalan’s case cannot be separated from regional and international calculations. He noted that his status is connected to broader balances in the Middle East, particularly regarding Syria, Iraq, and the role of Kurdish forces there, as any change in his situation could be interpreted regionally as a political signal with implications extending beyond Turkey’s internal affairs.

Al-Abadi also addressed what he described as a pressing question on why leader Abdullah Ocalan’s initiatives for dialogue have not resulted in easing his isolation, explaining that Turkish decision-makers assess matters according to a logic of “guarantees and outcomes.”

He added that political initiatives alone are insufficient without a clear and sustainable change on the ground, alongside accumulated doubts regarding the durability of any agreement in light of previous experiences.

Al-Abadi concluded by saying that the isolation “is not merely an individual punishment, but a tool within the management of a long-standing conflict,” while the issue of the “right to hope” remains a legal and humanitarian matter that collides with a highly complex political and security reality.

ANHA