Ontological insecurity in asymmetric conflicts: Reflections on agonistic peace in Turkey’s Kurdish issue

Abstract

This article contributes to the recent literature on ontological security in conflict studies by empirically investigating, through a case study of Turkey’s Kurdish issue, how ontological asymmetry complicates peace processes. Over time, all conflicts become embroiled in a set of self-conceptions and narratives vis-à-vis the Other, the maintenance of which becomes critical for ontological security. In ethnic conflicts, however, these conceptions and narratives also intersect with a fundamental ontological asymmetry, because such conflicts often pit state parties with secure existence against ethnic groups with contested status and illegitimate standing. We argue that peace processes are easier to initiate but harder to conclude in ontologically asymmetric conflicts. Accordingly, we find that during the 2009–2015 peace process in Turkey, ontological (in)security-induced dynamics presented themselves in cyclical patterns of ambitious peace initiatives receiving greater support among the Kurdish public but giving way, at the first sign of crisis, to a rapid and dramatic return to violence, which neither side acted to stem. Moreover, we underscore that ontologically asymmetric conflicts, such as Turkey’s Kurdish issue, are often characterized by a societal security dilemma, where the conditions of ontological security for one party undermine those of the other. Therefore, building consensus around a new shared peace narrative may not be possible or desirable, and a lasting solution to Turkey’s Kurdish issue depends on the development of an agonistic peace around coexisting, multiple and contestatory narratives.

Civil War and Democratization: A Micro‐Level Analysis

“…During the 2000s, the Kurdish political parties became important players focusing on the need for recognition of and respect for Kurdish identity (Al, 2014), calling for universal equality under a new constitution in Turkey (Rumelili and Çelik, 2017). Especially during the June 2015 national elections, the HDP claimed to be “a party of Turkey,” and became an “indispensable actor for the peaceful resolution of the Kurdish issue” (Grigoriadis, 2016:39).…”

Agonistic security: Transcending (de/re)constructive divides in critical security studies

“…Security is about the prevention of events yet-to-happen; hence future is-or rather possible futures are-the object of security practice. Preventing means acting here-andnow on a threat, which is then "the future cause of a change in the present" (Massumi,5 Exceptions are the mobilization of Mouffe's agonism in conflict resolution studies (for an overview, see Rumelili and Çelik, 2017) or in alghoritmhic regulation and artificial legal intelligence (Hildebrandt, 2018). 6 See, in particular, the two issues that have celebrated 50 years of Security Dialogue (volume 50, issues 1 and 4 supplement).…”

Anatolian Security and Neo‐Ottomanism: Turkey's Intervention in Syria

“…23 At the same time, the gradual modernization and opening up of Anatolia through local development -such as the Southeastern Anatolia Project 24 -involving the building of highways, airports and infrastructure in general, have led to changes in opportunities for locals. Moreover, the contradictions and polarization plaguing contemporary Turkish society, involving the complex Kurdish issue, 25 an ascendant anti-secularist revisionism, a tendency toward autocracy, as well as modernization, will certainly complicate the future of neo-Ottomanism. As it stands, economic development and the adroit exploitation of internal crises and external operations have mostly translated into sufficient political support for Erdoğan's AKP.…”