From Terrorist to Repentant: Who Is the Victim?

Abstract

This paper attempts to understand “truth making” conditions of terrorism in Turkey. Focusing on the effects of the Reinstatement into Society law—which is designed for members of illegal armed organizations who might turn into state witnesses—the article analyses the discourses and imagination surrounding the subject of “repentant” and in so doing demonstrates the dialectical relationship between the state discourses and the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) counter‐discourses of terrorism. The article argues that both the state and the PKK affirm their sovereignty through their authority over constructing the category of victimhood and hence defining the terms of the conflict.

Keywords:

• Terrorism
• Truth
• State
• Perpetrator
• Turkey

Acknowledgements

This paper was first drafted as a chapter of my PhD dissertation “Attached Citizens: Subjectivity and Violence in Southeastern Turkey” and presented at the EASA conference in 2004, and later at the Politics of Victimhood Workshop in 2005, at the University of Cambridge. The earlier versions have significantly benefited from the comments of those participants, especially Hadas Yaron and Marta Magandales. I want to thank all of them. Some of the theoretical ideas in the earlier drafts would not be formulated without the advice and suggestions of Yael Navaro‐Yashin, critical comments of Jane Cowan and Caroline Humphrey, and the encouragement and editorial help of Jane Tiene. I am indebted to all. Finally I want to thank the late Begonia Aretxaga for being the source of inspiration for first thinking hard about the effects of “confessions” in writing about “terrorism”.

Notes

[1] For the full text of the law, see http://www.egm.gov.tr/temuh/toplum1.html.

[2] The leaders and previous beneficiaries of a similar previous law were exempt from benefiting from this law.

[3] Since 1985, the “Law of Repentance” had been enacted six times for the members of the terrorist organizations.

[4] In April 2002, the group changed its name to the Kurdish Freedom and Democracy Congress (KADEK), though the organization is still commonly referred to as PKK.

[5] For a psychoanalytical based critique of Foucault’s theory of power and subjection, see Butler (1998), especially chapter 3. For a discussion of Butler’s critique and further elaboration on theory of subjection, see Zizek (1999), especially chapter 5. For excellent ethnographic examples analyzing the psychic and political effects of subjection on power in the context of political violence and terror see Arextaga (2000, 2001, 2003); Mbembe (1992); Navaro‐Yashin (2003, 2005); Siegel (1998); Taussig (1984, 1992a, 1997); Yurchak (1997).

[6] For an analysis of the effects of speech and writing on the representation and production of terror, see Zulaika (1998), Taussig (1992b).

[7] The importance of the Kurdish issue in the constitution of the official state image and discourse was addressed by scholars of nationalism and other scholars studying the historical and political structure and the implications of Kurdish resistance movements (Bora 1995; Van Bruinessen 1992; Kirişçi & Winrow 1987; Yeğen 1999; Watts 2000; Yıldız 2001).

[8] These eight provinces are Bingol, Diyarbakir, Elazig, Hakkari, Mardin, Siirt, Tunceli and Van. The provinces of Adiyaman, Bitlis and Mus were included in the category of “neighboring provinces”. Adiyaman, Bitlis, Batman and Sirnak came under the scope of OHAL later.

[9] The number of village guards was around 67,000. For a detailed description of the state of emergency measures, and the effects on the international politics of Turkey, see Olson (1996).

[10] For an excellent ethnographic analysis of governing practices and management of sentiments, see Stoler (2004).

[11] For an excellent ethnographic analysis of spectral quality of the state through its mirroring relation to enemies/terrorists, see Aretxaga (2000 and 2001) and Navaro‐Yashin (2002), especially chapter 5.

[12] For a critical article on the mainstream media’s approach to Aygan’s confessions, see Yeni Safak 2006.

[13] The Şemdinli case is a “critical event” with its capacity to bring different political strands together in the political make‐up of Turkey and hence it requires to be studied from different perspectives. For the purpose of this article, I create a short narrative of the Şemdinli case focusing on the effects of the Aygan’s confessions on its representation and image and hence will omit discussion of details related to the event and its aftermath. For a significant ethnographic example of using the event as a category of analysis, see Das (1995). For examples of ethnographic and sociological analysis of “critical events” in Turkey, see Navaro‐Yashin (2002) and Özgen (2003).

[14] The documents included the plans of the book owner’s house, information about his political affiliation with the PKK and his activities, the ID cards of Ali Aygan, one of the suspects in the car, permits belonging to other JITEM officers, and the deed of the car showing it as the property of the gendarme forces.

[15] Seferi Yilmaz had previously been imprisoned for 15 years because of his alleged connection with the PKK.

[16] Aygan’s confessions were compiled as a book by Ugur Balik and Timur Şahan (2005).

[17] Ersin Kalkan (2006) published a book based on accounts of this meeting, the series of murders enacted by the JITEM agents, and tangible connections with the last event in Şemdinli.

[18] The verdict of the repentant Veysel Ates was delayed because of his absence from the courtroom due to illness.

[19] In addition to Taussig’s (1984) early article on the culture of terror, see Arextaga (2000: 52–3) for a discussion of the “truth effects” of stories about violence.