Today on the program “The Mirror of Politics,” we had the opportunity to interview politician İbrahim Büyükgümüş, who has held significant positions within the AK Party for many years. We discussed the long-standing counter-terrorism efforts in Turkey, developments in the region, and the recent political direction of “The Republic’s Alliance” (Cumhur İttifakı). Büyükgümüş emphasized the importance of the goal of a “terror-free Turkey,” and shared sincere insights into alliance dynamics, regional peace efforts, and new political discourse under the vision of “Century of Türkish Politics.”
To begin, we asked İbrahim Buyukgumush for a general assessment of the current political agenda, as we were curious to hear his thoughts. Right from the start, Buyukgumush underlined that Turkey has been undergoing a significant test in its long-term fight against terrorism. He highlighted the meaning and importance of the “terror-free Turkey” goal for the country:
“Turkey has paid a heavy price in the fight against terrorism. Our economy, culture, and social life have all been deeply affected. We have lost our children. However, today, the power of the state has rendered terrorist organizations nearly incapable of action. The goal of a “terror-free Turkey” is not merely symbolic — it represents the country’s determined steps toward peace and security. It is directly tied to regional stability. The progress in peace efforts in Syria and Iraq, and the protection of regional territorial integrity, all demonstrate the success of this goal. This struggle will inevitably achieve its purpose.”
Here, Buyukgumush emphasizes that the fight against terrorism is not solely an internal matter for Turkey, but one that is deeply intertwined with regional peace. In fact, he underlines that a “terror-free Turkey” also guarantees stability and security in neighboring countries.
Another topic we were curious about was the recent structure of the “The Republic’s Alliance” — particularly the prominent role of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) in counter-terrorism efforts, and what the silence of other alliance partners might signify.
Buyukgumush responded by pointing out that the political balance in the fight against terrorism has shifted. He noted that alliances are being reshaped, but this process is different from previous “peace resolution” processes:
“The People’s Alliance has long included parties such as the MHP, HÜDA PAR, the Great Unity Party (BBP), and the Welfare Party Again (Yeniden Refah). However, in the fight against terrorism, the MHP has taken a more prominent role. This is a conscious strategy. The fact that other alliance partners have not come to the forefront on this issue is not due to a lack of willingness, but rather a reflection of the alliance’s internal dynamics. The opposition’s attempt to stir controversy over this matter serves only their own political interests.
Our President has already made it clear: there may be cooperation with political actors represented in parliament regarding the fight against terrorism, but that does not mean the formation of a new, expanded alliance. The state has reached out at a moment when it holds significant strength in this struggle.”
When I asked, “So, what was the reason behind this move? Was it really necessary?” — Buyukgumush responded as follows:
“Turkey has been fighting terrorism for 45 years. When the organization was almost rendered ineffective, the state decided to also address regional issues. Because the threat is not limited to the PKK within our borders — it extends from Syria to Iran, and even to Europe.
After 2016, the entire security concept changed: now, intervention takes place before a threat emerges. This approach reflects Turkey’s determination to ensure regional security. What stands out here is the state’s strength and will to prevent terrorism not only within its own borders, but also on an international scale.
We must also acknowledge the crucial role played by our defense industry and our military in this process. Developments in the defense sector, the effectiveness of our armed forces, and operations such as “Euphrates Shield” and “Peace Spring” were of critical importance in the fight against terrorism.
Moreover, the Syrian government’s willingness to sit at the table with the YPG further validates Turkey’s diplomatic stance in this matter. All of this shows how multi-dimensional the process really is”.
One of the most striking parts of our interview with İbrahim Buyukgumush was his clear stance on the issue of the DEM Party. Responding to public debates and opposition questions like “Is an alliance being formed?”, he referred to President Erdoğan’s statements and offered the following assessment:
“The President has clearly stated his position: cooperation in parliamentary matters does not equate to an alliance. It is entirely within the rules of politics to engage with any party represented in parliament on legislative issues. However, this is not a step toward political partnership or electoral alliance. The opposition is trying to distort the picture.
The government’s goal is to ensure the success of national security policies, and anyone who supports these policies in parliament is naturally involved in the legislative process. But that doesn’t mean ideological or strategic alignment.”
“Our President expressed this matter very clearly and explicitly: in the efforts toward a terror-free Turkey, as you would appreciate, the DEM Party is also considered a “political partner.”As a political entity with a parliamentary group, it is possible for the DEM Party to play a role in this process. After all, if the aim is to have the terrorist organization lay down its arms, become ineffective, and transition into a political process, then the DEM Party’s presence in parliament could serve a functional role in that regard.
However, this does not amount to an alliance. There is no political partnership between The Republic’s Alliance and the DEM Party. This has been repeatedly and publicly stated by our President.
Therefore, it would be inaccurate to refer to this as a revival of the earlier ‘peace process’-style approach. At this point, the state is strong and has nearly reached the threshold of eliminating the terrorist organization on the ground. In such an environment, political representation also comes with responsibility.”
This statement both highlights the state’s gesture of “extending a hand from a position of strength,” and signals a shift away from the classic peace process model toward a new kind of political balance. What stands out particularly in Büyükgümüş’s words is the use of the term “political partner.” At first glance, this doesn’t suggest a conventional alliance, but rather reflects a strategic move within the framework of state security and political reasoning.
At this point, the core issue seems to be that the AK Party perceives the DEM Party’s presence in parliament merely as a tool — not for sitting at a negotiation table, but for expecting a degree of responsibility from them within the legislative sphere, specifically regarding the vision of a “terror-free Turkey.”
That said, it’s not easy for the general public to grasp this nuance. In political discourse, terms like “partner” are often perceived by broader audiences as implying an alliance or political cooperation — even when the intention is purely institutional or strategic.
Then, İbrahim Buyukgumush clearly emphasized that the PKK and YPG should not be viewed as separate entities. Between the lines of his statements, he highlighted that Turkey’s counter-terrorism efforts are not limited to within its borders, but are being carried out through a comprehensive security doctrine that also includes a European dimension. Referring to the “spirit of the times,” he argued that Turkey must finally sever its historical ties with terrorism.
Buyukgumush’s remarks also serve as a call for a supra-partisan, national unity framework in the fight against terrorism:
“It is incorrect to think of the PKK and YPG as separate structures. We are dealing with the same organization. Their goals, resources, training, and logistical networks are the same. This is clearly evident even in the messages coming from İmralı — those messages explicitly refer to the YPG as well.
We need to talk about the PKK’s extensions in Syria, Iraq, and Iran — such as PJAK — as a unified whole.
Besides, the UN Security Council is holding a session today, and it was just reported in the news. This shows that serious efforts are underway regarding the PKK’s structure in Europe as well, all in pursuit of a terror-free Turkey.
This is not merely about cross-border operations. It is a multi-layered struggle involving domestic security and European dimensions together.
Turkey must break free from this chain of blood and terror. Because there is such a thing as “the spirit of the times.” Today, Turkey has a historic responsibility to rid itself of this bloody legacy — and it must fulfill that responsibility.”
Buyukgumush not only points to a security threat centered around the PKK or YPG, but also draws attention to a much larger geopolitical game being played in the region — particularly targeting countries like Iran and Turkey. He states:
“It is abundantly clear that we are facing an internationally orchestrated game that aims to draw in both Iran and Turkey. We are fully aware of this game. We see the fire that we are being dragged into — and we are alert. At this stage, it is imperative that Turkey prevails and emerges from this process even stronger. Turkey must always remain a viable option and a pillar of stability.”
Here, Buyukgumush underscores that Turkey is being deliberately pushed toward regional turmoil, while also asserting that the country is responding to these traps with strong reflexes. What he is essentially saying is that the fight against terrorism is no longer merely a security issue — it has become a broader struggle for diplomatic, military, and political existence.
In analyzing Buyukgumush’s remarks, it becomes evident that Turkey is not only facing military challenges, but is also under psychological and strategic siege. His statements particularly emphasize the critical trust relationship between the state and society — revealing that what is currently underway is not a revival of the earlier peace process model, but rather the implementation of a more controlled and intelligence-driven strategy.
Büyükgümüş stated:
“We now clearly see the game that Turkey is being dragged into. Turkey is not only facing terrorism — it is entangled in a much larger geopolitical game. This is not just a military siege; it also involves psychological and diplomatic encirclement. But our state is alert. The government is well aware of the system attempting to pull Turkey in. And breaking this game is in our hands. In other words, Turkey is fully aware of what’s happening and is taking necessary precautions.”
I then expressed a concern I had been wondering about: “Still, we sense a lack of trust — both among some segments of society and even within parts of the state itself — toward the strategy the government is pursuing in the fight against terrorism. Would you say this reading is accurate?”
Buyukgumush responded immediately: “Yes.”
He then continued:
“This is not an easy struggle. Turkey has been engaged in a bloody fight against terrorism for 50 years. We’ve buried thousands of our sons. This is now a matter of state policy. It’s not a process where decisions are made overnight.
In a domain this deep and strategic, it naturally takes time to establish a solid and unwavering sense of trust.
But here’s what truly matters: Despite all provocations, the state is managing this process with determination. There is always a risk of provocation. The discourse of influential actors carries the potential to sabotage the process. But we see the game being played.
If we succeed in completing this process, we will not only achieve short-term gains, but also ensure long-term security and stability — and that is clearly in Turkey’s best interest.
Besides, the Turkish citizen is no longer who they used to be. The West, having lost its values, can no longer fabricate fairy tales or sell false hopes. Even the European Union is now compelled to engage with Turkey on a military level — because Turkey is now a strong state.”
When I asked, “Does this geopolitical game bring us closer to the West? Do we really need a West that has lost its values today?” Buyukgumush replied,
“No. It is now time for us to make our own decisions and run our own process.”
Then I asked, “Is it worth taking this risk?”
Mr. Buyukgumush emphasized that Turkey’s relationship with the European Union has spanned more than 60 years, involving numerous negotiations, reforms, and diplomatic contacts. However, he pointed out that despite this long journey, a clear conclusion has yet to be reached, highlighting the importance of process management rather than merely expecting a final outcome:
“You’ve touched on a very important point. Turkey’s EU adventure has been ongoing since the 1960s. But have we reached a definite result along this long road? No. And that teaches us this: the process itself is what truly matters, not just the outcome.
Every step taken in that process — whether economic or political — opened new doors for Turkey. EU membership might not be the ultimate goal, but throughout the process, Turkey expanded its foreign trade, strengthened its economy, and enhanced its institutional capacities.
We are currently living through a very interesting time. There is significant grassroots opposition in Europe against Israel. Public sentiment is strongly resistant, yet political leaderships do not fully reflect these demands. This shows a growing gap between political reflexes and societal reflexes in Europe.
For example, developments in France last September, and similar positions in Germany on the Palestine issue — none of these are coincidences. Turkey, meanwhile, stands out with its patient and diplomacy-focused approach, which is very important.
Public support for this process is also increasing. According to conceptual public opinion research we have, support has grown from around 40% at the beginning of the process to nearly 60-70% today. This indicates that our people are moving away from old reflexes and are placing trust in the state’s long-term strategic moves.
Of course, we have paid a price. We lost our children; mothers have mourned for years. But now there is a tremendous opportunity ahead. Economically, militarily, culturally, and strategically, Turkey is becoming a reliable actor in its region.
Let us not forget: Turkey is the key to regional stability. If Turkey leads this process, the ties we build with the young Turkic states, Central Asia, and Africa will rest on much firmer foundations.”
Here, Buyukgumush’s emphasis on the “process” encapsulates a paradigm shift in Turkey’s foreign policy. The mindset of “valuing the process over the outcome” is not only applicable to relations with the EU but has become a broader strategic approach in all international affairs.
Although it may take time for this process to yield political results, to quote Büyükgümüş’s assessment, Turkey is now pursuing a patient, rational, multi-layered foreign policy that moves with alternative alliances. This paves the way for the country’s future rise as a more determined and independent actor on the global stage.
When I asked how İbrahim Buyukgumush evaluates politicians’ sometimes seemingly contradictory statements, his answer was striking: “It’s not contradiction; it’s a difference in perceiving needs.” To me, this sentence went beyond the usual political clichés and offered an almost philosophical perspective. It made me wonder: Does such a term really exist in politics, or is this just one of the new discourse strategies of the current era?
Because in recent years, the AK Party has tended to prefer more abstract, philosophical, and open-to-interpretation political responses — seemingly focusing more on managing emotions, perceptions, and meanings rather than giving direct answers. It’s as if concepts themselves are becoming politicized: contradiction is renamed as “needs,” and inconsistency is framed not as weakness but as flexibility.
“Maybe this is what the spirit of the age demands,” I thought at the time — valuing richness of meaning over clarity, and inclusive ambiguity over firmness. Still, I believe this approach is not just a linguistic choice, but an effort to shape public perception.
However, I pointed out that the real “contradiction” appears precisely here. At one time, the CHP’s (Main Opposition Party) contacts with the DEM Party were harshly criticized by the ruling side. Yet today, the AK Party is re-evaluating similar types of relationships within the framework of a “search for solutions.” If this changing stance is not a contradiction, then what is?
Buyukgumush’s response to my question was:
“What was the main goal of the Nation Alliance (Millet İttifakı) established by the CHP and its components in 2023? To overthrow Erdoğan. But Erdoğan’s goal is a “terror-free Turkey.” So we cannot put these two behaviors side by side. Their fundamental objectives are different.”
This answer, in my opinion, shows that political relationships, alliances formed or broken, are understood not just by with whom they are made, but for what purpose.
In other words, the same action or political contact can be considered legitimate or illegitimate depending on its intention. So, I concluded that in AK Party politics, it is not contradiction but purpose that forms the basis of meaning.
Among the parties that make up the Republic’s Alliance, the silence of components other than the MHP on the “terror-free Turkey” issue is notable. When I asked about this, Büyükgümüş stated that some parties within the Nation Alliance have not expressed a negative opinion on the matter.
Later, I drew attention to the opposing stances of HÜDA PAR and the DEM Party, and asked how the AK Party reached an understanding with HÜDA PAR for electoral strategy and with the DEM Party for the “terror-free Turkey” goal. His answer was quite thought-provoking:
“The MHP and DEM Party are very different, but they are on the same spectrum. I just mentioned the“spirit of the times.” It’s a concept called the “spirit of the times.” It was different yesterday. Yesterday’s conditions, the region’s needs and demands required that approach. The situation today is different. The State has extended its hand. What was said yesterday is different from what is done today. We can only explain this with the “spirit of the times.” Today’s demands require acting this way.”
This answer actually offers a deep perspective on how changing conditions and social needs shape party positions in politics. It can be regarded as an important statement demonstrating that old rigid stances have been replaced by a variable and dynamic understanding called the “spirit of the times.”
Later in the interview, we also talked with İbrahim Büyükgümüş about his son, AK Party Deputy Chairman and Yalova MP Ahmet Buyukgumush — about his childhood, family background, interest in politics, his worldview, and the responsibilities he assumed at a young age. We had a sincere and multifaceted conversation.
Those interested in watching the full, engaging, and wide-ranging interview can find it on the Voicepress TV YouTube channel in Turkish.
Siyasetçi İbrahim Büyükgümüş: “Kürdüstan diye bir devlet veya bir yapı kurulmayacak!”
Author: Ulker Farmankyzy
