Combining discourse analysis with quantitative methods, this article compares how the legislatures of Turkey, the US, and the EU discursively constructed Turkey's Kurdish question. An examination of the legislative-political discourse through 1990 to 1999 suggests that a country suffering from a domestic secessionist conflict perceives and verbaliz...
Context in source publication
Discourse and politics on intra-state conflicts that involve one or many non-state armed actors usually take their form along two philosophical polarities. The hegemonic or state-centric position focuses exclusively on national security, terrorism and territorial integrity concerns, shunning other solutions to the problem as “treason” or “naiveté”. The second philosophical position, the counter-hegemonic or “non-state” looks at conflicts from a rights and freedoms point of view, constructing disagreements as politically negotiable. This paper situates hegemonic and counter-hegemonic political philosophical strands within conflict discourse, as it relates to Turkey’s Kurdish question. By doing so, it contextualizes Turkey’s human rights debates and political discourse within the traditional mainstream in political philosophy: Hobbes–Machiavelli–Weber on the one hand and Locke–Kant–Rousseau on the other. Through this model, this paper attempts to offer a conceptual foundation for future studies of discourse on intra-state conflicts and human rights in other case studies.