The issue of Kurdish self-determination within the highly centralized Republic of Turkey has been a controversial issue with its local, national and international dimensions over the years. Without solving this issue, Turkey might not reach the aims of joining the European Union (EU), economic sustainability, literal democracy, pluralism, and peace. After 40 years armed struggle between Kurdish and Turkish sides, two significant suggestions are currently being discussed: a provincial system similar to what the Ottoman Empire accepted with its own multicultural system; second, the current unitary system with more powerful local authorities. This paper analyzes the problem in an inductive method and takes the second approach to evaluate Turkish centralization, modernization, and transformation to French Republicanism. This evaluation concludes with the critique of the French universal citizenship understanding and requirement of more pluralistic, democratic citizenship and administrative model as a solution of minority rights and self-determination problem in Turkey.

The issue of Kurdish self-determination within the highly centralized Republic of Turkey has been a controversial issue with its local, national and international dimensions over the years. Without solving this issue, Turkey might not reach the aims of joining the European Union (EU), economic sustainability, literal democracy, pluralism, and peace. After 40 years armed struggle between Kurdish and Turkish sides, two significant suggestions are currently being discussed: a provincial system similar to what the Ottoman Empire accepted with its own multicultural system; second, the current unitary system with more powerful local authorities. This paper analyzes the problem in an inductive method and takes the second approach to evaluate Turkish centralization, modernization, and transformation to French Republicanism. This evaluation concludes with the critique of the French universal citizenship understanding and requirement of more pluralistic, democratic citizenship and administrative model as a solution of minority rights and self-determination problem in Turkey.

Within the past few years, France has exhibited a changing relationship in regards to its memory of its collaborationist and colonial past. The controversies of the loi du 23 février 2005 and the 2007 Guy Môquet Commemoration displayed a new openness to discuss and evaluate traumatic pasts. Public debate during the two controversies focused on the difficult process of how to incorporate these traumatic events into the national narrative. Furthermore, this process of negotiation has opened up a vibrant discussion over what parties in France possess the authority and the right to construct the nation’s history. Medical metaphors of neurosis no longer appear to fit French practices of commemoration and remembrance. The Fifth Republic’s legislative effort to dictate the content and character of France’s past encountered significant resistance from a number of historians and educators. While they stood opposed to the State’s methods, French historians and scholars came to frame their resistance to legislated history as evidence of their loyalty to republican ideals, namely those of scientific inquiry and laïcité. They too desired the creation of a shared national history, yet insisted that this history could only be formed by respecting the presence of multiple narratives. Other scholars voiced their reservations that the restoration of traumatic narratives might further social breakdown. Interestingly, these historians expressed little concern for the role of the general public in the writing of history and, at times, revealed a distinct mistrust of the public’s capacity to think historically.

No description available.