HÜDA PAR leader Yapıcıoğlu: The Kurds are the original founding element of this country, this republic.

```html

HÜDA PAR General Chairman Zekeriya Yapıcıoğlu made striking evaluations regarding current issues. Yapıcıoğlu addressed key topics such as the Kurdish issue, the perspective on the People's Alliance, and the understanding of the opposition.

Yapıcıoğlu's evaluations regarding the agenda are as follows:

"WE SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENT IN THINGS IT DOES RIGHT, WE CRITICIZE WHEN IT DOES WRONG, BUT WE ALSO SPEAK THE TRUTH"

"The New Welfare Party joined the People's Alliance before, then withdrew. Are you currently a partner of the People's Alliance?"

Yapıcıoğlu: We have never been in a position to support everything the People's Alliance, the AK Party, or the government does, no matter what. Even during the election campaign, we pointed out the wrongdoings of the AK Party, despite being part of the alliance.

It is still the same now... We support the truth, regardless of who it comes from, and we oppose falsehood, no matter who commits it. In this sense, a very categorical evaluation of being inside or outside is something our viewers will appreciate. But let me say this much: if the other parties, for example, the Nation Alliance, had won the election, each party's chairman would have personally participated in the administration as vice president.

There is no such thing in the People's Alliance. An alliance was made during the election period, but as I said, even during that period, while we were running for election from the AK Party lists, we were pointing out the mistakes being made. Perhaps our difference is that our understanding of the opposition is different. What is that? If you remember, one of the opposition parties had called out to the government from the parliamentary podium; they said, 'Even if you do the best things in the world, we will oppose you because we are the opposition, and the nation has given us this duty.'

We do not have an understanding of opposition that means opposing whatever the government does. We say that if the government is in power, and the nation has given it the authority to govern, the opposition's duty is to assist it. How to assist? By supporting the right things it does, and when it does wrong, by pointing out the wrong while also stating the truth together. We stand by the government in the things it does right, we support it when it does wrong, but we also speak the truth.

We look at the issue from the very center, from within the parliament. When we look at our stance regarding the legislative proposals that come there, we support some of the proposals brought by the government and do not support others. In fact, there are some legislative proposals or motions presented by the opposition that we sometimes support as well. We look at where the public's interest lies. We do not see any political party as our enemy; they are our political rivals. All political parties are rivals to each other. Therefore, all political parties that engage in politics on behalf of the nation and strive for the public's interest should do so. What is the incoming work? Is it in the public's interest or not? If not, it should be criticized, but it should also state what it should be. If it is correct and in the public's interest, it should definitely support it, regardless of who brings it. We look at it this way; we approach it this way. This is our style of politics. Yes, we acted together with the People's Alliance, and we are not regretful about it. Under the same conditions, if the same thing were to happen today, we would do the same again.

We supported Mr. Erdoğan among the current presidential candidates, and we had three goals in the election. Mr. Erdoğan's re-election as president, the People's Alliance obtaining a majority in the Parliament, and our candidates entering the Parliament. We achieved our goal at a 100% rate; we are not regretful about the decision we made or the stance we took. We believed it was right, and we currently have no change in our belief that it is right. If a similar situation arises today under the same conditions, we would do the same. But one day, conditions may change, different candidates may emerge, the country may go in a different direction, discourses may change, politics may change, and we will evaluate it at that time.

"WE DID NOT HAVE A REQUEST LIKE 'COME AND MEET WITH US'"

"The Democracy Party visited many parties, but did not come to you. Did the Democracy Party make you an offer?"

Yapıcıoğlu: We did not have a request like 'come and meet with us.' They did not send us any request for a meeting either. As of now, there is no such thing. There has been no request for a meeting that has reached us, and I cannot know whether there will be one in the future.

We have opened our doors to everyone who has come to us so far; we have not closed our doors to anyone. Ultimately, if a political issue is to be discussed, there can be exchanges of views among the political parties in the Parliament, which is natural and should happen. However, it depends on the subject. The MPs from the Democracy Party; the Deputy Speaker of the Parliament, one of them, and one is a former parliamentarian and former mayor... They have had some meetings, but we do not know in what capacity they held those meetings or what the content was because the representatives of the other political parties they met with did not provide much explanation on this matter either. In fact, as far as the last news reported, the AK Party's Parliamentary Group Chairman Mr. Abdullah Güler made a statement to avoid going into detail, saying, 'We discussed some confidential matters. Therefore, we are only saying this much for now,' and they provided very brief information after meetings that lasted over an hour, and not much information leaked out. The Democracy Party members said, 'We will complete all meetings and then make a broad statement.' The public is also waiting. What was discussed in the meetings, what was the subject, in what capacity did they come, did they convey the messages they brought from İmralı, did they share their own views on the subject, or did they just listen to the other side? We do not know. We do not want to engage in speculative matters by reading intentions or making guesses. They know whether they want to meet or not, but so far, we have not received any request. We did not have such a request, nor did we extend an invitation.

"GOD WILLING, THE SECOND CENTURY OF THE REPUBLIC WILL NOT BE A LOST CENTURY LIKE THE FIRST CENTURY BECAUSE WE CONSUMED OUR ENERGY INTERNALLY, WE STRUGGLED WITH EACH OTHER"

"Where exactly are you in this process? How do you define this process both in terms of actions and ideas?"

Yapıcıoğlu: From the beginning, we have said this; if the problem is only a terrorism problem or a security problem, you would approach it differently, but if there are political, social, cultural, and even international dimensions to the issue, it needs to be addressed and evaluated from a different perspective.

The issue is ultimately a matter of rights and law; there is a citizen's claim for rights. Whether these claims are justified or not is a separate matter, and whether they are rightful or unjust is a different topic of discussion. However, if someone is making a claim for rights, and these rights fall under the category of fundamental rights, they cannot be subject to negotiation in any way. They cannot be conditional in any way; we have stated this. This cannot be tied to the condition of someone laying down their arms, but on the other hand, arms and violence cannot be a method of seeking rights either; we must not confuse the two. Right now, we are saying the same thing. Is there a problem of violence in Turkey? Is there a problem of terrorism? Yes. Does this waste time and energy for Turkey? Yes. Does this deal serious blows to the 1000-year brotherhood? Correct. But the problem is not just this; these issues did not arise only after the emergence of this violence. These problems are very old, perhaps dating back to the 1830s, starting with the process of Westernization. How did these people, who established the Republic together, fought side by side in Çanakkale and became martyrs, and have a brotherhood with a 1000-year history, come to this point?

After the Republic, the existence of the Kurds was denied, their language was banned, and many historical wrongs were committed... Especially the practices of the Single Party dictatorship... The Dersim and Zilan massacres opened very deep wounds. Despite all this, did brotherhood end? No, it did not, but brotherhood has taken a serious hit. Now, it is necessary to repair these wounds. The way to repair these wounds is not just to end this violence. If violence is something that disrupts this brotherhood or damages it, then when you eliminate it, everything will be rosy and beautiful, but these issues occurred long before this violence.

The PKK you refer to is not the Kurdish issue itself, nor is it the cause of the Kurdish issue, nor is it the result of the Kurdish issue. It is simply a structure that feeds off this issue, the historical mistakes made over time, and seeks a ground to apply its own ideological ideas on top of these mistakes, using the Kurdish issue in this context. Therefore, it is not possible to solve the issue without separating these elements.

In the speeches made by the President at the first congresses in Diyarbakır and Şanlıurfa, we also see this: Yes, we have made significant progress, but if there are steps we need to take, we will take them together. This is a positive thing, and we want to see this as a sign that these two issues are separate. Hopefully, the second century of the Republic will not be a lost century like the first century because we consumed our energy internally, dealing with each other.

As every party emphasizes, in order for the next century not to be a lost century again, we must strengthen our brotherhood and reinforce our unity, as we have been saying for years. We said this during the stalled resolution process; we must strengthen this brotherhood.

"KURDS ARE THE ORIGINAL FOUNDING ELEMENT OF THIS COUNTRY, THIS REPUBLIC"

"You said the constitution of Turkey should change, and Kurdish should be the official language. What changes should be made in the constitution, what is your proposal?"

Yapıcıoğlu: After World War I, the Ottoman Empire entered a process of fragmentation, followed by a War of Independence. During this fragmentation process, almost all the other peoples living under Ottoman rule, except for the Kurds, separated and took care of themselves. What did the Kurds do? The Kurds said, "We are with our Turkish brothers." They did not engage in establishing a separate state, nor did they shake hands or agree with the invaders according to their strategies. For this reason, we say that this historical fact should be known by everyone. The Kurds acted in accordance with the law of brotherhood, and they will continue to do so in the future.

For this reason, we say that the Kurds are the original founding element of this country, this republic. You know, Mr. Bahçeli made a statement on October 22! Mr. Özgür also said, "I raise my hand, I promise the Kurds a state. Come, let this be your state too." This state is already the state of the Kurds. However, the Kurds need to feel this.

If they do not see this brotherhood from their brothers, with whom they expelled the enemy together, and with whom they established the republic as common owners of this land, or if they feel like foreigners, then this state is the state of the Turks. If the original founding people see themselves as excluded in a state they established together, if their language is not recognized, if their culture is not acknowledged, if their identity is not recognized, if their name is not even acknowledged, then they will feel outside.

If this state is only the state of the Turkish nation, then they will say to the Kurds, "Everyone has a state, where is yours?" Then someone will come out and say, "I want a state too." This needs to be recognized.

According to the constitution, no language other than Turkish can be taught to the citizens of the Republic of Turkey as their mother tongue. What does this mean? It means that you are not only not Turkish in terms of citizenship, but you must also be ethnically Turkish. You cannot ask the state to teach you a language other than Turkish! We need to recognize the existence of these questions.