PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan called on his organisation to convene a congress, lay down its arms and disband. Thus, the process, which was led by the government partner MHP leader Devlet Bahçeli and continued with the DEM Party delegation's talks with Öcalan, entered a new phase with Öcalan's call for the dissolution of the PKK.

On the other hand, before calling on the PKK to convene a congress and lay down its arms, Öcalan emphasises the reorganisation of the age-old Turkish-Kurdish relations in the spirit of brotherhood and points out that this is only possible through democratic politics and reconciliation. Therefore, we can already say that the steps to be taken and the direction of the developments in the process until the PKK convenes a congress will be decisive for the decisions to be taken at this congress.

It should be reminded that in his message read out at the beginning of the "solution process" on Newroz 2013, Ocalan said that "the era of weapons is over and a new era based on democratic politics has begun". However, as we know, this process produced results beyond the government's expectations and control, and Erdoğan overturned the table, followed by urban warfare that led to serious destruction.

Of course, what happened in the past does not change the fact that today's announcement has a historical meaning and significance. In a political atmosphere where the politics of the region (Middle East) and the country are very active, it is possible to sum up the impact of Ocalan's call in three words: Expectation, fear and uncertainty.

Expectation: Öcalan's call for the PKK to lay down its arms and disband creates a certain expectation among the Kurdish people and democratic forces as well as the state and the ruling power, although the direction of the expectation is different.

Öcalan's message in 2013 had created hope among the Kurdish people and democratic forces for a democratic solution to the Kurdish question and democratisation. Although the latest statement has created a certain expectation among the Kurdish people for a democratic solution and the development of democratic politics, the events of the past lead to a more cautious approach of large parts of the people towards the current process. We have seen that this cautious approach is also reflected in the statements of the PKK.

The government and the state, on the other hand, have reduced the process from the very beginning to the PKK laying down its arms and liquidating itself. The reason behind Bahçeli's initiation of a new process was the concern that the emergence of Israel as a striking power in the transformation of the region would limit Turkey's room for manoeuvre and that in this process the possible risks of conflicts arising from the Kurdish problem would be eliminated. In other words, the government is not trying to solve the Kurdish problem, but to prevent the risks that the PKK, the autonomous administration in Rojava and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) might pose to its own policies.

We have seen the same approach in the statement made by AKP deputy chairman Efkan Âla after Öcalan's call. Âla said, 'They will see whether the terrorist organisation will follow the call or not'. The government is acting as if there is no Kurdish problem and the steps to be taken for the democratic solution of this problem are not its responsibility.

Concern: The above-mentioned attitude of the government raises serious concerns that the new process will be wasted. This concern is not unfounded; while waiting for Öcalan's call, the government appointed trustees in the DEM party municipalities. Moreover, this time, the municipalities that were won through the "urban consensus", which was formed as an alliance of democratic forces, especially the CHP and the DEM party, were also included in the scope of the attacks. As if this was not enough, while the question "Will Demirtaş and the political prisoners unjustly held hostage in this process be released?" was being asked, a wave of attacks was created against broad sectors of labour and democracy, from journalists to trade unionists and, as seen in the recent HDK operation, parties and organisations engaged in democratic politics.

All these developments raise concerns that the government will try to use this process for its own survival and interests, from Erdoğan's candidacy to the new constitution, and will end it if it is not in its favour.

Uncertainty: One of the most striking aspects of Öcalan's statement is that he did not make an explicit call for Rojava and the SDF. This is because the uncertainties created by the presence of many actors on the ground in terms of shaping the new Syria make it difficult to make an explicit call on this issue.

Just as developments in the region played a decisive role in Bahçeli's initiation of the new process, the consequences of Öcalan's call will not be determined by the Turkish state, the PKK and the SDF alone. Many actors, from the USA and Israel to the Gulf States, Russia and Iran to the KDP and YNK in the administration of Iraqi Kurdistan, will play an important role in this process. The fact that all the actors on the ground have an approach that does not hesitate to instrumentalise the Kurdish issue in order to turn the developments to their own advantage is dragging this process into a serious uncertainty. Of course, the refusal of the Erdoğan government in Turkey to create the necessary mechanisms and legal bases for the solution of the problem has a great impact on this uncertainty.

In order to see in which direction this uncertainty will develop, it is necessary to wait for the outcome of the negotiations between the new HTS government in Syria and the Rojava Autonomous Administration and the SDF.

In conclusion, Öcalan's call opens the door to a new era in terms of silencing the guns and widening the space for democratic politics amidst expectations, concerns and uncertainties. However, in order to open this door wide and turn expectations into possibilities, worries into hopes and uncertainties into the will for a democratic solution and peace, the broadest unity of struggle of the forces of labour, peace and democracy must be established.