Why Honest Progressives in Turkey Should Support a Bizonal, Bicommunal Federation (BBF) in Cyprus

For readers outside Turkey, the title of this article may come as a surprise. Many would naturally assume that anyone who identifies as a progressive, someone who supports European integration, the rule of law, democracy, and human rights, would also support a Bizonal, Bicommunal Federation (BBF), the settlement framework endorsed by both the United Nations and the European Union. However, the Turkish political landscape presents an unusual exception to this expectation, and it is this apparent contradiction that I wish to explore.

My intention is not to criticize individuals but to address a broader political narrative promoted by groups that prioritize nationalist maximalism over human rights, reconciliation, and the long-term welfare of both communities on the island. Parties often perceived as progressive in Turkey, such as the Republican People's Party (CHP) and DEVA, illustrate this contradiction.

Having personally discussed the Cyprus issue with a representative of the CHP, I was disappointed by the response I received. As a progressive Cypriot, I expected a position that aligned more closely with the party's stated commitment to European values. Instead, I encountered support for the continued division of Cyprus while simultaneously advocating closer relations with the European Union. This raises an obvious question: how can a political movement seek deeper integration with the European Union while continuing to support a status quo that conflicts with the EU's own position on Cyprus?

In my view, the primary reason for maintaining this position is domestic political pressure. Supporting a federal solution is often portrayed within Turkish politics as a sign of weakness or national concession. Consequently, many political leaders hesitate to challenge prevailing public opinion.

This public opinion did not emerge in a vacuum. The Cyprus issue is frequently taught and discussed through a highly selective historical narrative. As a result, many citizens develop views based on incomplete or one-sided interpretations of the conflict. Over time, this creates a self-reinforcing cycle: political parties avoid supporting a BBF because they fear electoral backlash, while the public continues to reject federalism because few influential political actors are willing to present an alternative perspective. In this way, nationalist narratives become normalized, even within political movements that otherwise promote democratic reforms and closer ties with Europe.

When nationalism is combined with expansionist thinking, it becomes increasingly difficult for future generations to reassess inherited assumptions critically. Even those who genuinely support European integration and democratic values may find themselves accepting positions that are fundamentally inconsistent with those principles.

For this reason, I believe that any eventual settlement of the Cyprus question is more likely to result from political leadership than from a grassroots movement within Turkey. A top-down process, driven by Political elites willing to explain the benefits of compromise, appears far more realistic than expecting a spontaneous shift in public opinion.

Nevertheless, I remain optimistic. Once a comprehensive settlement is achieved, I believe that people in Turkey, as well as both communities in Cyprus, will recognize that a BBF offers the greatest opportunity for lasting peace, regional stability, and shared prosperity. A peaceful Cyprus would not only benefit its own citizens but would also strengthen cooperation between Turkey and the European Union, contributing to greater security and economic development across the Eastern Mediterranean.

Ultimately, supporting a Bizonal, Bicommunal Federation is about demonstrating a genuine commitment to the principles of peace, democracy, human rights, and European cooperation. If progressive values are to be applied consistently, then they should extend to Cyprus as well.