According to Kurdistan Press, according to an analysis published in "Turkish Minot", the new PKK disarmament process should not be automatically equated with the realization of peace or the democratization of Turkey. The analysis argues that although ending more than four decades of armed conflict is an important and positive achievement, the cessation of violence is only one of the stages of conflict resolution and is not a guarantee for political reforms and the expansion of democracy.

The author believes that the bill currently being considered in the Turkish parliament mainly focuses on the legal and executive aspects of PKK disarmament.The focus is on the K and its implementation will be supervised by the state security institutions. For this reason, this process is closer to a state-managed program to end armed activity than to comprehensive peace agreements in other countries.

In this analysis, the Turkish experience is compared with examples such as the “Good Friday” agreement in Northern Ireland, the peace agreement between the Colombian government and the FARC, and the end of armed activities of the ETA organization in Spain. The author emphasizes that in those countries, disarmament was accompanied by a set of political reforms, the participation of the groups involved in the political process, transitional justice mechanisms and the supervision of independent institutions, while in the Turkish model, there is no sign of such comprehensive reforms so far.

Another important part of the analysis is dedicated to the political calculations of Recep Tayyip Erdogan.The author believes that the timing of this proposal, which coincides with Erdogan’s need to gain broad parliamentary support for constitutional reform or early elections, has reinforced the suspicion that the government is pursuing broader political goals in addition to ending the conflict with the PKK. From this perspective, the coalition formed around this law may also lead to support for constitutional changes and the consolidation of Erdogan’s political position in the future. The analysis then draws on the theory of “negative peace” and “positive peace” by peace studies researcher Johan Galtung. According to this view, negative peace only means the cessation of violence and armed conflict, while positive peace requires the existence of democratic institutions, an independent judiciary, media freedom, political participation, and public trust in the political system.The author believes that the current process in Turkey may be able to achieve negative peace, but it still offers no guarantee of positive peace.

According to the author, the existing plan is silent on issues such as the independence of the judiciary, freedom of expression, the status of political prisoners and democratic reforms and focuses solely on determining the fate of PKK members. Therefore, many of the factors that have led to the weakening of democracy in Turkey in recent years remain unanswered.

In conclusion, this analysis emphasizes that the real test will begin after the weapons are put down. The main question is whether the end of the PKK’s armed activity will lead to the expansion of the rule of law, the strengthening of democratic institutions and the increase of political pluralism, or will it simply eliminate one source of instability while at the same time consolidating the centralized power structure in Turkey.In the author's view, the true legacy of this process will be determined not simply by the end of a 40-year insurgency, but by how the post-disarmament phase is managed and the extent of the government's commitment to democratic reforms.