Ünver, Hamid AkınÜnver, Hamid Akın2019-06-272019-06-27201702146-77572146-7757https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12469/406https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.285107https://search.trdizin.gov.tr/yayin/detay/232993Combining discourse analysis with quantitative methods this article compares how the legislatures of Turkey the US and the EU discursively constructed Turkey's Kurdish question. An examination of the legislative-political discourse through 1990 to 1999 suggests that a country suffering from a domestic secessionist conflict perceives and verbalizes the problem differently than outside observers and external stakeholders do. Host countries of conflicts perceive their problems through a more security-oriented lens and those who observe these conflicts at a distance focus more on the humanitarian aspects. As regards Turkey this study tests politicians' perceptions of conflicts and the influence of these perceptions on their pre-existing political agendas for the Kurdish question and offers a new model for studying political discourse on intra-state conflicts. The article suggests that a political agenda emerges as the prevalent dynamic in conservative politicians' approaches to the Kurdish question whereas ideology plays a greater role for liberal/pro-emancipation politicians. Data shows that politically conservative politicians have greater variance in their definitions based on material factors such as financial electoral or alliance-building constraints whereas liberal and/or left-wing politicians choose ideologically confined discursive frameworks such as human rights and democracy.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessIntra-state conflictConflict discourse analysisLegislative politicsKurdish questionArticle498216WOS:000396402800003N/AQ1232993