Some twenty years after the Kurds were persuaded to participate in a federal Iraq in which their rights would be enshrined in the constitution, all that seems now to be on shaky ground. Anger over a series of controversial decisions by the Iraqi Supreme Federal Court has put the largest Kurdish party KDP on a collision course with Baghdad.
The KDP announced it will not participate in the upcoming Kurdish parliamentary elections, which have been postponed several times and are now scheduled for June. The reason is the ‘unconstitutional’ intervention of the Iraqi court, which has scrapped the eleven parliamentary seats of minorities in Kurdistan. Moreover, the region is divided into four electoral districts and can no longer organize the elections itself but must leave that to the federal electoral commission.
All measures are working out negatively for the KDP, just like those where the salaries are paid directly to Kurdish civil servants. Other parties, such as Kurdistan’s second party, the PUK, some new opposition groups, and smaller parties, are not joining the boycott. Christian and Turkmen groups had already announced they would not participate now that they no longer have their own seats.
The KDP had previously tried to get the elections postponed again, perhaps hoping that some of the changes could be reversed. But that was refused.
Salaries
And on top of that, Baghdad has only paid out part of the budget that the Kurds use for salaries when paying out salaries. This is because Baghdad wants lists of Kurdish civil servants to be paid, which the Kurds refuse to hand over as they pay loyal party members through (ghost) jobs.
Anyway, it seems that the bucket has overflowed for the KDP after the latest court decisions, which come on top of years of disagreement with Baghdad over the Kurdish budget and Kurdish oil extraction. Many Kurds watch with dismay as the Shiite government nibbles at the rights they secured in negotiations over the Iraqi constitution in 2005.
Abdulrahman Suleiman Zebari, one of the Kurdish judges of the federal court, has already withdrawn from the court in dissatisfaction with the decisions of his colleagues.
The KDP accuses the court of exceeding its power by taking ‘legislative and executive power not granted by the constitution’ and directly interfering in legislation of the region, undermining the democratic system of the Kurdistan Region.
Baghdad
The KDP is now also threatening to withdraw from the government coalition in Baghdad led by Iraqi Prime Minister Sudani, in which a minority of Kurds and Sunnis cooperate with the Shiites. The KDP demands that the rulers within the coalition ‘comply with the constitution as well as the political and administrative provisions in the government agreement’.
By threatening to blow up the Iraqi government, the KDP may be trying to force the Shiites into a course that leaves Kurdish autonomy intact. And reverses the interventions of recent months. However, there is no appeal procedure against decisions of the federal court, which officially stands above politics but is clearly guided by the positions of Shiite parties. Officially, a government cannot reverse its decisions either.
It is remarkable that the Iraqi president Rachid, a Kurd who has little power, has already addressed the head of the Federal Court. He has pointed out to him that financial, trade, and monetary policy indeed belong to the power of the federation (i.e., Baghdad), but the decision on how to implement them lies precisely with the autonomous regions.
If the KDP sticks to its guns, this will have serious consequences for both the Kurdish Region and the Iraqi project post-Saddam Hussein. Kurdish parliamentary elections can proceed without the KDP, after which a government will come into being without the participation of this largest Kurdish party. One of the opposition parties already suggests that this is a great moment for the Kurdish opposition to show that they can govern much better.
The likelihood of the region splitting in two seems greater than ever, because although it is boycotting the electoral process, the KDP does not want to lose its power.
Close
The government in Baghdad can simply continue without the KDP, as the PUK has already distanced itself from the boycott. The second Kurdish party has recently drawn closer to the Shiites and has even provoked some of the court’s decisions.
From the outside, concerned voices are coming in, for example from the American government. ‘We do not think that boycotting the elections is in the interest of the Kurdistan Region or the Iraqi Kurds in general.’
The UN mission in Iraq has called on all parties in a statement to ‘work in the interest of the people, and thus on solutions instead of another long impasse. Holding the June elections in the Kurdistan Region is essential.’
One of the main Sunni politicians in Baghdad, Khamis al-Khanjar, who operated from Kurdistan for years during the ISIS occupation, believes the boycott endangers the entire future of Iraq.
Speculated
There is also much speculation on social media about the consequences. Will the KDP’s boycott endanger the federal system established in 2005? Or will the KDP come crawling back? Are they perhaps planning something of a coup? Because in August 1996, the party tried to settle its conflict with the PUK by inviting in Saddam’s army, suspicion in some circles is high.
And doesn’t the behavior of the KDP simply stem from the fact that for the first time they cannot control the elections themselves? Then the possibilities for adding ballot papers and fraud in other ways are naturally minimized.
Regardless, the KDP seems to be venturing onto a dangerous path. The Kurds have managed to achieve everything within Iraq and against neighboring countries only when they are united. By letting themselves be so completely divided, their position has been greatly weakened. This could not only have consequences for Kurdish rights within Iraq but also for the future of the federation, where both Sunni and Shiite provinces also want to play a role as regions, but the Shiite government consistently opposes this.
If the KDP continues this behavior, it could even lead to new violence. For many Kurds, their civil war of the 1990s is still relatively fresh in their memory, as are the attacks by Saddam Hussein, aimed at subduing the rebellious Kurds. With the large number of militias active in Iraq, the danger of repetition is certainly not imaginary.
