KIRKUK, Kurdistan Region – Nearly 10 years after Kurdish forces entered the city of Kirkuk as Saddam Hussein’s regime crumbled, rivalry between the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) has undermined the Kurdish goal of integrating Kirkuk into the autonomous Kurdistan Region.
Energy-rich and multiethnic Kirkuk has always been the flashpoint of fights and negotiations between the Kurdish leadership and successive Iraqi governments, because Kurds consider Kirkuk to be an inseparable part of Kurdistan.
Kurdish parties have retained de facto control of Kirkuk. Yet, observers charge that greater rivalry between the KDP and PUK in the Kirkuk administration has made residents forget about a census and referendum.
Article 140 of the Iraqi constitution stipulates that demographic changes made in the province by Saddam’s regime have to be reversed before the people themselves decide in a referendum if they want to stay with Baghdad or be incorporated into the autonomous Kurdistan Region.
“The lack of a national strategy prevents the return of Kirkuk to the Kurdish Region,” charged Abdulqadir Siyasi, an official for the opposition Change Movement (Gorran). He blamed the KDP and PUK, saying they lacked a common strategy for tackling the issue of implementing Article 140 in Kirkuk.
“Even if they had a strategy, it would be a partisan one,” he claimed, accusing both parties of focusing on looting public institutions. Their only common strategy was over the distribution of positions of power and the revenues of Kirkuk, he said.
Kawez Mala Perwez, a senior official of the KDP, disagreed about the lack of a national strategy, but admitted to partisanship affecting the situation in Kirkuk.
“Political rivalry among Kurdish parties and disorder in the Kurdish household have directly impacted Kirkuk and the disputed areas,” said Perwez.
Senior PUK official Shwan Dawoudy admitted to the absence of a national strategy over Kirkuk as well. “I don’t see anything that can be called a Kurdish strategy for the areas under Article 140,” he said.
The rivalry in Kirkuk became more intense when the PUK appointed Najmaldin Karim, one of its political bureau members, as the governor of Kirkuk in 2011.
KDP officials in Kirkuk accuse the governor of cronyism and marginalizing party members.
“Before the new governor was appointed, relations between KDP and PUK (in Kirkuk) were very good,” said Perwez.
He alleged that the governor of Kirkuk may prefer Kirkuk to become a separate region.
Abdulrahman Mustafa, Karim’s predecessor and a fellow Kurd, cited party frictions as one of the reasons for his resignation in 2011.
According to Dawoudy, the PUK enjoys great popularity in Kirkuk, saying that if it returned to the Kurdistan Region’s administration it would tilt the balance of power in favor of the PUK.
“One of the issues in Kirkuk is that the KDP does not want to hold provincial elections there, because it will lose the votes it received in 2005,” he claimed.
But Perwez said that his party could not unilaterally decide on the provincial elections in Kirkuk. “This process needs consensus among the political parties and groups. Hence, no one can make such an allegation against the KDP,” he said.
