The upcoming provincial election may be the best one Iraqi Kurdistan has ever had. I do not say this because there were some complaints of electoral irregularities and even fraud in past elections. The region’s previous elections were good on the whole, these problems notwithstanding. To significantly change an election outcome – say beyond 3% – requires massive fraud on the scale of Mubarak’s last electoral charades or the 2009 rigged vote in Iran. Such massive levels of fraud are virtually impossible to hide from observers, and they simply never occurred in Iraqi Kurdistan.
This month’s election in Iraqi Kurdistan promises to be the best one yet because of the debates involved and the number of viable parties competing. In the recent past, the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) ran on the same electoral ticket. While this might have been good for stability, presenting a united Kurdish front in Baghdad and the very necessary process of reuniting the Erbil and Sulaimani Kurdistan Regional Governments, it was bad for democracy in South Kurdistan.
Voters need real choices, and politicians need real competition, for democracy to produce better governance. The prospects for a good governance also increase if the issues under debate revolve around domestic issues rather than outside threats. Surrounding Arab countries, for instance, distracted their people for far too long with empty rhetoric about fighting imperialism, colonialism and Zionism. It took the Arab Spring to finally get Arab populations to focus on and demand better government at home.
For all these reasons, it is good news that the KDP and PUK are finally competing against each other in this election. Let them save their united Kurdistani List for Iraqi national elections, where a united Kurdish front in Baghdad really matters. Similarly, the existence of the Goran party, the Islamic Union of Kurdistan, the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan, the Islamic Group and other smaller Kurdish parties – even with their party controlled newspapers, radio and television stations – is a good thing. The more genuine choice the better.
In another positive development, the core issues in this election seem to be more about local matters than Kurdish nationalist causes. This year the KDP’s slogan is “more social services;” the PUK’s is “parliamentary democracy;” and Goran’s is about “changing the system of governance.” In this context, it’s probably a relief that the planned pan-Kurdish conference in Erbil was postponed. Iraqi Kurds need to focus on their own leaders right now and their promises.
All the people of Iraqi Kurdistan also need to focus on keeping the whole election decent. There were a couple of worrying incidents in the last few days, including the drive-by shooting of a Goran supporter at an electoral rally in Sulaimani and another shooting incident directed at PUK supporters at another event. Candidates have seen their election posters methodically ripped down, and some of the electoral discourse going back and forth transgressed civil boundaries. All of these incidents need to be seen as attacks on all of Kurdistan, and treated as such.
After the votes are counted, the really difficult part begins. Parties that fared less well will have to accept the results (provided election observers are reasonably satisfied with the process) and wait for their next chance. Parties that win will need to remember that they must now represent, and govern on behalf of, all of Kurdistan rather than just their supporters. The fewer sore losers and bad winners we witness after the polls close, the more we will know that Iraqi Kurdistan has democratized.
David Romano has been a Rudaw columnist since August 2010. He is the Thomas G. Strong Professor of Middle East Politics at Missouri State University and author of The Kurdish Nationalist Movement (2006, Cambridge University Press).
