Amid aggravating regional escalation and major developments in the Middle East that would develop into a multi-front war, the residents of Kurdistan headed to the polls on October 20 to elect a new parliament.
Everyone knows that state institutions and the legislative and oversight authorities in the region are short on legitimacy in light of the absence of a legislative body, parliament. The vacuum means that the democratic process, a pillar of the region’s political model, has been largely disrupted. Thus, holding elections was a necessary step for legitimizing its institutions and its model of shared governance between the two long-dominant parties, the Kurdistan Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan.
The election was held amidst intractable crises that cast a shadow over the future of the region, which faces numerous political, security, and economic challenges. Voters are seeking to improve their economic conditions and push back against outside intervention in the autonomous region's affairs, which have put the path of governance, its unity, and its institutions at risk. In this context, assessing the extent to which these elections meet basic democratic standards is crucial. It is critical that we ensure the integrity and transparency of these, and that the results are recognized by the influential parties, especially since change through the ballot box is inevitable.
The Kurdistan Region, whose autonomy is recognized by Iraq’s federal constitution, is currently undergoing a phase of unprecedented fragility as a result of the paralysis of its executive body and legislative institutions and oversight, as well as the suspicions regarding the role of the judicial authorities and courts.
The Kurdistan Region is the only formal autonomous zone of the Kurdish people, who are divided between four neighboring countries - Iraq, Iran, Türkiye and Syria. It has held five legislative elections, which were all overseen by local institutions affiliated with political entities. Thus, the results of those elections have always been questionable, and they have never been up to standard in terms of integrity and transparency.
Despite all the doubts, the Kurdistan Region has been distinguished by its democracy for over three decades, and it has been a beacon of political, ethnic, religious and intellectual pluralism. This is a fundamental feature of the Kurdistan Region, which may be the only thing it can embody among its neighbors. However, the paralysis of legislative, oversight, and governmental institutions in recent years has undermined the democratic process and popular trust and engagement in it.
Therefore, the elections were an excellent opportunity to advance the democratic process and ensure political continuity by rebuilding citizens' trust and encouraging them to participate by exercising their democratic right to choose their representatives. They are particularly significant because they had been postponed for two years due to divisions and conflicts among the influential parties, which repeatedly brandished empty slogans and populist rhetoric that did little to address actual needs. Ultimately, this led to the suspension of the electoral process, with a variety of excuses and justifications raised to defend the decision.
These factors opened the door for the intervention of the Federal Supreme Court, which decided to task the Independent High Electoral Commission with managing the process instead of the two parties, and the electoral process was a test of its ability to prevent violations and fraud.
During the war on terror and extremist organizations, the Kurdistan Region gained the favor of the international coalition led by the United States, which has always emphasized the importance of good governance, respect for human rights, freedom of speech, safeguarding of public freedoms, and constructive cooperation between Baghdad and Erbil, which enhances domestic unity. Additionally, allied and friendly countries consider the elections a significant achievement. As for Washington, its stance is crucial for ensuring the Kurdistan Region retains the legitimacy of its institutions, renews its mandate, and maintains its status in the constitution.
Real legitimacy can come only from the strength of the people, and history shows that any regime and ruler can be replaced, but there is no alternative to the people.
Political lexicons consider elections a fundamental pillar of democracy. Even amid the turbulent conditions in the region and what seems to be a monopoly on power, we hope that influential forces will take on the task of transitioning from a semi-militarized democracy to a genuine civic democracy through the frameworks that are available and draft and write a constitution for the Kurdistan Region. Article 120 of the Iraqi constitution acknowledges this as a step toward establishing the fundamental rules of administration and governance in the region.
The priority, in the next stage, should be to work on drafting this constitution, as the political process cannot overcome its chronic deficiencies and setbacks without a constitution that regulates the role of institutions and authorities, ensuring that the law is sovereign. All communities and segments of society would feel secure and assured regarding the desires and aspirations of its individuals. The goal of drafting the constitution is to protect citizenship, which is a crucial objective of the modern democratic process. This would enhance opportunities for participation and reinforce the principles of freedom, democracy, human rights and citizenship.
The lion’s share of the responsibility that will fall on the shoulders of the next parliament is to establish a unified military force tasked with protecting the Kurdistan Region rather than serving narrow party interests. This armed force should be politically neutral and keep an equal distance from all political actors. Additionally, parliament must work to eliminate the repercussions of dual administrations and the sharp divisions that the Kurdistan Region has been suffering from since the domestic conflict began in the 1990s.
