True Unification Needs More Dialog and Compromise
By Ardalan Hardi
Kurdish Aspect.com
February 02, 2006
The recent news about the unification agreement between KDP and PUK was not greeted with the satisfaction everyone in the Kurdish nation anticipated. This agreement by KDP and PUK was pleaded in a different place and time in history. By today’s standards this agreement is deemed unacceptable. The history of pleading for unification goes back to the inexcusable internal war of 1994-1995. At that time the people sought after reunification no matter how unworkable or emblematic it might have been. However, today the political culmination has changed in Iraq: Saddam is in jail, the U.S. no longer considers Iraq as a threat and many different political groups have emerged. Democracy is spreading all over Kurdistan and Iraq. A symbolic unity is not only unacceptable but also leads us to a dangerous pass. History teaches us repeating the same mistake could be very costly.
With changing history the ambitions and expectations of people revolutionizes. During the internal war, the people hungered for tranquility and peace no matter how symbolic it might have been to evade the worthless bloodshed and returning of Saddam’s thugs. Today people want a government based on a realistic foundation that strives toward a more democratic society-- a system with checks and balances. A system that could question elected official without repercussion
IDEA defines democracy as “a system of political governance whose decision-making power is subject to the controlling influence of citizens who are considered political equals. A democratic political system is inclusive, participatory, representative, accountable, transparent and responsive to citizens’ aspirations and expectations”. (1)
This reunification does not congregate any of those requirements that a democratic system requires and the Kurdish people desire.
This agreement was held between the two political parties in the back room without any input or participation from the Kurdish parliament who is the representative of the people. It is apparent each political party is responsive to their own agenda instead of those of the people.
It is clear this agreement is the repeat of the old 50x50 before the internal war, which each party will take their share of the pie without any aspirations and expectations to its citizens. In a sense it’s reversing back in history instead of forward to the future. This agreement gives all the power to the political leaders of KDP and PUK and they will tell the parliament when to jump and how high. In a sense this is a government of the parties by the parties for the parties.
The agreement does not address or end the dislike and distrust the two parties have for each other. Instead, it covers it up. Rather than a true agreement it is a temporary fix for common interests. The agreement is emblematic of a “You take your share and I will take mine” or a “Don’t get in my way I will not get in your way” kind of attitude. KDP and PUK have become two conglomerate corperations with major finical interests.
The agreement shows both political parties are not ready to go into a true democratic dialog where one can have equal representation and respect for each other’s opinion. In other words, we will not have political systems where the outcome of winners and losers could be respected or where dialog is encouraged instead of oppressed. What we get is a “yes parliament” without any opposition what so ever-- a “yes parliament” that could not make decisions without permission from the two political leaders. In fact today’s Iraqi parliament is more democratic than the Kurdish parliament. We see on TV everyday the Iraqi parliament has debates on point of view and questions all aspects of the government representatives and leaders. This is non-existent in the Kurdish parliament.
The agreement never once mentions disarming the militia group each one of them controls. It never mentions uniting the two militia groups into a unified army, which is essential part of forming a strong united government. As long as PUK and KDP control over their own armed forces, this cannot be a true unification.
No agencies have been set to monitor and be held accountable for the money the government receives and spends. The leaders of each political party control all the money instead of the government. The government looks to the political parties to function instead of visa versa. The political parties can do what they want without being held accountable to the people for their actions.
All Kurds are for strong united Kurdish government. However, it requires more than a signature on a document if we want it to be long lasting. James A. Phillips writes, "Building a genuine democracy requires much more than regime change. It requires a supportive civil society, strong support for the rule of law, and a political culture that rewards compromise rather than zero-sum political competition”.(2)
So where do we go from here? In my opinion, these are few of the things that have to be dealt with:
1.
Debate and compromise: Let the parliament open a debate on the issues that separate the two political parties and put forward a compromise that is acceptable to all parties. In this matter they could ask for assistance from outside organizations like United Nations and other international organizations like IDEA and Kurdish organizations like KNC. Have Kurdish intellectuals and non-Kurdish intellectuals that are friends of the Kurds (i.e. Peter Galbraith) partake in the negotiations.
Debate and compromise: Let the parliament open a debate on the issues that separate the two political parties and put forward a compromise that is acceptable to all parties. In this matter they could ask for assistance from outside organizations like United Nations and other international organizations like IDEA and Kurdish organizations like KNC. Have Kurdish intellectuals and non-Kurdish intellectuals that are friends of the Kurds (i.e. Peter Galbraith) partake in the negotiations. 2.New elections: Have new elections where all political parties present a list and winners and losers accept the outcome.
New elections: Have new elections where all political parties present a list and winners and losers accept the outcome. 3.Form a united Army: Dissolve the militia of both political parties and form a united army that answers to the government not to political groups. This also could be attained through exchange of ideas and dialog in the parliament.
Form a united Army: Dissolve the militia of both political parties and form a united army that answers to the government not to political groups. This also could be attained through exchange of ideas and dialog in the parliament. 4.Monetary policy: Only by fundamentally addressing the chronic imbalance of power and wealth that haunts the Kurdish Leaders can the KDP and PUK effectively be reunited. IMF says the ultimate objective(s) of monetary policy should be specified in legislation and publicly disclosed and explained.(3)
Monetary policy: Only by fundamentally addressing the chronic imbalance of power and wealth that haunts the Kurdish Leaders can the KDP and PUK effectively be reunited. IMF says the ultimate objective(s) of monetary policy should be specified in legislation and publicly disclosed and explained.(3)As a nation we have sacrificed and endured the atrocities of Anfal and Hallabja (the Kurdish genocide). Together we have withstood the rain and starvation of the exudes, and together we have defeated our common enemies. Finally, as a Kurdish nation, we plead with you not to let your egos and personal ambitions get in the way what is truly is in your heart of hearts, the well being of Kurdish nation and a free united Kurdistan.
In today’s new political system in Iraq, Kurds need a resilient united front to represent the Kurdish hopes and aspirations not the 50x50 of the past. The Kurdish people deserve better.
______________________
(1) IDEA International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance
(2) James A. Phillips currently serves on the Board of Editors of the Middle East Quarterly
(3) IMF International Monetary Fund
