Evolving democracy in Kurdistan

There is still an element of apprehension about whether the parliament is really supporting and serving the people. There is a general consensus that parliamentarians have to be more attentive to public concerns and demands. Accountability must increase for this to be realised.

In the West when politicians make mistakes their political careers are often quickly doomed and public enquiries are launched. However, this level of accountability to answer to mistakes and actions is somewhat lacking.

To achieve an experienced and proficient pool of politicians to create a vibrant level of competition and opposition takes time. The transition from freedom fighters to running a Western democracy is hardly a small gap to plug.

Regional expertise and intellectualism has improved significantly, aided by an educated and developing Diaspora. As the people become more accustomed to rights, freedoms and privileges, this has increased pressure on the government to raise parliamentary standards.

However, one must also judge a subject within its context. With the exception of Turkey, which houses many constraints of its own, neighbouring countries can hardly be classified as model democracies.

At least in Kurdistan minorities have representation: for decades the Kurds, forming a large part of the population of Turkey, did not have a single voice in the Turkish parliament. Even today, cultural tolerance in Turkey is hardly up to a European standard, and this is a country which has received wide-scale credit as an example of Islamic democracy and which has ambitions to join the EU.

It is evident that Kurdish leaders have tried hard to implement a system of government that is closer to the West than the geographically closer East.

The need for adaptation and evolvement

Democratic elections in Kurdistan are to a large extent predictable. Much like the US where certain states have become beacons of support for either the Democrats or Republicans, there is a general affiliation across parts of the region for either PDK or PUK. However, there are signs that some political parties are evolving. For example, recent instability in the PUK alliances briefly resulted in rumours that the party may split.

Growing freedoms in Kurdistan can be seen in the wide range of liberal newspapers, which are becoming more confident to criticise and oppose the government and to debate regional affairs. Although, Kurdistan had a flourishing press since it won autonomy, too often it was the mouthpiece, or under the control, of political parties. As a result, there was little room for independents without approval from government authorities.

The next elections in Kurdistan are just around the corner in May 2009 and it should be an interesting reflection of the mood of the people for the last four years or so. There is still a notion of a conceptual battle between the old school of thought and new liberal minds in Kurdistan.

Democracy in Kurdistan may not be perfect but consider that Western democracy was not created in just two decades.

In an imperfect region, it is hardly fair to scrutinise Kurdish democracy and pick out its evident failings after such a short period of time. But this is no means an excuse for Kurdish politicians to rest on their laurels and not strive to improve the region, politic establishments and in the way the serve the very entity they have been created for, the people.

We must also not forget that democracy in Kurdistan is to a great extent intertwined with democracy in Iraq as they are officially part of one state. Democracy in Iraq is far from perfect and when it comes to the practice of federal democracy, such as the implementation of national legislations and an elected constitution, it takes two to tango.