Disagreements between the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) over the formation of a new government have led to the threat of two rival administrations emerging in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq, analysts say.
The dispute between the two dominant political forces in the semiautonomous Kurdistan Regional Government, which traditionally has operated under a power-sharing agreement, escalated after a parliamentary session was held last week in Erbil without the PUK’s participation.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
PUK leader Bafel Talabani responded by withdrawing his party from the government, and a threat is growing that a rival administration could be formed in the party’s Sulaimaniyah base.
Independent Kurdish politician Yasin Aziz said the latest developments have deepened the historical divisions between the KDP and PUK.
“I believe the spectre of two administrations in Kurdistan is now very close, and the outlines of such a scenario are becoming clear. … The events have been painful and rapid. The differences between the two parties were significant and have now led to a breakdown in relations,” Aziz told Al Jazeera.
“There had been hopes that the two sides would reach an agreement, but activating parliament without the PUK deepened the divisions between the KDP and PUK.”
The KDP, which is led by Massoud Barzani, is the biggest party in the region, and its strongholds are in Erbil and Dohuk.
Two powers
Since the first Gulf War in 1990 and 1991 and the establishment of a US-led “no-fly zone” in northern Iraq, Iraq’s Kurds have largely governed themselves, separate from the national government in Baghdad.
The Iraqi Constitution enacted after the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq recognised the northern Kurdish region as a federal entity with its own legislative, executive and judicial powers.
There is a historical precedent for the possible separation of powers in this region between two rival authorities. When a conflict erupted between elements of the KDP and PUK in the 1990s, the two parties formed separate local governments in Erbil and Sulaimaniyah, respectively.
While there have been no recent violent flare-ups between the two parties, political distrust remains deep.
During the sixth parliamentary elections in the region on October 20, 2024, the KDP won 39 seats and the PUK 23. This left a 16-seat gap between the two parties.
But the KDP’s ability to form a new government was still dependent on reaching an agreement with the PUK and other parties, such as the New Generation Movement, which secured 15 seats in the last election.
The PUK has so far refused to collaborate, so after a two-year wait, the KDP reactivated the regional parliament on Wednesday without its rivals.
Divisions but no conflict
Although the rivalry between the two parties is longstanding, Aziz argued that the current crisis is more serious and deeply rooted than previous political disputes.
“Given the political stubbornness of both parties, I do not expect an agreement or understanding to be reached soon,” he said. “Both sides must make concessions to each other. The party willing to make greater concessions will demonstrate greater concern for the Kurdistan region.”
Aziz was clear in laying blame for the deepening divide.
“The responsibility for deepening this conflict lies with the leaderships of Kurdistan’s two main parties,” he said. “Their failure to recognise the risks posed by continuing these disputes is one of the reasons we have reached this point.”
Subhi Mandalawi, a member of the KDP, blamed the current impasse on the refusal of the PUK to form a new government with the KDP.
“Following the Kurdistan parliamentary elections, the PUK delayed the formation of the new government. They were counting on the KDP being unable to secure the legal quorum needed to convene a parliamentary session,” Mandalawi told Al Jazeera. “But we held a parliamentary session without the PUK in 2018 as well, and they subsequently joined the government and parliament.”
Mandalawi insisted that the door remains open for the PUK and other political parties but warned that prolonged divisions would lead to deeper problems for the Kurdish region.
“Continuing to obstruct legislative institutions two years after the elections is unacceptable and harms the Kurdistan region domestically, regionally and internationally,” he said.
“Threatening to divide the Kurdistan region is a hasty, ill-considered and unrealistic decision. No party leader can take such a step, and the PUK would be the biggest loser if it went ahead with it.”
Despite the differences, there is little risk of a return to conflict between the two parties. “We are brothers, and there can be no fighting among us,” Mandalawi said.
Separation threats
Mahmood Khoshnaw, a senior PUK official, said the KDP’s decision to convene parliament without his party has worsened political tensions in the region.
“Activating parliament without the PUK represents a departure from the principle of partnership and from political realities, and there will be consequences. If a prime minister is appointed in Erbil, we will take the same step in Sulaimaniyah. Whatever the KDP does, we will do the same in Sulaimaniyah,” Khoshnaw warned.
“The situation in the Kurdistan region is heading towards chaos unless the crisis is addressed rationally and realistically. Activating parliament without reaching an understanding with the PUK has had a negative impact on relations between the two parties.”
Despite this, there are questions about whether Sulaimaniyah could legally separate from the Kurdish regional government.
Ramadan Albadran, an independent political analyst and constitutional affairs expert, said the dispute is not a constitutional issue about the KDP’s convening of parliament but a deep political crisis with the potential to create security repercussions for the region.
The Iraqi constitution also provides no mechanism for dividing the region into zones of influence between the KDP and PUK.
“If the PUK moves to separate Sulaimaniyah from the Kurdistan region, that would not be a legal or constitutional act,” Albadran said.
“If it takes place without a mandate from the elected Kurdistan Regional Government, it would be closer to an act of rebellion since there is no legal provision permitting withdrawal from or the dismantling of a region in this manner.”