By Hawar Abdulrazaq
Associate professor of political science Thomas Ambrosio thinks that the new opposition movement Change (Gorran) is not only good for Kurdistan, but also for the ruling parties KDP and PUK to perform better. However, he also warns that if Gorran is only seeks its own interests, this will only divide the power of the Kurdish people.
Ambrosio is an associate professor of political science in the Criminal Justice and Political Science Department at North Dakota State University and director of NDSU's International Studies Major. He has written extensively on the relationship between ethnic groups and nation states. As a result he has also written about Kurds and Iraq.
A lot of people think Barham Salih will help KRG go forward and will make progress in Kurdish political situation, what do you think about that?
The PM will play an important role in the future of the KRG, but ultimately the future will be determined by two, interrelated issues: (a) the relationship between the three key ethnic groups in Iraq and (b) the stability of the government in Baghdad. The decision on how much autonomy to give to the KRG (and possibly other regions), must be made within a medium-term timeframe. Up to now, the government has largely muddled-through on this issue -- despite the 2005 constitution's provisions. Eventually, some key issue will likely divide the 'center' and the KRG which will need to be resolved. If this can be done in a manner acceptable to all sides, then Baghdad and the KRG will settle into a new living arrangement. If not, then the 'state-within-a-state' KRG will be called into question. In my view, the most likely 'flashpoint' will be borders of the KRG and the disputed territories.
The new Kurdish Parliament will have a bigger opposition than in the past; do you think this will make the parliament active than in the past?
The history of the KRG was been one of a condominium between the KDP-PUK. This has worked well to bring about a certain level of stability, but will tend toward stagnation, corruption, and a resistance to accept opposition. We see this in other cases, though mostly like those of 'dominant' party political systems such as found in the pasts of India, Mexico, and Japan -- nominal democracy, without political opposition. The best thing that the newly-empowered opposition can do is to use parliamentary tools to ensure oversight over the KRG executive. Obviously the differences between the US and KRG government structures is stark, but the most effective 'check' on executive power in the US is the US Congress. The opposition in the KRG can play a similar role to ensure that the 'rule of law' is obeyed. Bringing sunlight onto the darkness is the most effective tool of freedom and democracy.
Do you think the emergence of Gorran Movement (Change) will help political situation, or will they make it more difficult and complex?
Well, I do not see the two as mutually exclusive. Ultimately, the emergence of an opposition force will be good, not just for Kurdistan as a whole, but for the KDP and the PUK. This is the thing that those in power often do not see: a loyal opposition, with a positive message, forces those in power to ensure that they fully represent the people, rather than their own interests; this, in turn, makes all parties more responsive to the needs of their constituents and allows for them to adapt to changing circumstances. To use the American example, Obama's election will ultimately be good for the Republicans: it will force them to better seek out the people's will, adjust to new political realities, and craft their message. Sure, they have lost power in the short term, but long-term the competition is good for them.
However, if the Gorran Movement seeks its own ends and its own interests, and aims at little more than the accumulation of power, it will be bad for the KRG: having three parties dividing up the same pie will leave even smaller pieces for the Kurdish people.
How do you think the US sees the Change movement. Do you think Washington will sit down with them?
The US, if it is smart, will not be too tied to any party, but rather seek its goals (stability, democracy, alliances against terrorism, etc.) with any legitimate voice of the Kurdish people. While they are not the majority party, Washington will not view them with hostility.
Some people predict a bleak future for Kurds, especially in Baghdad. What’s your vision on the future for Iraqi Kurds?
This is similar to my answer to the first question. Ultimately all parties involved will have to come to a decision about the future of Iraq -- a decision which will be hastened if/when the U.S. leaves. It is nice to think that everyone can compromise, but sometimes the interests of differing sides are not conducive to such an outcome. While the aspirations of the Kurdish people for independence is understandable, regional actors (Turkey, Iran) will find this unacceptable. The highest levels of autonomy (i.e., still de jure part of Iraq but de facto not) may not be acceptable to the powers in Baghdad. The Kurds have always faced this conundrum and, alas, they will continue to face it for the foreseeable future.
Do you think the new government can make difference in Kurdish society and eradicate corruption?
Eliminating corruption from within one of the two 'big' Kurdish parties is going to be difficult. However, the rise of the Gorran movement may inspire it to change from within.
Is there a way or a mechanism in eliminating corruption in Kurdistan?
It is tough. Coming originally from one of the (if not THE) most corrupt state in the United States (New Jersey), I can tell you can corruption is never easy to eliminate. Ultimately, it is a choice that is made by politicians to put the people before their own interests AND a choice made by the people not to support politicians who primarily seek their own interest, even if you are personally 'aligned' with the corrupt party. A lot of people benefit from the status quo. More needs to be done to make it clear that everyone is a loser under corruption.
In your view, what has to be done in the disputed regions, in particular in Kirkuk?
This is very difficult and likely not easily resolvable. Possibly the politicians need to 'think outside the box': autonomy for the KRG, and then autonomy for these regions/cities WITHIN the KRG (Photo: ssrc.org).
© Rudaw
