Kirkuk crisis: A microcosm of government failure to forge a national identity

Some observers have suggested that the turmoil may be a ploy to delay Kirkuk's elections. Unlike other provinces, it has not held local elections since 2005. It appears that it is in the interest of various political factions for a delay, which would create a precedent for polls to be put back in central and southern governorates.

Unravelling alliances

And then there are suggestions that some alliances and arrangements – set up before the formation of Mohammed Shia' al-Sudani's government between the KDP and the Coordination Framework – are unravelling.

The KDP appears dissatisfied with how long-standing political agreements are being implemented. Disagreements between the groups emerged over the passage of federal budget laws.

This fracturing political picture means the KDP is eager to regain control over its crucial strongholds in Kirkuk province, currently under the jurisdiction of the Joint Operations Commands. This issue was among the agreements made during Adel Abdul Mahdi's and Mustafa al-Kadhimi's governments, and not that of al-Sudani.

Read more: Kirkuk slides into violence over Kurdish party HQ handover

Yet there is a determination to address the matter in the context of the upcoming elections, adding to the sense of crisis in Kirkuk.

It shows how these recurring disputes – and ones between Baghdad and the Kurdistan region – are symptomatic of a system of governance that highlights short-term political dealmaking over the long-term needs of the constitution itself.

Constitutional lip service

The constitution often appears in speeches made by politicians and in their discussions over every crisis, not just those between the KRG and the federal government of Iraq. But it has become a hollow, rhetorical phrase rather than a means to find proper agreement.

This approach – of lip service toward respect for constitutional politics – sets up crisis-prone relationships between Baghdad and Erbil and between Kurdish and Arab leaders within provinces.

It undermines the fundamental principle that respecting the constitution should be paramount over political posturing. A political system ostensibly founded on constitutional federalism exists, but in reality, it operates as a state within a state.

And that can worsen tensions that are not rooted in constitutional matters.

The conflict during the second term of Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister, during his second term, and Barzani, the former president of the Kurdish region, revolved around the reluctance of Kurdish politicians to implement the terms of the Erbil Agreement, which formed the basis of the government's formation in 2010 and meant al-Maliki continued in the job.

Disagreements were to continue over oil revenue sharing, culminating in the Kurdistan Region's independence referendum in September 2017 and the subsequent entry of federal forces into Kirkuk province.

Tensions were subsequently eased after the referendum – which ended in a large majority for independence but was seen as an illegitimate poll by the Iraqi federal government – via a new agreement within the 2019 national budget.

The personal and political relationships within the ruling political class in Baghdad and Erbil continue to be shaped by the historical dynamics of the opposition years. They have not adapted to the new political landscape and dynamics since 2003.

The Kurds have lost the trust of the Shiite masses, who accuse them of exploiting the country's resources and pursuing an agenda that prioritises their own interests over national unity.

Generational differences

Consequently, an entire generation in the southern regions of Iraq no longer feels invested in whether Kurdistan remains part of Iraq or not. Moreover, an older generation in the south primarily remembers the Kurds for events like the Aylul revolts, or what they term "wars of disobedience."

On the Kurdish side, there is a significant generational gap regarding their relationship with Arab Iraq. Many from the generation born in the 1980s and 1990s lack a connection to the Arabic language, which traditionally serves as a bridge for communication. This language barrier has led them to believe no meaningful connection exists between them and the rest of Iraq.

The political landscape in Iraq is marked by deep-seated historical divisions and mistrust between different communities, with generational differences further exacerbating these tensions.

To move towards a more inclusive and unified nation, it is crucial to address these issues and build bridges of understanding between the various population segments.

What exists is a political system ostensibly founded on federalism, but in reality, allows the operation of a state within a state.

Limited alliance

The alliance between Kurdish and Shiite politicians functions only in the Green Zone in Baghdad and the government in Erbil, failing to extend its influence to the broader population.

This failure has resulted in the absence of a political system capable of fostering social cohesion and the development of a cohesive national identity. Consequently, the alliance, rooted in shared grievances and opposition dynamics, has fallen short in building a unified country.

The Kirkuk crisis shows the failure of the ruling political class to manage broader problems effectively. It reveals an incapacity to craft political settlements to secure the peaceful coexistence of Iraq's various sectarian and national components.

Read more: Kirkuk: Iraq's perpetual missed opportunity

Political elites struggling to properly govern the diverse region of Kirkuk are likely to falter in their efforts to transform the whole of Iraq into a society adequately governed by the institutions of constitutional law.