The Kurdistan Region of Iraq in a Turbulent Neighbourhood: Visions & Directions
- Nechirvan Barzani, President of Kurdistan Region of Iraq
- Bilal Wahab, President of the American University of Iraq, Sulaimani (Moderator)
In an insightful panel discussion of the MERI Forum 2024, Dr. Bllal Wahab, President of the American University of Sulaimani, engaged President Nechirvan Barzani to debate and examine the Kurdistan Region’s current political landscape. This debate, held shortly after the regional parliamentary elections, captured the complexity of governance, the delicate nature of intergovernmental relations, and the pressing realities of geopolitical volatility in the Middle East.
A focal point of the panel was the legitimacy and political importance of the recent elections. President Barzani underscored the foundational role of elections, describing them as the primary source of democratic legitimacy: “Elections are the source of legitimacy for the Kurdistan Region.” He highlighted the extensive efforts required to realize the elections, noting that their occurrence was neither inevitable nor straightforward. Negotiations with Iraqi federal authorities, UNAMI, and key regional capitals—Baghdad, Tehran, and Ankara—were necessary to pave the way. The voter turnout, reportedly over 72%, was framed as an indicator of democratic maturity and public engagement. He also touted the significance of the vote, citing it as the most significant election since 1991.
Yet, the panel did not ignore the criticisms voiced by opposition factions. While some parties have raised concerns about procedural fairness, Barzani chose to emphasize political pluralism and the inclusivity of the process. “Opposition parties are also part of this nation and political spectrum. They are not enemies. They might be political rivals, but not enemies.” He noted on being “on the same boat,” while rejecting the notion of antagonism between the ruling parties and the opposition, advocating instead for a culture of cooperative politics. Despite vitriolic and discouraging elections campaigning by the two main ruling political parties, the process went smoothly and electorates cast their votes. The fear of disruption of violence and indefinite postponement of the elections given the acrimonious and tempestuous atmospheres leading up to the votes, was as such abated. This is “a positive condition that should be commended”, stated the president of the KRI.
The theme of coalition was critical, not only as a technical necessity but also as a normative vision for governance in the Kurdistan Region. Barzani called for the immediate transition from electoral campaigning to institutional consolidation. “We should not act as if we are still campaigning. This process must transition swiftly into government formation.” His comments suggested a deep awareness of the dangers of political inertia and post-election gridlock, which could jeopardize both public trust and administrative functionality. Government formation would ultimately require both of the ruling parties in the KRI to join hands in alliance. It is likely that any coalition short of both the PUK and the KDP, would not succeed in forming a government in the KRI. In addition to holding the majority of seats, these two powers sway exclusive influence in their respective domains. To this end, Nechirvan Barzani noted, “No political force in Kurdistan has enough seats to form a government alone. Therefore, a coalition government is necessary.”
On the topic of federalism, the President of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) offered pointed criticism of Baghdad’s approach to power-sharing. He lamented what he described as an entrenched centralist mindset in the federal government, which he argued runs counter to Iraq’s constitutional framework. “The way Baghdad deals with the Kurdistan Region is not federal—it even surpasses centralism,” he stated. Despite over two decades of political engagement since 2003, Barzani contended that key constitutional principles remain unimplemented, contributing to persistent tensions over governance, revenue-sharing, and institutional autonomy.
At the same time, the discussion candidly addressed the Kurdistan Regional Government’s (KRG) own shortcomings. The KRI President acknowledged that the KRG has often operated more like a quasi-independent entity than a federated unit. “I have told the KRG that they place insufficient importance on Baghdad, which now views the KRG as a supra-confederal entity that has assumed powers beyond what is granted under the Iraqi constitution,” he remarked. This dual critique—of both Baghdad’s centralism and Erbil’s unilateralism—underscored the absence of a functioning federal dynamic and the need for a more structured and rules-based intergovernmental relationship.
Economic and energy issues emerged as critical points of contention in the panel, with President Nechirvan Barzani offering a sharp critique of the politicization surrounding oil exports. Framing oil as an inherently economic rather than political asset, Barzani remarked, “Oil is not a political issue. It is an economic issue.” He underscored the financial repercussions of the ongoing suspension of oil exports through Turkey, which he estimated to have cost Iraq approximately $15 billion. According to Barzani, this disruption is not attributable to external geopolitical constraints, but rather to unresolved internal disagreements concerning revenue-sharing mechanisms and divergent interpretations of production cost contracts. “Baghdad must reconsider this impasse from an economic perspective, not a political one,” he urged.
However, while this technocratic framing seeks to neutralize tensions, it arguably underrepresents the entrenched political dynamics that have long governed energy relations between Erbil and Baghdad. The federal government’s perception of unilateralism in the Kurdistan Region’s energy policy has fueled distrust, while the KRG’s opaque contractual arrangements with international oil companies have raised legal and fiscal concerns. By calling for depoliticization, Barzani implicitly advocates for a more functional and decentralized economic arrangement within the bounds of federalism. Yet such a recalibration would necessitate parallel reforms on both sides: increased contractual transparency and institutional accountability in the KRG, and a willingness in Baghdad to recognize and accommodate regional economic agency within a coherent national legal framework. Absent these mutual adjustments, the current deadlock is likely to persist, with material costs and political ramifications for both entities.
Regional security dynamics and Iraq’s evolving relationship with international partners—particularly the U.S.-led Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS—featured prominently in the discussion. President Nechirvan Barzani urged caution against any premature or unilateral termination of the coalition’s presence, emphasizing that “these forces came at Iraq’s request and have provided essential support in the fight against IS”. While acknowledging Iraq’s notable progress in improving domestic security, Barzani argued that the underlying threat of violent extremism persists, and that any recalibration of international military presence must occur within a structured, consensual framework. He warned that an uncoordinated withdrawal could create a security vacuum, thereby risking the reversal of fragile gains in counterterrorism and stabilization.
At the same time, Barzani recognized the changing security environment and the legitimacy of reviewing existing strategic postures. He described a shift in the coalition’s role as “natural and warranted,” reflecting Iraq’s growing capacity to manage its internal security challenges. Yet he was clear that such a recalibration must not marginalize the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI), which remains a critical actor in the country’s broader security architecture. Any relocation or repositioning of international forces should be deliberated in full coordination with Iraq.
Regionally, the discussion underscored the volatility sweeping across the Middle East, characterizing the current moment as one marked by intensifying violence and shifting alliances. President Nechirvan Barzani warned of the very real danger that Iraq could be drawn into this turbulent regional landscape, unless deliberate and coordinated measures are taken to insulate it from external entanglements. To this end, he commended Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani’s government for its role in maintaining Iraq’s relative neutrality amid rising tensions. By avoiding entanglement in external conflicts, particularly those involving regional powerhouses, Baghdad has, according to Barzani, demonstrated prudence. This praise, however, was tempered by a subtle acknowledgment of the complex internal security dynamics at play. Barzani alluded to the diminishing influence of local actors who have historically sought to manipulate Iraq’s internal politics for geopolitical gain, suggesting a shifting balance of power in the region.
Internally, the debate addressed growing concerns about the potential return to dual administrations in the Kurdistan Region. Dismissing the idea, he issued a stark warning: “I don’t see two administrations. I see zero administrations if we continue like this.” His comment encapsulated a broader call for administrative unification and institutional strength. The alternative, he suggested, was a weakening of governance and loss of public confidence.
The discussion also addressed the transformative potential of youth, acknowledging their central role in the elections. To Nechirvan Barzani, “we are here because of the struggles and sacrifices of the past generations,” By invoking historical memory, he positioned the younger generation not just as participants, but as heirs to a legacy of resistance and state-building. Citing development models in South Korea and Singapore, Barzani stressed education as the engine of national advancement. “We must invest in education. That is where transformation begins.”
In conclusion, the panel discussion did more than review recent events; it offered a diagnosis of the region’s most critical challenges and opportunities. The discussion acknowledged systemic deficits, from federal misalignment to governance fragmentation, but also advocated for a path forward rooted in constitutionalism, coalition-building, and institutional reform. Ultimately, the debate served as both a reflection on the past and a directive for the future—a reminder that political actors must now move from rhetoric to results, from division to unity, and from reaction to proactive governance.
MERI Forum 2024
The Kurdistan Region of Iraq in a Turbulent Neighbourhood: Visions & Directions