Democracy and Federalism in Iraq
A Nightmare for Non-democratic States
By: Kurdish Observer ^(MJ)

The issue of federalism for the Kurds in Iraq is nothing new.[1] It was first raised as a central slogan by a small Kurdish political party during the 1992 free and democratic parliamentary elections in the Kurdistan Region; its main slogan was peace, freedom, democracy and federalism. The idea of federalism gained popularity within the other Kurdish parties and eventually adopted by all of them.

Subsequently, all Iraqi opposition political groups, secular as well as religious, leftist, democratic and moderate Arab nationalist, participating in the Iraqi opposition deliberations and meeting inside the liberated Kurdish areas in Iraq openly accepted the idea of federalism for the Kurdistan Region during all these meetings and deliberations, the latest being the London meeting a short while before the "Iraq Liberation" operations. All these parties clearly knew and understood that this federalism meant federalism for the Kurdish Region, after adding the rest of the Kurdish areas that were still under the control of the Saddam regime, and nothing else. Even the United States of America knew and understood this fact which President George W. Bush was confirmed on 8 March 2003 that, "Iraq will provide a place where people can see that the Shia and the Sunni and the Kurds can get along in a federation". To the best of my knowledge, none of them has named or hinted at federalism on the basis of Muhafadha(t); this is a late political device, probably to avoid implementing what has been agreed upon. This federalism was meant and understood to be a federalism to preserve the “historical identity” (as Secretary of State Colin Powell so eloquently put it recently) of the Kurds and the consecutive geographical area where they have lived for millennia. What the Kurds of Iraq want is geographical federalism in the areas where they live and constitute a majority, the same way Canada is a geographical federal state where the Province of Quebec is pre-dominantly French-speaking and the other provinces are English-speaking.

Federalism as we understand it means that a federal state is one that brings together a number of different political communities with a common government for common purposes with a federal parliament and a "supreme" or "constitutional" court, and constituent “state (USA)” or “provincial (Canada)” or “cantonal (Switzerland)” or "land (Germany)" governments for the particular purposes of each community, each with its own assembly. Or, expressed differently, federation involves territorial divisions of authority, typically entrenched in the constitution which neither a sub-unit nor the center can alter unilaterally. The United States of America, Canada, Australia and Switzerland are all federal states as well as Austria and Germany. Federalism does, indeed, combine unity with diversity. The USA is considered to be the first federal democratic state in modern history, when it adopted the federal constitution in 1787.

There are different implementations of federalism. Two very stable alternatives are found in North America, namely, the USA and its northern neighbor Canada. Canada and the United States are both democracies; they are also both federal states. But there are important differences in the way Canadians and Americans administer their states. One fundamental difference is that the United States is a country of one basic language and culture. Canada is a country of two basic languages and cultures, a situation very similar to that in Iraq.

There are two strong arguments for federalism. Arguments favoring federal orders compared with secession and completely independent sovereign states; and arguments supporting federal arrangements rather than a (further) centralized unitary state. Both of these arguments apply strongly to the Iraqi situation. Voluntary federalism does keep and preserve Iraqi unity and territorial integrity and thus inhibit and keep in check any secessionist tendencies (as the case of Quebec in Canada clearly shows). At the same time it will prevent the emergence of highly centralized anti-democratic, totalitarian and aggressive regimes in Baghdad (such as those that have ruled Iraq since the creation of the state of Iraq and which made worse by the Saddam regime).

The federal states mentioned above are all decentralized democracies and their choice of federalism was based on the free will of their populations involved (in the case of Canada it was the choice of the minority French Canadians rather than of the whole of Canada, meaning that the inhabitants of Quebec alone, not of all Canada, have repeatedly voted for federalism in several referenda, the last one taking place just a few years ago). Therefore, and because of this democracy and respect for the free will of the "minority" they have not fallen apart and not broken down into separate entities. On the other hand, the anti-democratic, coercive and totalitarian systems of state where the will of the nationalities was crushed and not respected, such as former communist Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia and the forcibly incorporated regions, such as East Timor and Eritrea, have dissolved into separate independent states. Since the Coalition is striving to make the new Iraqi state a democracy and a good example for other non-democratic, totalitarian, autocratic and coercive states in the Middle East, federalism in Iraq (similar to the Canadian one) will certainly make Iraq a very solidly united country where all its citizens have equal rights and enjoy freedom, security and prosperity and where the will of the population of the Kurdistan Region is met and respected. Therefore, it is only natural that non-democratic, totalitarian, autocratic, ultra-nationalistic and coercive states and groups in the Middle East use federalism as a ploy to scare and frighten those who do not really knowing or comprehend what federalism means and how it is practiced in the democracies since, they seem to think, think it represents a softer "target" to attack and an easier “device” to employ to threaten or frighten others with; the real and main target in Iraq is in reality not federalism but rather democracy itself which they feel threatens their ultra-nationalistic, totalitarian, autocratic and coercive rules and their enormous privileges at the expense of the vast majority of the population.

There are several types of federalism adjusted to suite specific realities in each country. The nearest case that resembles the situation in Iraq is that of Canada where the majority speaks English with a large section of the population speaking French and constituting the majority of the inhabitants of a geographically consecutive region, namely, the Province of Quebec. Although the French speaking population represents the majority in Quebec there are others who are not French speaking and who enjoy full cultural and linguistic and other democratic rights. The English speaking part of Canada is organized into several provinces and territories. The founding fathers of Canada “were very insistent on maintaining the identity, the special culture and the special institutions of each of the federating provinces.” The majority of the French speaking population of Canada has from the start been the defenders of the unity of Canada because its federal system has fulfilled their aspirations and their “historical identity”.

Quebec and its inhabitants have repeatedly opted to stay within the united federal Canada in every referendum on whether to stay within Canada or choose independence because, as has been said earlier, they feel their linguistic, cultural and national rights are well preserved and defended within the federation and because the choice of federalism was their own from the beginning, not imposed on them.

The situation in Iraq is similar to that in Canada in several ways. The Kurds live in a geographically consecutive region, The Kurdistan Region (a de facto reality [protected by the USA, UK, and earlier by France too, since 1991] and a de jure according to the 11 March 1970 Agreement between the Kurdish Movement and the Central Government and in the Interim Constitution), with a majority of Kurdish speaking Iraqis and a number of none-Kurdish speaking Iraqis, such as Turcomans, Arabs and Chaldean-Assyrians. The Kurds have always, even during the darkest days of the despotic regime of Saddam insisted on the unity of Iraq and on preserving and keeping Iraqi territorial integrity. They have done so despite the gassing of Halabja, the al-Anfal atrocities, and the mass deportation of Kurds from Kirkuk and of Fayli Kurds from Iraq, i.e., ethnic cleansing. It was the central government that violated Iraqi sovereignty (allowing Turkish troops to enter into Iraqi territory along the common borders between Iraq and Turkey to a depth of 15 km). It was that regime that violated Iraqi territorial integrity (giving Iran half of Shaat al-Arab and large areas of western Iraq to two neighboring countries). So those speaking so loudly about Iraqi unity and territorial integrity should look elsewhere rather than in the direction of the Kurds; besides, they never uttered a word or even a whisper when the regime of Saddam violated this unity and territorial integrity resulting in mass-graves and loss of Iraqi territory.

These states and groups are, in reality, not concerned about Iraq's unity and territorial integrity or even about federalism per se; they are against the Kurds (in the same way Saddam was, or even worse) and cannot tolerate seeing the Kurds enjoying freedom, democracy and a reasonable degree of self-rule. These states and groups say not a word against secessionist and separatist northern Cyprus; nor have they uttered an objection against federalism elsewhere in the Arab World (for example, in the Arab country of Sudan, a federal state coming into being on the basis of ethnicity and language with a regional government getting 50% of the country's natural resources). These states are hostile towards the Kurds and wish to get rid of them (annihilate them, if they could, not only within their borders but in Iraq too), but that they can not do now as they did with the Armenians earlier. Iraq's neighbors do not even admit the existence of millions and millions of Kurds within their countries' borders. Hypocrisy has always been a "virtue" and an "asset" of totalitarian and ultra-nationalistic groups and leaders.

Federalism based on the free choice of the population involved is a guarantee for unity, cohesion, stability and prosperity of a country as a whole. Coercing and forcing a section of the population, with an historic identity, into accepting, against their own wish and fee will, any form of governance or state structure means one of two things: annihilation of that population (the annihilation of the Armenians and the Jews in some ultra-nationalistic countries, but is somewhat difficult to carry out in the twenty-first century) or subjugation and forcible submission with all what that entails (flagrant human rights violations, war-crimes, ethnic cleansing and destruction; a very anti-democratic and counter-productive alternative in the medium and long-run).

Geographically consecutive units constituting a federation ought to be vast enough in order to be able to be economically viable and administratively workable. Therefore, the unification of provinces (Liwa’ or Muhafadha) into regions is rather reasonable and logical. These regions, based on the administrative units that existed in 1957, have been proposed to be: The Kurdistan Region (Dahok, Arbil, Suleimaniya and Kirkuk); The Mosul Region (Mosul, Tikrit and Ramadi); The Baghdad Region (Baghdad and Diyala); The Euphrates Region (Kerbala, Najaf, Hilla, Semawa, Diwaniya, Kut); and The Basra Region (Basra, Umarah and Nasriya).

The Kurds have had bitter experience with neighboring countries (besides the sizeable Kurdish communities living within the borders of these states), and with all former Iraqi regimes and some political forces. As to the Arab and Muslim states, mostly totalitarian, autocratic and coercive, the Kurds know were they stood when Saddam gassed Halabja, carried out ethnic-cleansing (al-Anfal, the mass deportation of "Muslim" Kurds from Kirkuk and of Fayli Kurds and the mass-graves) and massacred the Shia “Arabs”.

The Kurds most reasonable, possible and realistic alternative is themselves, their unity, democracy, security and self-reliance in addition to the economic vitality of their Kurdistan Region, the moral strength of their just and historically justifiable ideas and demands, and their self-defense capabilities. This should be the primary and fundamental premise for the Kurds. The Kurds must also maintain, preserve and strengthen the good relations with the Coalition and with the Iraqi political groups that are still willing to adhere to the agreed declarations of London and Salah al-Din. Diplomatic moves with all parties involved both inside Iraq and abroad are very necessary to explain the just and justifiable demands of the Kurdish people. It is at the same time very necessary to more solidify and strengthen the internal Kurdish front through more unity and coordination and vigilance against the known and new ploys and intrigues of the external and internal enemies of the Kurdish people and their aspirations. All statements and attitudes that might weaken or demoralize the internal front or cause pessimism among the population ought to be avoided and the Kurds must refrain from any acts or statements that may benefit the enemies of democracy and federalism more than the Kurdish just cause. The Kurdish people have history and reason and reality on its side.

The Coalition knows very well that they cannot jeopardize or compromise the enormous good-will they have won among the entire population of the Kurdistan Region since 1991 and especially since operation "Iraq Liberty". This good-will is based on the firm stand taken by both the Kurdish people and the Coalition at the critical periods, when it really mattered, and when other "allies" failed both the Iraqi people and the Coalition. The Kurdish side whole-heatedly cooperated with the Coalition on all levels and in all fields in order to help in the efforts to rid Iraq of one of the worst despots and tyrants. This is why Syria's current Foreign Minister, Mr. al-Shara', is quoted as saying that, "the beneficiaries of the war are the United States of America, Israel and the Kurds", meaning, what he considers, three "enemies"! The USA needs friendship and good-will of the peoples of the Middle East and not of totalitarian, autocratic, ultra-nationalist and coercive governments because these governments and their policies are against American ideals and world-outlook.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] The Kurdistan Popular Democratic Party (KPDP).