SHARE ON













Whenever discussion turns to the issue of self-determination and statehood for the Kurds, the old shibboleth of intra-Kurdish divisions rears its ugly head. Almost a hundred years of separation between various modern states, social systems, educational regimes and even writing scripts, mean that differences amongst the cardinal parts of Kurdistan – East (Rojhelat in Iran), West (Rojava in Syria), North (Bakur in Turkey) and South (Başur in Iraq) – make a pan-Kurdish project look as unrealistic as a pan-Arab or pan-Islamic one.But what of political differences within the various parts of Kurdistan? The Kurds of Başur appear the closest to independent statehood, yet even talk of a referendum on such remains marred by lack of unity between the Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq’s (KRG) political parties. Various observers, analysists and foreign government officials form a chorus of voices claiming that the Kurds cannot move towards independence until they mend their divisions and get their own house in order.Iran’s deputy consul in Erbil, for example, recently remarked that Iran remains against the holding of a referendum, adding that “It is very strange that all parties and political groups in the region have rifts and enmities with each other but they are talking about referendum.”Any discussion of the Kurds in Washington D.C. likewise quickly gravitates to this question. A quick Google search of the words “iraqi kurds independence kdp puk gorran” brings back some 18,000 articles and sources discussing intra-Kurdish divisions’ negative impact on the prospects for Kurdish statehood.Some of the issues raised in these sources bear serious consideration. When a significant portion of Iraqi Kurdistan’s security forces remain under party (KDP or PUK) control rather than that of the KRG’s Ministry of Peshmerga, people rightly fear that an independent South Kurdistan may end up looking like South Sudan post-independence. When the Ministries of Finance and Interior still appear divided by party lines, serious problems loom. When institutional political channels break down – with the Gorran party apparently encouraging violent protests last year and the KDP expelling Gorran parliamentarians from the capital – the political process of both a regional government and an independent future state come into question. When party corruption corrodes the rule of law, people begin to fear an independent kleptocracy instead of looking forward to self-determination.Talk of these divisions can also be exaggerated or ill-intended, however. Often, the same voices focusing on divisions within the KRG forcefully criticize the “undemocratic hegemony” of the PKK and PYD in the Kurdistans of Turkey and Syria. Those intent on forestalling any bid for Kurdish self-determination and statehood thus demand both liberal democratic politics and idealized, impossible criteria for “unity.”For good measure, they may also claim that the international community – including the likes of governments in Ankara, Tehran, Baghdad and Damascus – must pronounce itself supportive of Kurdish statehood before the people of Başur make that jump. As if that will ever happen. To date, only Israel’s Prime Minister has done so, and we all know to what extent Israel leads international political opinion.In the end, what real difference does it make if corruption, party militias, political shenanigans and disagreements occur within an autonomous region (a de facto state if we’re being honest), or an independent state? In today’s Iraq, it’s not as if anyone in Kurdistan can or would appeal to Baghdad for help against governing problems in Erbil. As long as the people of Başur agree on some basic vision of the national interest and politics within the institutionalized political system (as opposed to the dark days of the mid-1990s, when both the KDP and PUK turned to outside powers to help them fight the other), that may be good enough for an independent state.With independence at least, they can tackle these problems as free people within their own state, with no one else to blame but themselves for any lingering shortcomings. Such a state could likewise be very decentralized – if decentralization is good for dealing with differences within Iraq, the same holds true for differences within Kurdistan.Independence and statehood do not require some impossible ideal of political unanimity, but rather a simple commitment from people to live together peacefully and address the outside world with one voice. The people of South Kurdistan seem to share such a commitment today. Political differences between parties, provided they do not descend into violence or Turkish-style banning of the other, do not equal disunity. The population also appears overwhelmingly in favor of independence, with recent polls predicting around 85% of Kurdistan’s population to vote ‘yes’ in any referendum on the question.In short, Başur’s political leaders should bring on the referendum rather than waiting for some “perfect time” or impossible measure of unity that will never come.David Romano has been a Rudaw columnist since 2010. He holds the Thomas G. Strong Professor of Middle East Politics at Missouri State University and is the author of numerous publications on the Kurds and the Middle East.The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.