Gorran-PUK Deal Aftermath
Any political deal and reconciliation in Kurdistan will raise as many doubts as much as it reduces problems. So every deal does not necessarily lead to victory, and every dispute does not always lead to surrender and backward progress.
The Gorran-PUK deal seems to be more likely a self-imposed constitution draft than a bilateral political agreement, intending to hide their own distortion. I think the deal will lessen the chaos, division and falsifications, but it raises another issue that is the cause of others’ concerns and fears. The PUK and Gorran share one history, ideology, and geography. They took this step to disrupt the political balance in the Kurdistan Region Parliament before June 23rd and the result has made a situation that no far-sighted politician would hope for.
The deal had been made to form a parliamentary majority, which has already been tried and failed, as a return to show off the power of majority rather than balance, consensus and mutual work among parties. It means leaving behind the principles of a joint national government. Thus, if the two parties’ deal attempts to solve their problems throughout this kind of imposed political situation, it will deepen the external issues, which may be the main goals of the deal itself.
Prior to that, the four parties have tested their problems. These two parties also have held many bilateral meetings so that they can work on a common parliamentary work to limit the power and position of KDP and work on the Kurdistan Presidency issue. Gorran and PUK claim they made the deal in the “inter- est of people and reforming the governing system in Kurdistan, people’s financial situation and reforms.” The question is that why did they throw aside solving the problems, reforms, combating corruption, respecting will of people in Sulaimani before that step? The question is that, will they be able to achieve that ideal in the time of unification, turning a blind eye on each other’s members and leader, the work that they couldn’t do in the time of distrust, mutual accusations and standing against one another? We know that the parties always make deals that leave problems unsolved, neglecting the legal violations, keeping silent on the offences, not the practical solution of the problems. Deals are made during the times of weakness, not times of success. Deals are made for limiting the opponents—the will of the people is the last thing concerned about in these kinds of actions.
I think the deal will lead to anesthetization of the disagreements in Sulaimani instead of providing a solution to the crises. Have they thought what it means to marginalize or oust the KDP in any political process in Kurdistan Region? Have they thought that the problems that are not solved with inclusive agreement and common work from all the parties will be considered a local or bilateral deal? I think that they haven’t. The deal demonstrates two goals: hiding Gorran’s failure in changing PUK (turning it into Gorran), and trying to extend the packages from last year’s events of the Kurdistan Region Parliament, which has already failed.