Will Barzani's departure end his party’s monopoly over Kurdish polity?

President of the Kurdish Region of Iraq (KRI) Masoud Barzani is stepping down, but a month prior to his resignation he set in motion the impossible; Kurdistan’s bid for statehood.

Overwhelming numbers voted “yes” in September’s referendum on independence in a move which defied Baghdad and its neighbours.

The fallout, in the month that has since elapsed, has forced old problems to the surface.

Baghdad reclaimed its northwestern borders, reversing 14 years of gains steeped in nepotism.

Disputed geographies presided over by the two leading rival Kurdish factions — the Kurdistan Workers Party (PUK) and Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP) — switched hands following a multi-pronged military operation on 16 October placing areas of critical oil reserves back under the control of Baghdad’s militias.

Read: Iraq orders arrest of Kurdistan Referendum Commission members

Another episode in a century of Kurdish betrayal is how the events of last month were covered in the Arabic press that has looked unfavourably at the deal Barzani’s rival PUK struck with the Iraqi premier and sealed with approval from Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander Qassem Soleimani.

Iraqi intelligence sources substantiated claims that Soleimani swayed the PUK not to stand in Baghdad’s way.

Chaos ensued but Kirkuk’s capture was bloodless.

Orders no longer emanated from one administrative centre and owing to this confusion, some Peshmerga factions withdrew from their positions. An incident of “high treason”, as labelled by Barzani, is how Kurdish history may remember the loss of oil rich Kirkuk.

Although America has commanded Barzani resign, stepping down does not necessarily mean stepping aside.

The Barzan tribe from which the subregional leader hails has been at the heart of the struggle for Kurdish autonomy.

Read: Iraq’s Sunnis adopt alternate stances on Kurdish referendum

Masoud’s father and predecessor, Mullah Mustafa, and uncle, Ahmad, laid down the earliest foundations of the Iraqi Kurdish Democratic Party in 1946, the same year the first Kurdish republic rose and fell in Mahabad (Iran).

More important than the seat Barzani has relinquished is the political influence he will retain.

The Kurds, as far as America’s Trump administration sees, are crucial actors who, before Kirkuk’s retaking, Washington believed could capably serve as a barrier to Iranian intrusion.

Losing the monopoly the KRG has held over Kirkuk and surrounding cities would drastically cost Washington too and therefore is unlikely to be lifted soon.

The aftershock has been greater for the population of disputed and Kurdish territories. It has taught them another painful lesson of misplaced trust, carrying echoes of events in Mahabad after the Soviets withdrew their troops and support, preferring Iranian oil concessions.

Pledges have already been voiced. America has vowed to maintain relations with Nechirvan, Barzani’s aid, nephew and the candidate most likely to succeed Masoud, while overlooking the structural flaws of the Iraqi state that now has Kirkuk back in its grasp.

Leaving behind a strong tribalist and nepotistic network, Masoud does not need to retreat into the shadows, but knows what to expect next – a bitter struggle for power.

#Referendum 

After two decades, will the ruling parties of Barzani and the late Jalal Talabani broaden the political aisle to welcome the entrance of new players? Decentralising control and democratising power fixtures in this way may create a distributive conflict in which new and old parties compete for spoils.

Maintaining the current duopoly, a term US analyst Denise Natali uses, is equally damaging for distributions of Iraq’s northern pie would be squeezed between two rivals.

Sweeping modernisation in urban cities is the vehicle both parties – the KDP in particular – have used to gain monopoly. Neither Turkey, the KRI’s largest investor, nor the KDP are prepared to walk away from business transactions that line their pockets and extend the shelf life of their political parties.

The inclusion of new parties is the greatest challenge ahead and litmus test of the KRI’s institutional capacity.

Contrary to the view that Barzani was forced to step down after the referendum backlash left him with egg on his face, his departure is in large part motivated by the desire to secure autocratic survival.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.