The Kurdistan legislative elections of 2013 promised to mark a historical milestone in the Kurdish political and democratic evolvement and the outcome was no different.
Kurdistan has moved from the predictable electoral nature that underscored the duopoly of KDP-PUK control of the Kurdish political sphere where political control could be almost split in the middle, to a new political horizon with more healthy competition and need for different permutations and alliances.
This duopoly was broken in 2009 with the emergence of the Movement for Change (Gorran) adding an opposition element to the Kurdistan government previously unseen.
The success of Gorran was at the expense of the PUK in their traditional backyard of Sulaimaniya and indeed this was a reoccurring theme in 2013.
The KDP as most expected proved the overall winners of the polls, with preliminary results indicating over 37.5% of the vote. But crucially, such was the more balanced nature of the electoral outcome that the KDP must work with other parties, including Gorran to form a new cabinet.
Much focus has been placed on the demise of the PUK, but the fall from joint rulers of Kurdistan to a third-placed position cannot be underestimated.
With the end of the Strategic Agreement, the PUK failings could not be veiled by prospect of a coalition list with the KDP as was the case in recent years. Running independently meant the strength of each party was easier to gauge.
However, talk of the PUK as a new weak or insignificant actor is premature. When one political door closes, with the right leadership, strategy and resolve many new doors can open.
But any PUK revival must be underpinned by forward-thinking and a new reality and away from its past status. In this light, although the KDP clearly prefers to keep intact its partnership with the PUK and form a new cabinet with the Kurdistan Islamic Union, this is may do more harm in the long-term to the PUK.
The Strategic Agreement may have made sense when both the KDP and PUK were on roughly equal footing and the region was effectively split into two administrations and the government was split into two terms. but the rules have changed and PUK would have to work under new diluted terms and mainly under the KDP umbrella of policies and dominance.
The PUK and KDP have many historical differences including political ideology, control of security forces, foreign alliances and government policies, and with a weaker PUK hand this cannot be masked as before.
The PUK can serve as an effective force in opposition movement. As Gorran has shown, the opposition tag can be a key magnet for a vital voice in Kurdistan. Much can change in the next 4 years and a move to opposition would also allow the PUK to regroup over the next years, lick their wounds and move on.
The PUK leaders to their credit have been quick to acknowledge their disappointment at the polls and the new reality that beckons. The loyal PUK voter base would prefer a new fight and the realisation of a new dawn than a continuing an outdated and now uneven strategic alliance with the KDP.
As for Gorran, their status as the second largest party in Kurdistan is a remarkable feat. However, much in the same way as the PUK, they are about to embark on a new chapter and a new identity. How they fare with their new status and political clout will determine whether they can continue to grow as a political force or whether their support base rescinds in 4 years’ time.
Gorran are in a tricky position. With such a large proportion of votes, its support base does not expect them to continue to work on the peripherals of power as an opposition force. At the same time, joining the government places Gorran into unchartered territory. They have to work with the KDP and been against the ruling parties is somewhat easier than working side-by-side with them.
An option that cannot be overlooked with the number of seats combined is Gorran and the PUK joining forces to form a new cabinet at the expense of the KDP.
However, these would mean the PUK mending bridges amidst a fierce rivalry with Gorran and PUK alienating the KDP, even though the KDP has reaffirmed their support and commitment to the PUK.
The ideal scenario, at least on paper, is a broad based political coalition amongst the major parties. However, this would deprive Kurdistan of a decisive opposition and will make the government brittle and susceptible to differences, bickering and prolonged decision making.
With the new political reality, rivalries and passions may intensify, especially in Sulaimaniya. A factor that should not be discounted is that the PUK may have lost political power but still have allegiance and influence of most of the security forces in Sulaimaniya province.
More political competition and jockeying for power must not be at the detriment, unity or stability of Kurdistan or ultimately the serving of the people who voted them into power.