A Memorandum is submitted-

On 17/1/2008, four Kurdish parties participating in the region’s government and in the “Kurdistan Higher Council for Political Parties” submitted a confidential memorandum to the presidency of the region. The four signatory parties are: the Kurdistan Islamic Union, Kurdistan Socialist Democratic Party, the Kurdistan Toiler’s Party, and the Islamic Group of Kurdistan. The memorandum points to a number of practices by the PUK and KDP, considered by the memorandum’s authors as cause for the decline of the region’s impact.

The contents of the memorandum can be summarized as follows:
1. The memorandum expresses dissatisfaction with Kurdish political relations to other political parties in Iraq, to neighbouring countries and on international levels. It demands the pacification of relations and the offering of assurances to neighbouring and allied countries, particularly The United States and Great Britain. The memorandum further indicates that there are many unresolved issues with the Baghdad government and speaks of setbacks in the region’s relations with Great Britain and The United states. It calls for a more transparent approach in addressing unresolved issues with Baghdad (g.e. implementation of article 140 of the Constitution)
2. The memorandum alerts the presidency of the region to the degradation in living standards and to the lack of basic services such as electricity, water and fuel. It discloses that the markets of the region have become monopolized by a closed number of companies and institutions and that the people of the region have become nothing but a target market for foreign products.

To rectify the situation, the memorandum demands the creation of a plan beginning with a reform process, and continuing by fighting widespread corruption. It demands transparency in dealing with the revenue and expenditures of the region, that political parties declare their budgets, and that there be fair distribution of donations and grants among political parties and civil society organizations. The memorandum demands from the presidency of the region the formation of an “integrity commission” to fight widespread corruption. Finally, the memorandum demands from the government the prioritization of providing citizens with services, and the allocation a special budget for finding solutions to the fuel and electricity problems.


Reactions on the political level

The first reaction on the memorandum came from the Kurdistan Communist Party which declared its position on the same day of the memorandum’s delivery. Haydar al-Sheikh, member of the political bureau of the Kurdistan Communist Party, justified the reasons for his party’s refusal to sign the memorandum, claiming that “the timing was unsuitable”. Al-Sheik said, “these calls do not serve the interests of the people. These issues should have been discussed by the Higher Political Parties’ Council.” Haydar al-Sheikh added, “Such an act will weaken the Higher Council of Political Parties“.

After two weeks of silence, the KDP- one of the two leading parties addressed in the memorandum, responded: “These parties do not want the Democratic and the Patriotic parties (KDP and PUK) to exist.” said Fadhel Mirani, secretary of the KDP’s political bureau. The Kurdistan Communist Party’s Al-Sheikh posed this question to the four parties: “If they have such objections why do they join us in power? They should choose among these two alternatives: either be partners in government or be on the opposition side of government.”


The aftermath of the memorandum

Some analysts speculate that the memorandum may be considered the point of emergence for political opposition in the Kurdish arena. Others have stated that such objections are illegitimate as long as the parties submitting the memorandum are partners in government and the decision making process, and that they themselves, are responsible as well for the deficiencies and shortcomings.

However, political parties have never before embarked in such a manner upon such discussion of the political and economic situation of the region, and smaller Kurdish parties have never before challenged the two major Kurdish parties.