Iraq is passing through a political phase that calls for reconsidering the nature of the relationship between its federal institutions and the Kurdistan Region, as well as the mechanisms for managing the political disputes that have accompanied the Iraqi experience over the past two decades. In this context, the period following September 30th emerges as a landmark deserving of reading and reflection, in light of the indicators the country is witnessing regarding the convergence of positions and the growth of unified external political decision-making, alongside efforts to enhance internal understanding and overcome patterns of conflict that have impacted the state’s stability and performance.
The importance of this transformation lies not merely within the boundaries of declared political positions, but in its broader implications for the nature of the relationship between Baghdad and Erbil, and the possibility of transitioning from managing recurring crises to building a more stable national partnership based on mutual interests, respect for the constitution, and prioritizing the logic of the state over narrow calculations.
From Managing Conflict to Building Partnership
Over past years, disputes between the federal government and the Kurdistan Region constituted one of the most prominent issues influencing the Iraqi political landscape. While differences in visions and interests are normal in democratic systems, the problem was not the existence of disagreement itself, but its transformation, at certain stages, into a continuous crisis that drains political effort and affects citizens’ trust in state institutions.
Hence, any convergence of positions between Baghdad and Erbil represents an opportunity to rebuild trust, provided it shifts from circumstantial political understandings into sustainable institutional working rules. The relationship between the two parties should not be managed through the logic of victor and vanquished, or according to equations of mutual pressure, but through constitutional partnership, understanding on outstanding issues, and distribution of responsibilities in a way that guarantees the interests of citizens throughout Iraq.
The stability of the relationship between the center and the region is not merely a negotiable matter concerning political forces alone; rather, it is a fundamental pillar for state stability and for strengthening its capacity to face economic, security, and regional challenges.
Unity of External Decision and the Importance of Internal Understanding
The convergence in external political discourse represents an important indicator of the evolution of Iraqi political practice. Countries facing complex regional and international environments require a cohesive external stance rooted in a clear national vision that expresses the higher interests of the state, away from contradictions that might weaken its negotiating power or leave it more vulnerable to the effects of surrounding conflicts.
Unity of external decision does not mean eliminating pluralism of opinions or restricting political debate; rather, it means agreeing on national constants, foremost among which are protecting Iraqi sovereignty, respecting the principle of good neighborliness, and avoiding turning Iraq into an arena for settling regional and international scores.
On the internal level, convergence between federal and Kurdistan political forces must transcend the limits of agreement on immediate issues to establish a broader path of cooperation in state management, addressing economic and service crises, developing institutions, and guaranteeing the constitutional rights of all citizens.
The more political forces increase their capacity to manage their differences within constitutional and institutional frameworks, the fewer opportunities remain for parties seeking to weaken the state or influence its national decisions to exploit these differences.
Decline of Accusations of Treason and Enhancement of National Trust.
Among the most prominent outcomes this path can yield is the decline of discourses based on treason, conspiracy, and mutual threats—discourses that contributed, at various stages, to deepening political and social divisions and turning resolvable disputes into open crises.
Building the state is not achieved through continuous questioning of intentions, nor through invoking past crises to feed division, but rather through recognizing mutual interests, respecting the specificity of the parties within the constitutional framework, and resorting to dialogue and institutions in resolving disputes.
This does not mean ignoring problems or wavering on rights, but rather transferring them from the space of media escalation to negotiation tracks and legal and political solutions. Criticism is a legitimate right, and accountability is a democratic necessity, but they lose their national function when they turn into tools to undermine trust or fuel division among the people of a single nation.
The current phase requires responsible political discourse that balances difference and understanding, preserving pluralism on one hand while preventing it from becoming a factor in dismantling the state on the other.
From Political Understanding to a Shared National Vision
Maintaining and sustaining this trajectory requires moving from political understandings to formulating a shared national vision, built collaboratively by relevant state institutions, think tanks and research centers, universities, experts, and political decision-makers.
The challenges facing Iraq cannot be dealt with through reactions or temporary remedies alone; rather, they require a strategic reading of regional and international transformations, assessing their reflections on Iraqi interests, and developing practical concepts regarding security, economy, energy, investment, and foreign relations.
Here lies the importance of study centers as a bridge between knowledge and decision-making; they can offer alternatives, analyze risks, anticipate transformations, and prepare an intellectual environment that helps political forces move from competing over crisis management to cooperating in building solutions.
Furthermore, consolidating the relationship between Baghdad and Erbil requires institutional mechanisms for continuous dialogue, clear timetables for addressing pending files, and follow-up on the implementation of understandings, thereby preventing the recurrence of crises with every political deadline or shift in the balance of power.
The multiplicity of institutions and roles does not constitute an obstacle to the unity of the state; rather, it can be a source of strength whenever these roles are organized within a clear national framework based on complementary specializations and unified goals.
Iraq First: Difference Within the Framework of the State
The Iraqi experience, with its national, political, and social diversity, confirms that stability is not built on eliminating difference, but on managing it in a fair and balanced manner. Baghdad and Erbil are not two separate parties from the shared Iraqi destiny; rather, they are partners in the responsibility of protecting the state, enhancing its stability, and safeguarding its sovereignty.
From this perspective, any progress in relations between the federal government and the Kurdistan Region should be viewed as a national gain, not a victory for one party at the expense of another. Baghdad’s success in building a stable state reflects positively on the region, just as the region’s stability and the strengthening of its constitutional partnership reflect on all of Iraq.
The primary responsibility facing political forces remains turning this convergence into a permanent approach in state management, far from personalization and circumstantial rivalries, ensuring the continuity of institutions even with changes in governments, leaderships, and alliances.
Conclusion
The period following September 30th can form an important opportunity to develop Iraqi political life, enhance understanding between Baghdad and Erbil, and establish a more balanced national discourse in dealing with internal and external challenges. However, the value of this opportunity will be determined by the extent of the ability to turn political convergence into institutional commitments, practical solutions, and a sustainable partnership whose effects the citizen feels in their security, livelihood, and the future of their children.
Iraq does not need complete alignment in all its political positions as much as it needs agreement on its higher interests, nor does it need to end pluralism as much as it needs to organize it within the rules of the state and the constitution.
Multiplicity of roles and unity of purpose are not merely a political slogan, but a foundation for building a state capable of managing its differences, protecting its sovereignty, and creating its stability through an independent national decision. When partnership between Baghdad and Erbil becomes an institutional approach rather than a temporary compromise, Iraq will stand before a real opportunity to transition from the politics of crisis management to the politics of building the future.
Note: This text is translated from the original Arabic version… Read the Arabic version:Click here
