The electoral law: a step backward for the Kurds.

The electoral law for Iraq's national elections has been voted - at last! Immediately the UN and the USA expressed their satisfaction, and so did the different protagonists involved in the endless dispute around the text.
There is, nonetheless, nothing to rejoice about. The text was voted unanimously, it is true, but there was only 138 parliamentarians on the 275 the Baghdad assembly actually has, 138 being the minimum required by the constitution for a parliamentary session to be held. It took the whole sunday and last minute phone calls from Barack Obama and Joe Biden to muster this number, and have the law passed at 23:50, ten minutes before the ultimate deadline.

The law could be passed because the Kurd representatives, who were contesting the number of seats allocated to the autonomous Kurdistan province, were pressured into voting it by the US officials. Shaho Saed, a member of the Goran opposition movement present during the negotiations held by the Americans, reports the threats made to sideline Kurdistan would the troublesome Kurds not comply to the American agenda, which has been the main preoccupation of the electoral law issue.
As a result, Kurdistan finds itself with a diminished representation in the assembly to come. On 325 seats, they will have 41. It will dilute significantly their influence in Baghdad, and makes the implementation of the article 140 even less likely than in the past.

At the heart of the tenses between Baghdad and the Kurdistan Regional Government are lying the disputed territories, including Kirkuk. Those are areas claimed by the Kurds, but outside their boundaries. An article of the Iraqi constitution, the article 140, states that a census, followed by a referendum, will determine the fate of the territories.
The census was to be carried at the end of 2007. But until now, the Iraqi government reported it, effectively prolonging a status quo in which Kirkuk and its crucial petrol resources were kept away from the Kurds.
During the january 2009 provincial elections, Iraq prime minister Nouri al-Maliki made no secret of his plans to modify the Iraqi constitution. He favours a strong central state, as opposed to the project of a federal state the Kurds wanted.

In agreeing to a reduced number of parliamentarians in the national assembly, the Kurd representatives may have given up the claims on Kirkuk. The real autonomy the control of the town could have given to Kurdistan is now compromised. Effectively, the province will remain dependent to Baghdad.
The Kurdistan Alliance, the coalition of the two parties sharing power in Kurdistan, the PUK and the KDP, were at pain to present the electoral law as a step forward, while the opposition in Kurdistan denounced it as a capitulation.
In an official statement released just after the electoral law was passed, the USA are asserting their support to a census taking place in 2010, and to the article 140. But, in the same text, they mention as well the article 142, allowing to amend the constitution. It doesn't augur well for the Kurdish claims, especially when the Iraqi vice-president Tareq al-Hashimi, who originally vetoed the law on the behalf of the Sunni arab faction, talk about is satisfaction to have gained concessions and says the task is now to reinforce "unity".
Kemal Kerkuki, Kurdistan's regional assembly speaker, and Kosrat Rasul, the KRG vice-president, were tuesday and wednesday in Baghdad engaged in a succession of meetings, trying to secure guarantees and alliances. Kosrat Rasul spoke on PUKmedia.net, the PUK mouthpiece, of the necessity to build a front with other non-Kurd parties, as during the Saddam Hussein years. A reference to the "unity" praised by Tareq al-Hashimi? The Iraqi vice-president represents the Sunnis, who lost their privileges after the dictator's fall. He wants the de-baathication policy to be halted, if not reversed, asserting it harms principally the Sunnis and bars them to hold a significant position in the new Iraq.

The Kurd leaders now under double pressure. They have to face some national elections promising them a reduced representation at the national assembly, and the discontent of their people, who feel their delegates surrendered their demands.