I wanted to draw your attention to a recent article from The Economist on Iraqi Kurdistan (hat tip: Coming Anarchy). I think the article is balanced, sensible, and well worth your time. I’m particularly gratified that The Economist’s take on the political situation there corresponds pretty closely to what I’ve been suggesting for some time:
To a large degree, the party and the union are tribal fiefs, with power, money and even land distributed from the top by the ruling families. While Mr Talabani is currently president of federal Iraq, Massoud Barzani is president of Kurdistan; his nephew, Nechirvan Barzani, is its prime minister; Massoud’s son, Masrur Barzani, heads the powerful intelligence service. At the end of the year, one of Mr Talabani’s men is supposed to take over as Kurdistan’s prime minister. No one is sure whether that will happen smoothly.
Moreover, the notion that Iraqi Kurdistan is a haven of democracy is far-fetched. The two fiefs control virtually all public activity, including the media, hitherto with remarkably little scrutiny; outright opposition has invariably been squeezed out, often amid accusations of betraying the sacred cause of Kurdistan. Patronage—some call it corruption—is the norm. The Islamists, with a reputation for honesty, are the third force, small for now, but waiting in the wings. If Kurdistan is to thrive, its own politics must loosen up and become more open, if not a Western-style free-for-all.
As the article points out, significant foreign investment is taking place in Iraqi Kurdistan. Whether that investment is worthwhile or not depends in good part on serious governmental, economic, and political reforms. Are those more likely to take place in the context of a unified Iraq, a federal Iraq, or an independent Kurdistan?
