The Left and the -Referendum- in Kurdistan Region- Iraq... What is to be Done and What are the Tasks?

First published in Arabic on 14/10/2017

1- Introduction

The leftist forces in Iraq have been at the forefront of the struggle for the rights of nationalities and minorities, defending them and advocating for their right to self-determination since the formation of the first communist and leftist organizations in the 1930s. These forces held a clear internationalist stance and set an outstanding humanitarian example by forming parties that included all nationalities and minorities present in Iraq. The internationalist class unity was one of the fundamental bonds within these political organizations.
Although many Iraqi and Kurdistani leftist forces and figures supported the Kurdish people s right to self-determination through a democratic referendum, they did not endorse´-or-support the referendum held on September 25, 2017, in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. This was due to several reasons, including its lack of the basic democratic requirements of referendums according to international law and even by the standards of the Third World, its illegitimacy, its inappropriate timing, the absence of local consensus, the exclusion of all parties from participation, and the lack of international support and supervision over its procedures.
Regarding the topic of the referendum and finding solutions to the national issues in Iraq, opinions and interpretations among Iraqi and Kurdistani leftists may vary. I believe that some dear comrades, whom I highly respect as individuals and as members of leftist parties with a well-known struggle in defending the rights of the toiling masses, and with whom I have had the honor to engage in struggle and organizational work,´-or-share cherished comradely relations, have chosen to adopt different policies and propose solutions to Iraq’s national issue that might be erroneous and not in the interest of the masses. In fact, such solutions could even in-dir-ectly support one of the two poles of ruling power and the detestable national conflict in Iraq.
In my view, the left should not align with its "nationalist rulers," whether under the pretext of "national liberation" in Erbil´-or-"defending the homeland and its unity" in Baghdad. The experiences of the masses under their corrupt and authoritarian rule have proven that such justifications serve only as a pretext and cover for strengthening and consolidating their dictatorial rule. In the Kurdistan Region, they unconditionally chose to support and solidify the authority of a dictatorial party and its leader under the guise of a democratic public referendum for the so-called "oppressed" nationality. Meanwhile, in Iraq, some leftist organizations and dear comrades endorsed the measures and decisions of the chauvinist political Islamist government in Baghdad against the people of the Kurdistan Region after the referendum. Some even went as far as rejecting the very principle of the right to self-determination through a democratic referendum.
Here, I will attempt to present my perspective, which is open to both error and correctness, on "the left that supports the referendum" and "the left that rejects the right to self-determination," as well as the points on which their arguments are based, considering the current realities. Additionally, I will discuss what should be done to address Iraq’s national issues and the tasks of the left in this regard.

2- The Left in Support of the Referendum

2.1- The Kurdish Left and National Secession Organizing-wise

Iraq presents a unique case that merits close examination and an independent discussion. The Kurdish left opted for national secession and independence from the Iraqi left before Kurdish nationalist forces even began advocating for national separation and independence. The Kurdistan Communist Party voluntarily split from the Iraqi Communist Party in 1993, followed by the Kurdistan Worker-Communist Party, which voluntarily separated from the Iraqi Worker-Communist Party in 2008.
The current realities have proven that the foundations and justifications on which the Kurdish left based the creation of independent leftist-nationalist parties were incorrect and did not lead to their empowerment´-or-expansion among the working masses in the region, as was hoped. On the contrary, they have diminished, turning into small parties with very-limit-ed influence. This national-geographical secession negatively impacted the left throughout Iraq.
In my opinion, these voluntary splits were a result of administrative-governmental separation between the Kurdistan Region and the central government, the complex national issues in Iraq, the influence of Arab and Kurdish nationalist movements affecting the entire society—including the leftist forces—and the prioritization of national identity over humanistic and class-based identity in some leftist parties. Additionally, the general decline of the left locally, regionally, and globally, for various reasons, contributed to this phenomenon.

2.2- Does the Referendum Represent the Will of the Masses?

From my continuous observations, I have not come across any significant demonstrations´-or-mass mobilization in the Kurdistan Region in recent years demanding a referendum and independence. The referendum was not even one of the main slogans in the mass protests of 2011, which swept across the region following the Arab Spring. Those protests primarily demanded services, salaries, justice, and democratic and human rights while opposing the corruption and tyranny of the ruling authorities. The leftist forces in Kurdistan played a significant and commendable role in those movements.
I have not heard that my leftist comrades in favor of the referendum conducted accurate surveys´-or-opinion polls proving that the referendum was an urgent demand of the working masses in the region. In fact, I have not seen that the referendum was the primary demand of most political blocs and parties in the region, regardless of their class orientations. So, how did the referendum suddenly emerge as an urgent mass demand without prior notice?
Even more telling, more than three weeks after the referendum, no significant mass protests were held in the region demanding the rulers implement the majority vote for secession. This confirms that the "masses" did not act spontaneously based on their needs before´-or-after the referendum, but were instead mobilized by the dominant ruling party and its allies. This reflects, in my view, the weak popular support for the referendum and the masses’ preoccupation with their worsening daily struggles under the corrupt and authoritarian regime in the region.
Thus, labeling the referendum as a "mass movement" reflecting the urgent needs of Kurdistan’s people has no scientific basis—it is incorrect and unrealistic. The ruling Kurdish nationalist parties, especially the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), managed to drag other nationalist parties and part of the masses into the referendum issue, both legally and illegally, using their financial, military, and media capabilities, as well as their control over key aspects of power, wealth, and influence in the region. They fueled nationalist sentiments under the guise of the right to self-determination. In my opinion, the "referendum" was not the urgent demand of Kurdistan’s masses.

2.3- The Myth of the Oppressing and the Oppressed Nationalities

Unfortunately, the leftists supporting the referendum echoed the rhetoric of the ruling nationalist parties, portraying the Arabs as the "oppressing nationality" and the Kurds as the "oppressed nationality." At times, they were even more royalist than the king! As I mentioned in previous articles, there was indeed brutal and violent national oppression in Iraq before 2003. However, after that, due to the deals struck between Kurdish nationalist leaders and Iraq’s Islamist political forces, the Kurdistan Region transformed into a nearly complete nation-state, lacking only a few formal aspects. Consequently, national oppression ceased.
From my follow-up, I have not seen any reports from international human rights organizations indicating that Kurds in Iraq have faced national oppression post-2003. On the contrary, other nationalities and minorities in the region have faced oppression, which has been condemned multiple times by organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. This includes the heinous "Kurdification" policies imposed on the populations of so-called disputed territories.
Thus, I believe that applying Marxist texts regarding "oppressing and oppressed nationalities" as if they were infallible religious scriptures, valid for all times and places, does not align with the situation in Kurdistan´-or-the issue of the referendum. The reality is that Kurdish nationalist parties have been among the main ruling forces in Iraq, actively participating alongside Islamist political parties in spreading destruction, violence, wars, poverty, corruption, and suffering across Iraq.
It is no secret that one of the primary ruling bourgeois factions in the region—the Kurdistan Democratic Party—was in deep crisis and facing escalating problems with other political forces in the region and the central government. Through the "referendum," it aimed to solidify its local, regional, and international standing, extend the presidency of Masoud Barzani (who had lost legitimacy for years), and prepare for the post-ISIS phase in Iraq, the region, and beyond.
The core of the conflict lies between competing bourgeois factions within Iraq, not between an "oppressing nationality" and an "oppressed nationality." There are no clear "aggressors"´-or-"victims" in this struggle—it is entirely detached from the interests of the working masses.


2.4- Solving the National Issue´-or-Distracting the Masses and Marginalizing Class Struggle?

In my view, one of the unspoken goals of the referendum was to prevent´-or-delay any serious, binding, and genuinely democratic referendum that could peacefully determine the future of Kurdistan’s residents under international supervision with the participation of all stakeholders. Instead, the ruling clique in the region sought to keep the nationalist card in their hands as a profitable tool.
I do not understand how leftists and progressives, if they truly believed that the referendum was an urgent mass demand and that conditions were suitable for holding it, could support an unofficial and non-binding referendum without international backing´-or-legitimacy. What was different about this referendum compared to the one in 2005? As even leading figures of the Kurdistan Democratic Party admitted the day after the referendum, it was merely a "survey"! Are the voices of the masses just a toy in their hands?
One clear result of the referendum was the escalation of war rhetoric and the surge of nationalist intolerance and hatred across Iraq and the region, fueling national sensitivities instead of resolving them. Unfortunately, some leftist comrades chose to prioritize "nationalist struggle" over class and internationalist struggle. Regardless of their ideological justifications for siding with a "dictatorial party and its leader" against a so-called "national enemy," they have effectively contributed to dragging the entire population of Iraq and the region into violent conflicts and exacerbating the political and economic crises in Kurdistan.
Meanwhile, the referendum diverted the masses from their daily struggles—demanding services, salaries, justice, electricity, water, jobs, and lower prices—while strengthening the ruling Islamic political elites in Baghdad, giving them a much-needed opportunity to alleviate their deep crises.
Despite international rejection and threats from neighboring countries, which could lead to severe political, economic, and social crises´-or-even armed conflicts, the leftists supporting the referendum did not retract their support, ignoring the potential negative impacts on the working masses in Kurdistan and across Iraq.

2.5- The Left’s Position on the "Democracy" of the Electoral Process

The left supporting the referendum argues that the majority of Kurdistan’s population "voted yes," asserting that this reflects their will. However, they are well aware—perhaps more than anyone else—of the climate of repression, fear, accusations of treason, and nationalist hysteria that surrounded the referendum process, particularly in areas controlled by the Kurdistan Democratic Party. The ruling parties exercised full control over all military, security, and governmental institutions, and the referendum’s "electoral process" lacked independent and impartial institutions to supervise and manage it.
Past experiences have shown that the ruling and dominant parties in both the Kurdistan Region and Iraq have consistently used fraudulent tactics, bribery, political funding, the influence of party militias, and suppression of dissent to impose their authority and push through their policies via sham "elections." These elections were held under the oversight of so-called "independent commissions," which were in reality based on sectarian, nationalist, and partisan divisions. Corruption was rampant, and transparency was entirely absent, with no credible international supervision of the electoral process.
Despite all of this, independent statistics indicate that voter abstention during the referendum approached nearly half of the electorate. Furthermore, no credible international body—official´-or-unofficial—endorsed the referendum’s official results as declared by the Kurdistan authorities.
Unfortunately, this creates a highly negative impression and suggests a contradiction in the democratic stance of the leftists supporting the referendum. The left should always defend the integrity and transparency of the electoral process, regardless of whether it supports´-or-opposes the ruling authorities and their policies. It is their duty to demand a democratic environment and flexible mechanisms that allow the masses to express their opinions freely—whether by boycotting, voting "yes,"´-or-voting "no." Otherwise, they should reject the process as undemocratic and refuse to participate.
Yet, regrettably, they did not condemn the blatant violations, extreme fraud, and undemocratic practices that accompanied the referendum. Instead, they fully legitimized it, insisting that the referendum results represented the will of the majority of the people in the region—despite the high rate of abstention. This stance was driven solely by their support for the referendum and their alignment with the agenda of the ruling authorities in Kurdistan.
In my view, the significant level of abstention and the number of "no" votes represented a bold revolutionary stance by the people of Kurdistan against the ruling elite in the region and its oppressive practices.

3- The Left Opposing the Referendum and the Right to Self-Determination

Some dear leftist comrades in Iraq, both as organizations and individuals, still do not accept the right to self-determination for the residents of the Kurdistan Region as a fundamental and general principle. In fact, they actively oppose it. Based on this position, they sided with the rulers in Baghdad and supported their chauvinistic measures against the residents of the region. They justify their stance by defending the "unity of the Iraqi homeland," opposing its division, and calling for adherence to the "constitution." In general, their positions on this crucial issue align closely with,´-or-outright support, the policies of the Iraqi government and the ruling Islamist political forces.

3.1- National Unity and Opposition to Division

One of the main justifications for rejecting the principle of self-determination and the right to secession through a democratic referendum is the defense of state sovereignty, the unity of Iraq’s territory, and adherence to national principles, while opposing any form of division. For them, Iraq’s borders are considered sacred and inviolable, and any move toward altering them is regarded as an act of high treason.
However, it is well known that Iraq, as a state, was established under the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, which forcibly merged different nationalities and religions into a single entity based on the colonial interests of the time and their strategies for dividing the Middle East. Therefore, I do not see Iraq’s territorial unity as a sacred matter that must be preserved at all costs, especially when weighed against the lives and rights of the working masses and the need to ensure a safe and stable society.
As Marxists and leftists, we should reject the idea of forced unity between peoples and instead support voluntary co-existence and unity based on equal citizenship. At the same time, we should also uphold and support the right to self-determination, including secession and the formation of independent states for all residents of Iraq—whether on national, geographical,´-or-regional bases—if it leads to greater rights, equality, and a better quality of life for them. If such measures help alleviate national, religious, and sectarian tensions that plague Iraq today, they should be embraced rather than opposed.
3.2- National Chauvinism and the Rejection of Self-Determination

Many comrades and leftist organizations in Iraq remain influenced by Arab nationalist ideology, which rejects any movement by minorities demanding national rights´-or-secession in the Arab world. Such movements are often dismissed as colonial´-or-Israeli conspiracies aimed at fragmenting Arab states and undermining their unity.
Yet, these same leftists advocate for and struggle in support of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and the establishment of their independent state, while simultaneously denying that same right to non-Arab peoples and minorities within Arab states. This contradiction is both problematic and unjustifiable.
I believe that the left in Iraq, and throughout the Arab world and the Middle East, should fight for voluntary unity among nationalities based on citizenship, secularism, and the separation of religion from the state. They should also work to raise the consciousness of the working masses by promoting a spirit of human brotherhood and full national and religious equality. However, this does not mean denying national minorities their full and legitimate right to self-determination—whether within existing state structures (such as through autonomy, federalism,´-or-confederalism)´-or-through complete secession and the formation of independent states.
This principle should not be applied selectively to Iraq alone but should extend to all countries in the Arab world where national and ethnic conflicts exist.

3.3- The Call to Adhere to the Constitution and Support for the Government and Parliament

Unfortunately, some dear leftist comrades supported the measures and decisions taken by Baghdad’s sectarian-chauvinist Islamist government and its parliament against the residents of the Kurdistan Region. These institutions are among the most corrupt and dys-function-al in the world. They also supported the ruling of the Iraqi Federal Court, despite knowing that Iraq’s judiciary lacks independence and credibility.
Many of these measures were unjust and disproportionately harmed the working masses and the general population while having little to no impact on the ruling elite in the Kurdistan Region. Some of these leftists even outright rejected the principle of self-determination through a peaceful and democratic referendum, arguing that it violated the "Iraqi constitution."
However, the Iraqi constitution itself was drafted through compromises between the Islamist ruling parties and Kurdish nationalist parties, along with their allies. Moreover, the right to self-determination is not merely a constitutional issue—it is a fundamental right enshrined in international law, human rights conventions, and Marxist-leftist principles. It is explicitly recognized in the UN Charter and should not be subject to local constitutional interpretations that serve the ruling elite’s interests.
Regrettably, these leftists did not clearly condemn the threats of economic sanctions, military intervention,´-or-the involvement of regional authoritarian regimes—especially Iran and Turkey. Nor did they oppose Baghdad’s disgraceful and condemnable collaboration with these regimes´-or-the joint military maneuvers intended to intimidate the residents of the Kurdistan Region. In fact, a small but disturbing faction even called for harsher measures, including military intervention.
This stance not only contradicts leftist principles but also risks aligning the left with reactionary forces that suppress the rights and aspirations of oppressed nationalities. The left should always stand for the right to self-determination, democracy, and the interests of the working masses, rather than defending the territorial unity of states created by colonial agreements at the expense of human rights and social justice.

4- What is the Alternative Solution to Iraq’s National Issues?

To resolve Iraq’s national issues, establish a clear framework for the relationship between the Kurdistan Region and the central government, and determine the fate of disputed territories, I support the implementation of binding, peaceful, and democratic referendums for both the central government and the Kurdistan Region. These referendums should involve all relevant parties and be conducted after an adequate period of preparation. I believe that the leftist forces in Iraq and the Kurdistan Region should advocate for the intervention of the United Nations and push all sides to engage in peaceful dialogue and negotiations under international supervision to resolve all national issues in Iraq—not just the Kurdish question.
A permanent UN mission should be formed to oversee this process, ensuring that solutions are found in accordance with international law and conventions while creating a stable environment for negotiations.
My support for a UN-led solution is based on the following reasons:
• It is currently the best available option. Given the weakness of leftist and progressive forces in both Baghdad and the Kurdistan Region, sometimes we must choose between a bad option and a worse one—despite my reservations about the UN’s policies and the dominance of major capitalist powers over it.
• The dominance of chauvinistic Arab nationalist and Islamist ideologies within Iraq’s political elite fosters exclusionary tendencies against non-Arab and non-Muslim groups.
• The Kurdish ruling elite manipulates the national question to consolidate its dictatorship. The two ruling parties monopolize weapons, control all military and security forces as partisan militias, and suppress political opposition—making free elections in the region highly questionable. Without international pressure and supervision, opposition voices cannot operate freely.
• There is a severe lack of constitutional institutions and an independent, democratic electoral commission—both in Baghdad and Erbil.
• Iraq suffers from an absence of an independent judiciary and a lack of separation of powers in both the central government and the Kurdistan Region.
• Neither ruling faction in Baghdad nor Erbil has the credibility´-or-integrity to resolve the national issue fairly, necessitating international oversight and pressure.
• UN supervision could reduce´-or-at least weaken negative regional interventions.
• The UN has vast experience in resolving national conflicts and could provide management, support, and training if all parties agree to hold a democratic, internationally supervised referendum.
• It is crucial for the disputed areas, such as Kirkuk and the Nineveh Plains, which have significant ethnic and religious diversity, to have special local referendums under international supervision to determine their status democratically.


5- The Tasks of the Left

Since the referendum, national tensions have intensified, diverting the masses’ focus from their daily struggles and fundamental rights across Iraq. This escalation has created fear, anxiety, and instability, while both the Kurdish nationalist parties and the Islamist ruling elites in Baghdad have exploited the conflict to distract from their corruption and entrench their power.
Unfortunately, this resulted in a temporary victory for the ruling elite in the Kurdistan Region and the Islamist political establishment in Baghdad. However, sooner´-or-later, they will return to negotiating power-sharing and dividing wealth, forming new alliances to sustain their corrupt and authoritarian rule—a system that has only produced suffering, poverty, and oppression for the people of Iraq and Kurdistan alike.
To counter this, I believe the leftist forces in Iraq and the Kurdistan Region should take the following steps:
• Condemn the use of military force and violence by all sides, rejecting all justifications for war. Oppose the escalation of nationalist hatred—whether Arab, Kurdish,´-or-Turkmen—and stand against the corrupt rulers in both Baghdad and Erbil. Instead, the left should focus on the struggle for a civil state, defending the rights of the working masses, human rights, freedom, equality, and social justice.
• Adopt and promote a UN-led solution to Iraq’s national question, advocating for voluntary unity based on equal citizenship for all ethnic and religious groups in Iraq, while also recognizing the right to self-determination, including the possibility of independence for national minorities.
• Defend the equal rights of all residents in the disputed territories, opposing nationalist oppression—whether in the form of “Arabization”´-or-“Kurdification”. Until a democratic solution is reached, these areas should be placed under international supervision and governed through joint local administration by their diverse communities.
• Reject the political agendas of both Barzani’s referendum and Baghdad’s repressive measures. Recognize that both factions are enemies of the working class and only seek to maintain their grip on power.
• Emphasize human identity over nationalist identity, making it clear that the conflict is not between the peoples of Iraq—Arabs, Kurds, and others—but between the corrupt ruling classes in Baghdad and Erbil, along with their regional and international allies. This conflict is merely an extension of the sectarian and nationalist power-sharing system.
• Reconsider the reunification of Iraq’s leftist parties after the past organizational split. Work towards building flexible mechanisms that allow coordination and joint struggle within a single national framework.
• Foster closer collaboration between progressive and leftist forces in Iraq and the Kurdistan Region, aiming for the creation of a broad leftist-democratic alliance to challenge the ruling elites.
• ... [Further action points to be developed]


6- Conclusion

As Marxists and leftists, we must approach national issues scientifically and rationally by analyzing the local, regional, and global context, class power dynamics, the strength of our adversaries, and the realistic feasibility of proposed solutions. We must avoid dragging the masses into futile nationalist´-or-sectarian wars that only lead to destruction and suffering.
While I do not advocate for the creation of nation-states based on ethnicity, I fully support the right of any population—whether defined by nationality´-or-other factors—to democratically determine its own fate, even if that means secession and forming an independent state. If this leads to better rights, improved living conditions, and greater peace and security, then it is a legitimate and justified choice.
Although I fully support the Kurdish people s right to self-determination, including the right to independence, I do not believe that the current conditions in the Kurdistan Region are suitable for separation and statehood. The working masses in both Kurdistan and Iraq are being manipulated into nationalist conflicts and will face even deeper economic and political crises if they continue down this path.
Even if an independent Kurdish state were declared today, it would likely become just another failed, authoritarian, and corrupt state in the region—a miserable repetition of the same oppressive nationalist regimes that have long failed their people. Ultimately, such an outcome would do nothing to improve the lives of the working masses.

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 2