How Did the PUK Find the Turkmen “Key” While the KDP Remained in the Corner of Defeat?

Chenar Sharei

Written by Journalist Chenar Sharei

The agreement following the Kirkuk Provincial Council elections and the change in the governor’s position was not merely an administrative adjustment; it represented a strategic shift in the political landscape of the disputed territories. Here, we present a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the political wisdom pursued by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the deep challenges that have constrained the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP):

1. The PUK’s Wisdom: A Strategy of Patience and Realism

The PUK succeeded in managing a complex political game, achieving multiple objectives simultaneously:

- Ending the Acting Phase: The PUK understood that Kirkuk remaining under an acting governor for seven years had significantly weakened the Kurdish position. Its strategy lay in making a “tactical compromise” to secure a “strategic gain”—regaining the post even through temporary partnership.
- The PUK did not rush; it allowed time to exhaust other actors until they reached the conclusion that no local government could be formed without the PUK (as the leading winner).
- Restoring Legitimacy to Kirkuk: The return of a Kurdish governor symbolises a powerful step toward restoring the Kurdish identity of the city through legal and constitutional means.

2. The Turkmen “Key”: From Rivalry to Partnership

One of the most critical elements of this move was strengthening relations with the Turkmen component. The PUK realised that:

- Bypassing Türkiye’s Veto: Turkmen groups serve as a bridge to Ankara. Strengthening ties with them sent an indirect message to Türkiye: “We are a factor of stability, not a threat.”
- Balancing Power: By attracting segments of Turkmen and moderate Arab actors, the PUK managed to politically isolate the KDP and more hardline Arab factions, freeing Kirkuk from political deadlock.

3. The KDP and Political Loss: The “All or Nothing” Dilemma

The KDP in Kirkuk faced what can be described as a “choice trap,” which can be analysed as follows:

- Misreading the Field: The KDP believed it could marginalise the PUK through alliances with Arab actors and some Turkmen groups. However, it became clear that the PUK’s popular base in Kirkuk is a major obstacle.
- The KDP anticipated the Baghdad meeting would fail, but when a government was formed, it found itself outside the equation. This shifted its position from a “decision-maker” to a “dissenter.”
- Loss of Position: For the first time since 2003, the KDP failed to act as a decisive force in Kirkuk, leading its base to feel increasingly marginalised.

4. Long-Term Implications

This transformation and agreement will have deep future consequences:

- The Political Map of the Kurdistan Region: The PUK’s success in Kirkuk has boosted its confidence ahead of the Kurdistan Parliament elections. It now speaks to Erbil with the “language of Kirkuk.”
- Relations with Baghdad: The agreement occurred under the supervision and support of Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ al-Sudani, portraying the PUK as a trusted partner of Baghdad.
- Kirkuk as a Testing Ground: If the PUK succeeds in governing alongside Turkmen and Arabs, it may establish a new governance model—shifting from sectarian consensus to a service-oriented consensus.

The PUK turned “political realism” into a bridge back to power, while the KDP failed to balance between “national principles” and “party interests,” effectively leaving the field open. Kirkuk has now entered a phase of “governance testing” after concluding the phase of “struggle over positions.”
Kirkuk has historically been a uniquely sensitive political and ethnic region, governed by a balance among its diverse components. This characteristic means that any shift in power carries wide implications—not only locally, but also regionally.

First: Returning to the Game of Political Balance

After the events of 16 October, the Kurdish position in Kirkuk changed significantly. Local Kurdish authority diminished while Baghdad’s role increased.
In this context, the PUK’s new agreement represents an attempt to restore political influence and reaffirm Kurdish capacity to participate effectively in governing the city.

Second: The Governor Position as Both Tactic and Strategy

Although the change in the governor’s post may appear administrative, it carries strategic meaning. On one hand, it aims to reduce tensions and create a cooperative environment; on the other, it seeks to build new alliances and break political monopoly. This aligns with the concept of “power-sharing to preserve balance.”

Third: Strengthening Relations with the Turkmen

The Turkmen, as a core component of Kirkuk, play a decisive role in shaping its political direction. The PUK’s rapprochement with them reflects a smart strategy to create internal balance and reduce tensions. It may also limit external interference, particularly given the Turkmen’s close ties to Türkiye.

Fourth: The KDP’s Position and Loss of Balance

In contrast, the KDP has faced a weakened position in Kirkuk. The absence of effective alliances and internal Kurdish divisions have prevented it from playing a significant role. This clearly shows that politics is not sustained by power alone—it requires partnership and diplomacy.

Fifth: Future Implications

If this agreement continues in the long term, it could significantly shape Kirkuk’s future:

- Political balance may stabilise, reducing tensions.
- However, if internal disputes remain unresolved, the risk of further fragmentation persists.

The PUK’s agreement in Kirkuk should not be viewed merely as a tactical victory; it is part of a broader process of restructuring political balance. It demonstrates that in politics, success often stems from the ability to build partnerships and engage in dialogue—not merely from unilateral dominance.
Kirkuk remains a testing ground for balance politics. If political actors can sustain these agreements collaboratively, a more stable and balanced future for the province may emerge.