Incorporation of the Kurdish minority into the Iraqi state and the Ottoman institutional legacy
https://doi.org/10.31249/poln/2022.01.07
Abstract
The article focuses on the impact of the Ottoman institutional legacy on ethno-confessional minorities incorporation into the post-imperial national states. Iraqi Kurdistan was selected as a relevant case for analysis. The tested hypothesis is that informal rules and practices exercise a significant influence on the political process in post-imperial societies, which, in case of compatibility of goals between informal and new formal institutions, can contribute positively to the formation of a stable structure of government. In this context, the author analyzes the interaction between the Kurdish communities and the centre in the Ottoman period, identifies the specificities of the Kurdish segment incorporation into the newly formed state of Iraq, and weighs the performance of consociational mechanisms established in Iraq’s political system after Saddam Hussein’s ouster. The application of such methodological approaches as neo- institutionalism and historical institutionalism makes it possible to define the institutional parameters of the Kurdish minority incorporation into Iraq and, through this lens, to assess the political performance in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region. It is stated that the historical informal institutions of the Kurdish community remain functional and substitutive for the formal ones. At this point, the consociational pattern is assessed as the only possible solution that reduces transaction costs in the centre-periphery interaction.
About the Author
A. R. Safina
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University), MFA Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Moscow
References
1. Adiyamanê Z., Dag R. Ottoman reforms and Kurdish reactions in the19 th century. Nübihar Akademi. 2015, Vol. 1, N 2, P. 47–74.
2. Aoki M. Endogenizing institutions and institutional changes. Journal of institutional economics. 2007, Vol. 3, N 1, P. 1–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137406000531
3. Barkey K. Thinking about consequences of empire. In: Barkey K., von Hagen M. (eds). After empire: multiethnic societies and nation-building. The Soviet Union, and the Russian, Ottoman and Habsburg empires. Boulder; Oxford: Westview press, 1997, P. 99–114.
4. Barkey K., Gavrilis G. The Ottoman millet system: non-territorial autonomy and its contemporary legacy. Ethnopolitics. 2016, Vol. 15, N 1, P. 24–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2015.1101845
5. van Bruinessen M. Kurds, states and tribes. In: Jabar F.A., Dawod H. (eds). Tribes and power: nationalism and ethnicity in the Middle East. London: Saqi, 2003, P. 165–183.
6. Dubessan R.H. Legal status of subjects of federation in Republic of Iraq. Tambov university review. Series humanities. 2013, N 4 (120), P. 383–389. (In Russ.)
7. Greif A., Laitin, D. A theory of endogenous institutional change. American political science review. 2004, Vol. 98, N 4, P. 633–652. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055404041395
8. Hama H.H., Abdullah F.H. Political parties and the political system in Iraqi Kurdistan. Journal of Asian and African studies. 2021, Vol. 56, N 4, P. 754–773. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0021909620941548
9. Helmke G., Levitsky S. Informal institutions and comparative politics: a research agenda. Perspectives on politics. 2004, Vol. 2, N 4, P. 725–740. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592704040472
10. Kudryashova I.V., Kharitonova O.G. (eds). Metamorphoses of divided societies. Moscow: MGIMO-University, 2020, 284 p. (In Russ.)
11. Kudryashova I.V., Kozintsev A.S. Institutional solutions for sectarian conflicts in the Middle East in the context of imperial legacy. Political science (RU). 2021, N 2, P. 140–164. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.31249/poln/2021.02.05 (In Russ.)
12. Kyumars S.E., Salavati S. Sorani Kurdish versus Kurmanji Kurdish: an empirical comparison. Proceedings of the 51 st annual meeting of the Association for computational linguistics. 2013, Vol. 2: Short Papers, P. 300–305.
13. Mamedov R. Sh., Sapronova M.A. Features of the political development of Iraq in 2003–2020: the formation of a new elite. Nauchnyi dialog. 2021, N 1, P. 357–370. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2021-1-357-370 (In Russ.)
14. Meleshkina E. Yu. Post-imperial spaces: peculiarities of state and nation-building. Political science (RU). 2013, N 3, P. 10–29. (In Russ.)
15. Lijphart A. The politics of accommodation: Pluralism and democracy in the Netherlands. Berkeley; Los Angeles: Univ. of California press, 1968, 231 p.
16. O’Driscoll D., Baser B. Independence referendums and nationalist rhetoric: the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. Third world quarterly. 2019, Vol. 40, N 11, P. 2016–2034. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2019.1617631
17. Rogg I., Rimscha H. The Kurds as parties to and victims of conflicts in Iraq. International review of the Red Cross. 2007, Vol. 89, N 868, P. 823–842. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s1816383108000143
18. Ross N., Mohammadpur A. Imagined or real: the intersection of tribalism and nationalism in the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG). British journal of Middle Eastern studies. 2016, Vol. 45, N 2, P. 194–211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13530194.2016.1230490
19. al-Shadeedi H., van Veen E. Iraq’s adolescent democracy. Where to go from here. In: CRU report. Hague: Netherlands Institute of international relations, 2020, P. 13–44.
20. Shibanova O.N. (ed.). Managing regional conflicts in the context of digitalization of modern society: methodology and implementation practices. Kazan: Kazan univ. publishing house, 2021, 632 p.
Review
Views:
111
Email this article 
Post a Comment 