PUK says no stable Kurdistan government can be formed without genuine power-sharing.

Following the Kurdistan Region’s long-delayed parliamentary elections in October 2024, political deadlock has become the defining feature of governance in Iraqi Kurdistan. With no party securing an outright majority—Kurdistan Democratic Party winning 39 seats and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan securing 23—the formation of the tenth cabinet of the Kurdistan Region has stalled for months amid disagreements over governance mechanisms, power-sharing, and senior appointments.

As negotiations between the two dominant parties have reached an impasse, speculation has grown over whether a government could be formed without PUK participation—a prospect the party firmly rejects. To better understand the roots of the deadlock, the PUK’s negotiating position, and the broader implications for democratic governance in the region, geopolitical analyst Manish Rai spoke with Karwan Gaznay, the party’s official spokesperson, at PUK headquarters in Sulaymaniyah.

In this interview, Gaznay argues that no viable government can be formed in Kurdistan without a genuine partnership with the PUK, insisting that only a comprehensive, written agreement can restore balance, accountability, and public trust in the region’s political system.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

Manish Rai: It has now been more than a year since parliamentary elections were held in the Kurdistan Region, yet a government has still not been formed. From the PUK’s perspective, what are the core factors driving this prolonged delay?

Karwan Gaznay: The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan seeks to establish a service-oriented government across all cities of the Kurdistan Region. We are firmly opposed to any form of discrimination or unequal treatment between cities, because we believe our responsibility is to serve all citizens without distinction.

At the same time, we are pursuing a genuine and meaningful partnership in governance—particularly in security, administration, and finance. To that end, we have held several rounds of negotiations with the KDP, addressing two tracks in parallel. First, we drafted a proposal outlining governance mechanisms and a clear strategy for leading the region over the next four years, on which substantial progress has been made. Second, we discussed the distribution of positions between the two parties. The PUK will not relinquish any position that is rightfully ours based on the election results, and we will insist on roles that reflect our platform, agenda, and the commitments we made to voters during the 2024 elections.

Rai: There have been persistent reports suggesting that the PUK has demanded either the presidency of the Kurdistan Regional Government or the post of prime minister, and that this has become a central obstacle in negotiations, particularly given the KDP’s reluctance to cede either position. How accurate is this characterization of the talks?

Gaznay: We have not publicly specified which positions we have requested. What matters to us is not the title itself, but whether a given position aligns with our electoral program and enables us to deliver on our promises. Our demands are guided by our responsibility to serve the people of Kurdistan effectively and in accordance with the mandate we received at the ballot box.

Rai: Senior figures within the KDP have recently suggested that, if negotiations continue to stall, they may explore forming a government with other political parties—potentially without PUK participation. How does the PUK interpret these statements, and do you see such a government as viable?

Gaznay: From my perspective, it is abundantly clear that the KDP cannot form a viable government without a genuine partnership with the PUK. This is not a matter of political posturing, but of geographical, historical, and electoral realities that cannot be ignored. Any government formed without our participation would lack legitimacy and stability—and even if such a government were announced, it would ultimately fail.

Rai: To what extent do you believe the ongoing political stalemate is eroding public confidence in the democratic process in the Kurdistan Region? Is there a risk that prolonged delay may cause deeper institutional damage?

Gaznay: There is no doubt that prolonged delays in forming a government do not benefit the democratic process. That said, we must also ask who bears responsibility for the delay. The PUK has consistently reaffirmed its readiness to form a government, provided that the structure allows us to serve the people effectively. In my view, establishing a weak or unbalanced government would ultimately be far more damaging to democracy than taking additional time to form one that is functional, inclusive, and capable of delivering results.

Rai: Some regional observers argue that the PUK’s improved electoral performance—both in Kurdistan and at the federal level in Iraq—has strengthened its bargaining position and encouraged it to push for a larger role in government. Have the party’s demands evolved in response to its recent electoral successes?

Gaznay: In reality, the PUK has achieved significant success across three elections within two years: the Iraqi governorate elections in 2023, the Kurdistan parliamentary elections in 2024, and the Iraqi parliamentary elections in 2025. Under the leadership of His Excellency President Bafel Talabani, we pledged to restore balance to the political system, and we have done so—no single party now holds dominant power to govern alone.

We also committed to returning the governing system to its proper course, and this remains central to our approach in the current negotiations. To address your question directly, our position in the Kurdistan Region is shaped by the results of the 2024 regional elections, not by developments in Baghdad. The Iraqi parliamentary elections determine how we defend Kurdish constitutional rights at the federal level. In contrast, the Kurdistan elections define our demands for a fair, service-oriented government with genuine power-sharing in the region. These are distinct political processes with different objectives.

Rai: The PUK has emphasized that it will not move forward without what it describes as a “comprehensive agreement.” Could you explain what such an agreement entails in practical terms, and why the party considers it essential before entering government?

Gaznay: By a comprehensive agreement, we mean a settled and written framework that clearly defines how the Kurdistan Region will be governed. Political parties everywhere campaign on platforms and are later judged by whether they implement them. The PUK is no exception. We want a governance agreement that incorporates our policies, priorities, and reform proposals, providing a clear roadmap against which the future government can be evaluated by the public.