The accord is against democracy, as parties to the agreement accept something they don't believe in.
The speaker of the Kurdistan Parliament stated in an interview with the Globe that Parliament is a system by which members should abide, and it sets the system for people, government and the whole state. If the parliament members can't abide by the system, how can we expect others to abide by the system set by such a parliament?
Globe: What is the difference between this round of the Parliament and previous ones? Besides, it is said that you have said you were worn out by this round. Is this true?
Dr. Kirkuki: I have never said such as thing. Obviously, this is the third round of the Parliament. The first round was a new experience for the Kurdistan Region and all the political parties; hence they had a lot of problems that unfortunately led to internal conflicts. But the members of that round did a great job by continuing the Parliament and did not let it stop. They were able to decree the federalism, recognize the official Kurdish flag.
The mission of second round was to keep up the work of the first round as well as participating in drafting the Iraqi Permanent Constitution led by His Excellency President Massoud Barzani, in which I participated as well.
We succeeded to include an article in the constitution that recognizes Kurdistan's federalism and all the laws that had been passed in the Kurdistan Parliament. That was important for Kurdistan.
Though it is true that the third round has more energy and discussions, I believe that the MPs of all the three rounds needed to learn their parliamentary tasks better. For instance, they need to learn that when an agenda is set for a session, they need to discuss issues related to this agenda rather than talking about irrelevant issues that sometimes turn out to be personal issues, or discuss problems of their parties. The problem is that MPs think they can raise whatever issues they like in the hall of the Parliament; something that is not true at all.
We are planning to sign an agreement with the British Westminster Foundation, which is an expert in parliament issues, to give some training courses for the MPs, to let them know what their parliamentary tasks and responsibilities are; how they should monitor government actions; how laws are drafted; how they are discussed; what the role of the opposition is in the parliament; or how parliament members need to behave with the media. Unfortunately, some parties are not even willing to learn -- as if they already know everything. That is why sometimes the active nature of this round of Parliament as unhealthy. I had hoped the opposite would be true.
Globe: You are being criticized of rudeness, violating the MPs' rights and not allowing them to speak. Can you explain?
Dr. Kirkuki: Unfortunately, this is one of the accusations addressed to us in the media. Parliament is a system by which members should abide, and it sets the system for people, government, and the whole state. If the parliament members can't abide by the system, how can we expect others to abide by the system set by such a parliament? So, it is my responsibility, being the speaker of the parliament, to organize the sessions. There is no country in the world where parliament meetings are not organized. If you don't do that, dozens of journalists come into the hall with their cameras and turn the meeting into a press room, which is not the case anywhere. This hall needs to be quiet.
And what is said that everybody should hear everybody else is not practical. It is not possible for all journalist and cameramen to be inside the hall. MPs were pushing for that, and they were allowing them in during the previous rounds, but I prevented that, and we have now allocated a special place for them where they watch the sessions live. We were criticized a lot for that by the media, but we insisted on our decision that our parliament should be like any other in the world and that we need to return prestige to the parliament hall. Besides, there are a thousand media organizations; if you allow 200 each day to enter, it becomes a mess.
Regarding the issue of allowing MPs to speak, we all know that there are 111 members in the hall. If you don't allocate time for everybody to speak and everybody speaks as much as he likes, days would not be enough. It is the same in any parliament. When a draft law is submitted, we read it in the Parliament and give it to the committees, which can meet about it several times. MPs need to discuss all their ideas. A member who has a comment, he can take it to his party for discussion, which they don't always do, and they don't speak there, where there is enough time for everyone. When they come to Parliament, they should only briefly talk only about the subject of the meeting. If I don't set a limit for speaking, there are MPs who will take the time of the whole Region's population. Still, they claim I don't allow them to speak.
During the budget discussions we gave six minutes to each MP, and then we doubled that time, and when we were noticing someone raising an important issue, we would even give him more time.
Globe: During the recent political situations in Kurdistan, Parliament decreed a law, known as the 17-article law, including an article stating that if a project is submitted to Parliament that has a national aspect, it should be passed by a political agreement among the parties, but this is not implemented yet.
Dr. Kirkuki: Yes we said that projects with national aspects and benefits should be agreed upon in advance among political parties, provided that it is not in violation of laws, democratic standards or public interest. We did not put these three conditions arbitrarily. We thought of them, because we use our reason and passion to serve to our people to guarantee a better future for the people of Kurdistan.
There are two things, the lists represent their political parties, but the presidency of the parliament should be independent, and due to the position, it should see all lists in a similar way. Besides, any projects submitted to the parliament, with or without prior political agreement, we, as the presidency committee, would be process it in the usual way, and would put it up for a vote. According to democratic standards, the rule of majority and minority reigns. Besides, MPs can listen to their party's decisions or ignore them. So, as the presidency committee says, if political parties reach an accord and the members abide by this accord in the Parliament, we would accept it.
Globe: But the question is why this accord, which was perceived by observers to solve some issues, was not done?
Dr. Kirkuki: If you want my opinion as Kamal Kirkuki, I am against the accord, since it is opposite to the basics of democracy, as parties to the agreement accept something they don't believe in, in other words, it is opposite to their wills and thoughts. Parliament members need to be free in thinking, free in decision making. If they follow their political parties and they reached a decision on a specific issue, it is another story, but I as a human being and as the speaker believe we should not be in opposition with democracy and law.
Globe: Eventually, after two weeks of hot discussions, you passed the budget. Do you think the budget was good enough to vote on?
Dr. Kirkuki: I say this for history: The budget was discussed in a good way, good efforts were made to provide good service to the people of Kurdistan, and we were successful in that. Initially, as the draft was submitted by the government, it had serious shortcomings. As soon as I got it, we published on our website to get the maximum number of comments from people, so if we made a mistake, people would be able to advise us to solve it. Then, we hired some economists to work on the project and solve its problems. Later on, parliamentary committees did a detailed scrutiny on the draft. I think majority of the shortcomings were solved. Then the budget was approved with majority's approval, with votes from some other blocs than the Kurdistani list members.
This law has so many good things that are in the interest of the public. For instance, marriage loans were increased for the youth, housing loans were increased. Besides, it was decided that if an amount remained from the investment, it should not go into the operating budget, but rather goes to a special account and be used for important projects. The most important thing was we decided that the salaries of the high-ranking officials be reduced and used to support martyr's families; then we increased government employees' salaries to be in line with those of Baghdad, including the Peshmarga forces. This is at a time where if we compare our salaries with those of the Baghdad MPs; they are paid 4.5 times more than our MPs if we count the allowances they receive.
Globe: All three opposition blocs have announced that due to lack of transparency, they have not voted for the budget; they specifically talk about the oil and gas issue. Their statement reads: "Oil and gas revenues are put in an account that has not yet been created, which means putting something unknown in an unknown place." What do you think?
Dr. Kirkuki: Saying so is a crime. Those MPs could have summoned the minister of Natural Resources to their committee meetings for questioning. They have this right to ask for clarification. I talked to the government after approval of the law and told them that before Parliament goes into break, this committee should be created and start their work. However, the money from kerosene is not for KRG at all. It goes to the central government and we get our share through the 17 percent budget share. And the Ministry of Natural Resources and the KRG are in negotiations with Baghdad to reach an agreement that is in the Region's interest.
We refused the National Oil and Gas Law because it was trying to marginalize Kurdistan. And both the fifth and sixth cabinets argued that, constitutionally, the Region is entitled to have a law in its interest. I think they are nearing a final solution. Regarding the oil sales, the ministry had made open tenders and all parties were present, including the opposition, that $250 million was put in this account it was spent with transparency.
So, MPs should speak about issues more carefully. Let me give an example. We were inside the Parliament hall and we got a note from an MP saying there is a problem inside the Suleimaniya University and there are shootings and 33 people have been injured, and they are bleeding inside the university and the security will not allow them to be taken to hospital. Mr. Arsalan Baiz was next to me. I talked to him and we went outside and called the Suleimaniya office, they assured us that no one had been injured. And this respected MP was asking that this issue has to be discussed inside Parliament, while Parliament is a legislative entity with its laws and regulations and one cannot talk about something which is not true. MPs should not trust any information and if they get any, they should check its validity and look for proof, then discuss it in their respective committees, then to go into the media.
Globe: Recent events in the Region reached a stage where many international organizations published reports about it and accused the KRG. What is your idea as the Parliament speaker? What harm could such reports do to the Region's reputation?
Dr. Kirkuki: I really hate to see those reports. This Region, being a place with all the destruction it witnessed under the Baathist regime, but with the efforts of everyone and the political leadership, the Region is currently is in the age of development and stability, incomparable with other parts of the country and neighboring countries. Residents of neighboring countries and other parts of Iraq wish to live in Kurdistan, and many high-ranking Baghdad officials spend their vacations in Kurdistan. So I think it is the responsibility of all of us to protect it and solve its shortcomings. Corruption should be eradicated with planning. Though the president has already started it, but we need to support him and all of us need to work hand in hand to keep the good reputation of Kurdistan. This is a spiritual and human responsibility of everybody to improve the existing democratic process in Kurdistan.
© The Kurdish Globe 2011
