By Dr. Pshtiwan Faraj | Kurdish Policy Analysis

Infrastructure projects demonstrate government performance, but without transparent budgeting and parliamentary oversight, they cannot fully demonstrate democratic accountability.

The ninth cabinet has published a summary of its work. Here I will evaluate it in the light of the philosophy of the budget and democratic and legitimate governance.

First, these works are welcome and commendable, but within what plan, vision and budget?

Second, the lack of budget makes us not know why these things were done. Here I describe the importance of the budget not only as a doc full of numbers, but as an essential part of the rationale of governance.

A budget is an expression of the authority's intention in how it will deal with public revenue. The release of this plan shows that governance is based on the legitimacy of the people, not the wishes of an individual or group.

Third, the budget is legitimized by the people's representatives. Then the implementation of any project will be in response to the wishes of the people, not as the achievement of one person or team.

Fourth, the budget as an initial plan becomes the basis for auditing. Therefore, the release of these current projects cannot be audited because we do not know what the plans were initially, how many of them have been implemented, why, and how and more.

Fifth, while every government has the right to demonstrate its work, in order to be rational, democratic and legitimate, the demonstration must respond to the demands of the people and society, in order to create a process of negotiation and relationship between people and government. The relationship that becomes the basis of legitimacy, stability and acceptance.

Sixth, we learn from the Chinese model that infrastructure is not just infrastructure, but every project is political. For Kurdish society, it is better to make democracy the basis than growth or development. Replacing growth with democracy is very harmful. The claim that people want services, not freedom, has been proven wrong many times in world history. People also want freedom and services.

Seventh, the publication shouts: Look what I have done for them, but it would have been more modern if it had conveyed the message that we have implemented many of the plans and projects we agreed on together. The government would then be the center appointed by the people to do things

Kurdistan has not had a budget and has been under a severe financial and political blockade. It started with the coronavirus and zero revenue. Otherwise, Iraq would only pay salaries in front of the world give. You know that the budget in parliament is based on revenue and forecasts for next year's fixed revenues, but if you do not have and thankfully the parliament does not work, what to set the budget? 

Budgeting means planning, not provision. The government could have been very clear about all its financial requirements for expenditure, as well as its revenues, along with the deficits and Baghdad's responsibility for the deficits. I am sure the government's address would be very useful.

The Kurdistan Regional Government's (KRG) Ninth Cabinet recently released a summary of its achievements, showcasing infrastructure projects, public services, and administrative reforms carried out during its term in office. Such reports are common practice in governments seeking to demonstrate performance and communicate progress to citizens.

The projects themselves deserve recognition. Roads, schools, hospitals, electricity networks, and public investments matter. They improve daily life, stimulate economic activity, and contribute to long-term development.

Yet governance is measured not only by what governments build, but by how they decide what to build.

The central question is therefore not whether these projects are beneficial. Rather, it is whether they emerge from a transparent, democratically approved public policy process or from executive discretion.

Without an approved public budget, that distinction becomes difficult to determine.

A Budget Is More Than a Financial Document

Public debate often reduces budgets to collections of numbers.

In reality, a government budget is one of the most important political documents produced in any democratic system.

It represents the priorities of the state.

Every allocation reflects a political choice.

Every project indicates what government values, what it postpones, and whom it intends to serve.

Budgets therefore express not simply financial planning but democratic intention.

They answer fundamental questions:

• What problems should government solve first?
• Which sectors deserve priority?
• How should public resources be distributed?
• What commitments has government made to citizens?

Without these answers, public spending risks appearing reactive rather than strategic. The Democratic Foundation of Public Spending In democratic systems, budgets derive legitimacy through elected legislatures. Parliament debates government priorities, amends spending proposals, and authorizes expenditure on behalf of citizens. This process transforms executive preferences into collectively approved public policy.

Projects are therefore implemented not because governments simply choose them, but because representatives of the people authorize them.

The budget creates an institutional contract between society and government.

Without that contract, public achievements may still exist, but their democratic legitimacy becomes less clear.

Planning Before Performance

One of the fundamental purposes of budgeting is planning.

Governments first establish objectives.

Resources are then allocated accordingly.

Projects are subsequently implemented.

Finally, institutions evaluate whether objectives have been achieved.

This sequence matters.

Performance can only be measured against previously established commitments.

If citizens never see the original plan, they cannot know:

• Which projects were originally promised.
• Which were delayed.
• Which were cancelled.
• Why priorities changed.
• Whether public money achieved its intended outcomes.

Achievement reports therefore become difficult to evaluate without the benchmark that only a budget provides.

Accountability Requires a Baseline

Auditing government performance depends upon comparison.

Auditors compare implementation against approved plans.

Parliament compares expenditures against authorized appropriations.

Citizens compare promises against results.

Without an approved budget, that baseline largely disappears.

Governments may announce completed projects, yet independent observers cannot determine whether those projects reflect original priorities or ad hoc decision-making.

Transparency becomes substantially weaker.

Achievements Should Reflect Public Priorities

Every government has both the right and the responsibility to communicate its achievements.

Public information strengthens democratic engagement.

However, effective democratic communication should not merely tell citizens what government has accomplished.

It should demonstrate how those accomplishments reflect collectively agreed priorities.

The difference is subtle but important.

A message that says:

"Look what we built."

differs fundamentally from one that says:

"We have implemented the priorities that citizens, through their representatives, approved."

The second emphasizes partnership between government and society rather than executive initiative alone.

Development Alone Cannot Replace Democracy

Infrastructure undoubtedly contributes to prosperity.

Roads facilitate trade.

Electricity supports industry.

Hospitals improve public health.

Schools expand opportunity.

Yet history repeatedly demonstrates that economic development alone does not substitute for democratic governance.

Citizens seek both effective public services and political accountability.

The argument that societies should prioritize development while postponing democratic participation has been tested repeatedly across different political systems.

Economic growth may strengthen governments temporarily.

Long-term legitimacy, however, depends upon institutions that allow citizens to participate in decision-making, monitor public spending, and hold officials accountable.

Services and freedom are complementary rather than competing objectives.

Lessons from Developmental States

Some observers point to rapidly developing states such as China, arguing that infrastructure itself generates political legitimacy.

There is truth in the observation that infrastructure carries political significance.

Large-scale public investment shapes public perceptions of government effectiveness.

However, developmental states operate within political contexts very different from those of pluralistic societies.

For the Kurdistan Region, whose constitutional framework emphasizes representative government, legitimacy ultimately depends not only upon development but upon institutional accountability.

Infrastructure should reinforce democratic governance rather than replace it.

The Kurdistan Region's Exceptional Circumstances

Any assessment must also recognize the extraordinary conditions under which the Ninth Cabinet has governed.

The Kurdistan Region has endured multiple overlapping crises.

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted economic activity.

Oil revenues declined dramatically.

Budget transfers from Baghdad became irregular and politically contested.

The Kurdistan Parliament experienced prolonged institutional paralysis.

These circumstances made conventional budgeting exceptionally difficult.

Governments cannot prepare accurate revenue forecasts when their principal source of funding remains uncertain and subject to political negotiation.

This reality distinguishes the Kurdistan Region from governments operating under stable fiscal conditions.

Transparency Was Still Possible

Yet even under such constraints, comprehensive budgeting was not impossible.

Budgeting is fundamentally a planning exercise rather than a guarantee of available funding.

The government could still have published:

• Expected revenues.
• Projected expenditures.
• Estimated deficits.
• Alternative financial scenarios.
• Risks associated with Baghdad's transfers.
• Spending priorities under different fiscal conditions.

Such a document would not eliminate financial uncertainty.

It would, however, provide citizens with a transparent explanation of government intentions and the constraints under which decisions were made.

Equally important, it would clearly identify which fiscal shortfalls resulted from domestic policy choices and which stemmed from disputes with the federal government.

From Executive Performance to Democratic Governance

Ultimately, the debate surrounding the Ninth Cabinet's achievements is not about denying the importance of completed projects.

The roads exist. The schools exist. The hospitals exist. These investments matter. The larger issue concerns how governments communicate legitimacy. Modern democratic governance is not measured solely by outputs. It is measured by the relationship between planning, representation, implementation, transparency, and accountability. Achievement reports should therefore be understood as the final chapter of governance—not the first.

The first chapter is the public budget, where governments explain their priorities, justify their choices, obtain democratic authorization, and establish the standards by which future performance will be judged.

Only then can citizens meaningfully determine not merely whether government has built infrastructure, but whether it has fulfilled the public mandate entrusted to it.

For the Kurdistan Regional Government, publishing achievements is an important exercise in transparency. Publishing the planning assumptions, fiscal constraints, revenue projections, and policy priorities that guided those achievements would represent an even more significant step toward strengthening democratic legitimacy and institutional governance.

#Kurdistan #Governance #Democracy #Budget #PublicFinance #Accountability #PublicPolicy #PoliticalReform #KRG #Transparency