The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan says no representative government can be formed without a genuine partnership with the Kurdistan Democratic Party, underscoring the prolonged political impasse that continues to delay the activation of parliament, stall reforms, and raise questions about the future of governance in the Kurdistan Region.

The PUK has warned that no inclusive Kurdistan Regional Government can be formed without both the PUK and KDP, highlighting the prolonged political deadlock delaying parliament and cabinet formation.

A Government Still Waiting to Be Born

Nearly two years after voters cast their ballots in the Kurdistan Region's parliamentary elections, the political institutions expected to translate that mandate into governance remain largely paralysed.

The latest statement from the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) underscores both the depth of the political impasse and the growing pressure on the Kurdistan Region's two dominant political forces to reach an agreement before institutional paralysis begins to erode public confidence further.

Speaking on 25 July, PUK Political Bureau member Saadi Ahmed Pire reiterated that a broad-based and representative Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) cannot be formed without meaningful participation from both the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP).

According to Pire, the prolonged delay in activating parliament and establishing the tenth cabinet has become increasingly difficult to justify to the Kurdish public.

The remarks come as negotiations continue between the Region's two largest political parties, with no comprehensive breakthrough yet announced.

The Stakes Extend Beyond Cabinet Positions

While coalition negotiations are often portrayed as disputes over ministries or political influence, the current deadlock carries broader institutional implications.

The Kurdistan Parliament, despite members being sworn in following the October 2024 elections, has remained largely inactive as negotiations over government formation continue.

Without a fully functioning parliament and executive, major legislative initiatives, economic reforms, investment decisions, and institutional appointments remain delayed.

For citizens, the consequences extend far beyond political symbolism.

Questions surrounding salary payments, budget implementation, public services, energy policy, and negotiations with Baghdad all become more difficult when key institutions remain unable to function at full capacity.

The PUK's Position

Addressing reporters, Pire said the PUK Political Bureau had discussed the participation of PUK President Bafel Jalal Talabani in a proposed summit of Kurdish political leaders.

According to Pire, the party supports President Bafel's participation provided that leaders from the Region's other major political parties also attend, signalling that the PUK continues to favour negotiations conducted through an inclusive political framework rather than bilateral arrangements alone.

More importantly, the PUK stressed that it no longer considers prolonged delays acceptable.

Pire argued that parliament should resume its constitutional responsibilities as quickly as possible and that the Kurdistan Region requires a functioning government capable of addressing mounting political and economic challenges.

Why the PUK-KDP Partnership Remains Essential

The PUK's argument reflects the political realities of the Kurdistan Region.

The KDP remains the dominant political force in Erbil and Duhok, while the PUK maintains substantial political influence across Sulaymaniyah and parts of the Garmian administration.

Any government excluding either party would struggle to claim that it represents the Kurdistan Region as a whole.

This political geography has shaped Kurdish governance since the establishment of the federal region following Iraq's 2005 Constitution.

Although smaller parties continue to play important parliamentary roles, the KDP and PUK remain the principal pillars upon which stable regional governments have historically been constructed.

Pire therefore argued that both parties must demonstrate greater flexibility while simultaneously creating political space for other parties to participate in the next cabinet.

A Deadlock with Growing Costs

The prolonged delay increasingly carries political, economic, and institutional costs.

International investors continue watching developments closely as unresolved disputes over oil exports, federal budget transfers, and constitutional competencies already create uncertainty for the Region's economy.

Meanwhile, ordinary citizens continue expressing frustration over delayed reforms, public-sector salaries, and institutional stagnation.

The absence of a fully operational parliament also limits legislative oversight at a time when the Region faces significant regional security pressures stemming from ongoing tensions between Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and the United States.

In this environment, political paralysis risks weakening governance precisely when strong institutions are most needed.

Beyond Politics: The Public's Expectations

One notable aspect of the PUK's message is its emphasis on public concerns rather than purely partisan demands.

Rather than focusing exclusively on negotiating positions, party officials framed the delay as a problem affecting the Kurdish population more broadly.

This reflects increasing public expectations that political parties move beyond lengthy coalition bargaining and begin addressing governance, economic recovery, and institutional reform.

Whether this narrative gains wider political traction will depend largely on whether negotiations begin producing tangible results in the coming weeks.

What Happens Next?

Several scenarios remain possible.

The first is a renewed round of negotiations leading to a power-sharing agreement between the KDP and PUK that allows parliament to resume regular sessions and the tenth cabinet to be formed.

A second possibility is continued delay, prolonging institutional paralysis and increasing public frustration.

A third scenario would involve broader participation by smaller Kurdish parties, creating a more inclusive coalition while preserving the KDP-PUK partnership at its core.

At present, the first scenario remains the most likely, although the timeline remains uncertain.

Conclusion

The PUK's latest statement serves as another reminder that Kurdistan's political future continues to depend upon cooperation between its two largest political movements.

While disagreements over power-sharing are not unusual in coalition politics, the duration of the current deadlock has transformed what began as post-election negotiations into a broader test of institutional resilience.

The Kurdistan Parliament cannot indefinitely remain inactive while regional security challenges intensify, economic pressures persist, and citizens await effective governance.

Ultimately, the question facing Kurdish leaders is no longer simply who governs.

It is whether they can demonstrate that the institutions built over three decades remain capable of responding to the demands of a rapidly changing political and geopolitical landscape.

Sources

• PUK Media, "Pire: Inclusive KRG Cannot Be Formed Without the PUK" (25 July 2026).
• Statements by PUK Political Bureau member Saadi Ahmed Pire.