Democratization, elections and the ‘de facto state dilemma’: Iraq’s Kurdistan Regional Government
| Published date | 01 December 2015 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0010836715585174 |
| Date | 01 December 2015 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Cooperation and Conflict
2015, Vol. 50(4) 423 –439
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0010836715585174
cac.sagepub.com
Democratization, elections and
the ‘de facto state dilemma’:
Iraq’s Kurdistan Regional
Government
Benjamin MacQueen
Abstract
De facto states are an anomalous, but well-discussed feature of international politics. The
questions they raise for understandings of sovereignty and statehood are well advanced, but less
understood are the internal dynamics of these entities particularly in relation to the development
of democratic, participatory political institutions. Through an examination of the Kurdish Regional
Government in Iraq from 1992 to 2014 this article will explore patterns of democratization in
de facto states. Unpacking a dilemma around trends toward both exclusionary and inclusionary
politics in de facto states, it is argued here that there is a positive relationship between de facto
statehood and democratization. However, contrary to current views, this is the result of internal
pressures and elite agency as opposed to normative pressures at the international level.
Keywords
De facto states, democratization, elections, Iraq, Kurdistan
Introduction
This article asks what accounts for democratization in de facto states. At present, research
on these entities has focussed largely on their implications for understandings of sover-
eignty and statehood in the international system. What attention has been paid to their
internal mechanics has developed two, contrary findings. On one hand, it is argued that
the state-building process in de facto states facilitates exclusionary forms of politics
owing to the legacy of separatist conflict and the assumption of political power by former
wartime belligerents. On the other, efforts at gaining international recognition for inde-
pendence claims, the product of the wartime effort, require de facto states to undergo an
Corresponding author:
Benjamin MacQueen, Department of Politics and International Relations, School of Social Sciences, Monash
University, Clayton Campus, Wellington Road, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia.
Email: ben.macqueen@monash.edu
585174CAC0010.1177/0010836715585174Cooperation and ConflictMacQueen
research-article2015
Article
424 Cooperation and Conflict 50(4)
accelerated process of institution building, with a focus on democratization as part of
their ‘pitch’ to the international community of their credentials as viable members.
Through an examination of the Kurdish Regional Government in Iraq, it is argued here
that there is a positive relationship between de facto statehood and democratization, but
not due to normative pressures at the inter-state level. Instead, democratization has been
an important part of the state-building process in allowing political elites to manage
internal conflict as well as establish political authority within its claimed territory.
However, once embedded, these democratic institutions can be difficult to dislodge. This
argument will be developed firstly through an examination of the debates over de facto
statehood and democratization, before locating this debate in the broader discussions on
state-building and democratic transitions. The establishment of and participation in dem-
ocratic institutions both in Iraq and the Kurdish Regional Government will then be
examined, with a focus on the period from 1992 to 2014.
De facto statehood and democratization
De facto states are an anomaly in the international system, exorcizing clear and effective
authority over a territory but lacking international recognition (Caspersen and Stansfield,
2011: 5). That is, they possess the practical, empirical, or ‘de facto’ features of sovereign
states but lack the legal, judicial, or ‘de jure’ features of sovereign states. Otherwise
known as ‘separatist’ (King, 2001), ‘contested’ (Geldenhuys, 2009), ‘unrecognized’
(Caspersen, 2012), and ‘quasi-recognized’ (Kolstø, 2006), these entities exist in a legal
and temporal limbo in their search for membership of the society of states. However,
there has been deep reluctance among states for the recognition of these aspirant entities,
preferring to manage their existence within the ‘organized hypocrisy’ of the international
system rather than open up inclusion (Krasner, 1998: 4).
Here, the designation of de facto comes from a disaggregation of features of sover-
eignty between empirical/positive/de facto and judicial/negative/de jure qualities
(Jackson, 1993; Krasner, 1998). In terms of de facto sovereignty, this relates to demon-
strated and effective self-rule that enjoys a considerable measure of popular support
within a clearly defined territory for a period of more than two years (Pegg, 1998: 12). In
terms of de jure sovereignty, this relates to efforts at seeking recognition of independ-
ence. Simply put, de facto states have achieved empirical sovereignty but lack judicial
sovereignty, being sovereign in practice but not in legal reality. Although they captured
attention primarily as a post-Cold War phenomenon, with the break-up of the Soviet
Union and the emergence of these entities in Georgia (South Ossetia and Abkhazia),
Azerbaijan (Nagorno-Karabakh), and Moldova (Transdnistria), they also pre-date these
events (Taiwan and Northern Cyprus) and can be found in Africa (Somaliland), Europe
(Kosovo), and the Middle East (Iraqi Kurdistan). In this regard, their very existence and
continued vitality challenges preconceptions of the state system.
Where this challenge to conceptions of sovereignty has been debated at length
(Caspersen, 2011, 2012; Geldenhuys, 2009; Lynch, 2004; Pegg, 1998), less attention has
been paid to the internal mechanics of de facto states, particularly in terms of how their
ambiguous existence affects political participation and democratization. This is due, in
part, to the controversial origins, domestic ambiguity, and contested status of these
To continue reading
Request your trial