For a good government KRG should separate politics from management.

Summary: Social cohesion is about access to benefits from the budget equally in the whole region.

The Kurdish Globe By Amjed Rasheed The Middle East is at a shifting point and could witness geographical changes. The Arab Spring brought about radical changes, as did revolutionary Arabic states in the mid "60s of the last century such as Egypt, Iraq, Algeria and Syria. However, the difference between the two revolutionary waves is quite distinguished. Further, last century was a bipolar system divided by the USSR and the U.S. Despite the attempt for neutrality represented by the Non-Aligned Movement, led by Gamel Abdel Nasr's Egypt, governments were not state governments but supra-national governments representing the proxy conflict between the U.S. and USSR. In addition, last century's revolutions were military-based revolutions. Regimes changed due to military coups. In contrast, Arab Spring revolutions are civilian-based revolutions and seem to be more state government. People went out in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Syria to stand against injustice and express grievances their societies suffer from. Now, all these changes demand from states in the Middle East prepare themselves for uncertain conditions that might be produced from the new order in the region. Outcomes from this situation might have a negative impact on some states rather than others, which consequently imbalances the region and makes war a possible option.

However, the future scenario of the Middle East is not the main purpose of this report. Here, I address the issue of the KRG's government performance by highlighting the issue of politics and management at the micro level. Outcomes produced by the ongoing changes might have a negative influence, as I said earlier. Yet the KRG and the new cabinet should focus on micro-level government performance. Moreover, government performance is not only measured by government acts at the regional or international level. Rather, government performances are usually measured by government efficiency in providing access to, for example, public services, health policy, social cohesion and mobility, productivity. In democratic countries, people vote for programs and agendas of political parties. What is happening in Kurdistan Region is that people go to poll stations and vote for a party based on historic inheritance and the history of armed struggle against the frequent regimes in Baghdad, the central government. This is absolutely fine; no one denies the ruling parties starring roles across the history of armed struggle against tyranny. Yet this is not a justifiable reason for people to vote for party X or party Y. Conversely, citizens in Kurdistan should be more politically mature.

If the KRG wants space to manoeuvre and shape the changes in the Middle East for the sake of a more secure region, it has to focus on the relative capabilities inside Kurdistan. Theories of international relations argue that the actors of international politics act more freely when they develop themselves internally. Even the realists who argue that domestic determinations have no part in systemic constrains admit that systemic constrains cannot be separated from relative capacities of the actors, since the internal relative capabilities give the actors the capacity to adjust and readjust their policies against system conditions. Therefore, the KRG must do more at the domestic level for regional and international purposes.

I ask the KRG government to separate politics from management. Some might say this is impossible because the essence of government is politics. I answer them by raising a question: Is foreign policy really a foreign policy, Surely not. I argue that the essence of government is to provide public services to those who vote for them. Regional or international politics is part of these services the government should provide for the sake of protection, security and survival.

Government performance is measured by internal policies. It can be easily addressed by some indicators such as economic growth, how the region is productive, solidarity and social cohesion. The economic growth is vital to create a more successful standard of living. In this sector, the KRG is doing very well since they encourage investment in the region. Nevertheless, the KRG has failed to balance growth in Kurdistan Region. Erbil has faced substantial development, but not Duhok or Sulaimaniya. This is a very risky policy. It will have a negative impact in the future, as it will produce a development gap in the region.

The issue of productivity is about the number of commodities and public services. The KRG is doing almost nothing at this level. People in Kurdistan Region import even vegetables from neighbouring countries. Principles of security and survival require Kurdistan to be productive and at least less dependent because of the uncertainty of world politics: Tomorrow is unpredictable, and today's friend might be tomorrow's enemy. Therefore, there is a demand for more self-productivity. The KRG should encourage local businesses and capital to invest inside the region and open factories in different sectors. This will allow the region to be less dependent. Consequently, this will support the economic growth of the region.

Solidarity in government performance is about reducing inequality in society. Citizens should have the same number of benefits from government outcomes and the same level of access to public services. The KRG is doing fair in this sector. Accessibility to employment and access to public services is reasonable. Yet issues of transparency and corruption, as intervening variables, are influencing the issue of solidarity in Kurdistan.

Social cohesion is about access to benefits from the budget equally in the whole region. This takes me to the first indicator: economic growth. Again, the KRG should be more equal. People in any part of the region should enjoy the same amount of economic growth. To improve this, Kurdistan needs a highly effective transportation system. Kurdistan Region suffers greatly from the lack of smooth mobility and movement. Further, there is a lack of an effective transportation network that links the main three cities together. The road that links Duhok with Erbil became a battlefield; many deadly accidents have been registered. It is the same case with the Sulaimaniya-Erbil road. To achieve social cohesion, the KRG has two options: be less central or build an effective transportation network. The second option is more likely to be effective. Therefore, there is a need for a highway linking the three main cities, Duhok, Erbil and Sulaimaniya. This project is not going to buttress social cohesion, but it will definitely have a positive impact on economic growth in the region. In addition, Kurdistan Region should have train stations tie the cities together. Imagine if we had a fast train in the region. One could begin work in Sulemania and finish in Duhok.

No one can deny how weak the health sector is in Kurdistan Region. People do not have full access to health care. Some may argue that citizens in the region have full, free access to health services. My counterargument is, yes, theoretically. However, the efficiency and availability of a high-quality health care system almost does not exist. People have started to sell their jewelry, cars, even their own property, to get treatment outside the region in Istanbul or Amman or elsewhere. Many even ask for charity or loans from relatives and friends to cover treatment expenditures. This is not the way governments work. Therefore, there is an urgent need to reform the health policy in Kurdistan. The KRG needs to open well-equipped, effective hospitals across the region for Kurdish citizens. The citizens are the pillars of governments; healthy citizens lead to healthy governments.

Ph.D. student in international politics

Copyright 2006 - 2012 The Kurdish Globe

Provided by Syndigate.info an Albawaba.com company