Kurdistan Parliamentary Elections 2024: An In-Depth Critique of Electoral Metrics and Misleading Turnout Figures
By Dana Jamil and Harem Karem
As the results of the 2024 Kurdistan Parliamentary elections are parsed and debated, a glaring issue surfaces: the notable discrepancy between the reported voter turnout and the actual participation of eligible voters. The Independent High Electoral Commission (IHEC) in Iraq has announced a voter turnout of 72%—a figure that, at a glance, appears respectable. However, this number, when scrutinised, reveals itself to be both misleading and problematic. By digging deeper into the data and examining different turnout metrics, it becomes clear that the system may significantly overstate the degree of voter engagement, prompting critical questions about the biometric voter identification system’s efficacy and the credibility of the commission’s reported metrics.
Dissecting Turnout Data Across Kurdistan’s Provinces
To fully understand the reality of voter participation in Kurdistan, we must examine the figures across its four key provinces: Erbil, Sulaymaniyah, Duhok, and Halabja. The disparities among biometric turnout, eligible voter turnout, and population-based turnout across these provinces expose fundamental gaps in electoral engagement.
Erbil Province: The IHEC reports Erbil’s biometric voter turnout as 74.85%, meaning 74.85% of registered Biometric Voter ID holders participated in the election. However, when evaluated against the total voter-eligible population (those over 18), this figure plummets to 48.97%. Further, when viewed in terms of the entire population, the figure falls to a modest 31.91%, indicating that less than one-third of Erbil’s residents actively participated.
Sulaymaniyah Province: With a biometric turnout rate of 76.80%, Sulaymaniyah initially appears to have a robust level of engagement. However, reframing the turnout to encompass all eligible voters over 18 reduces it to just 44.24%, while a population-based turnout analysis reveals a startlingly low figure of 26.98%. These figures suggest that only a small fraction of the population, in reality, cast their vote.
Duhok Province: Duhok leads in terms of biometric voter turnout at 79%, which equates to 59.13% of eligible voters and 37.49% of the total population. Despite being the highest turnout among the provinces, Duhok’s figures still fall far short of a representative democratic mandate when assessed against the general population.
Halabja Province: In Halabja, a biometric turnout rate of 74.57% drops to 48.19% when recalculated based on all eligible voters. In population terms, participation further declines to just 31.28%, underscoring the limited extent of public engagement.
When these four provinces are examined collectively, the biometric voter turnout across the Kurdistan Region stands at 76.6%. However, only 49.67% of eligible voters actually cast their ballots, and only 31.35% of the entire population took part. Thus, less than one-third of Kurdistan’s residents voted, a stark contrast to the initially reported 72% figure.
The Misleading Nature of Biometric Voter Turnout
The heavy reliance on biometric turnout figures as the primary metric of electoral engagement is misleading for several reasons:
1. Limited Scope: The biometric turnout rate only reflects those who hold Biometric Voter IDs. This excludes individuals who, for a variety of reasons, did not register with the biometric system—whether due to administrative barriers, disenchantment with the process, or logistical challenges. As a result, biometric turnout creates an inflated sense of public engagement that fails to capture the broader reality.
2. Overstated Engagement: Biometric turnout metrics are effective at reflecting compliance with the voter identification system, but they do little to convey the genuine level of political participation. These metrics can easily be misinterpreted as a barometer of civic engagement, distorting public perception and overstating electoral legitimacy.
3. Exclusionary Impact: By focusing on biometric turnout, the system overlooks entire demographics that, by design or circumstance, were excluded from registration. This risks alienating segments of the electorate and creates a flawed understanding of the true democratic will within Kurdistan.
A Troubling Trend of Democratic Disengagement
When we compare the current turnout data with past election cycles, a disturbing pattern of declining voter engagement emerges. In the 2018 Kurdistan Parliamentary elections, voter turnout was recorded at 59% when based on registered voters, with 56% casting valid votes. The 2024 elections reveal a significant drop, with valid-vote turnout now at 49.67%—an 8.33% decrease. Such a trend, particularly in light of population-based turnout figures, points to a growing wave of disillusionment within the electorate.
Recommendations for Reform
To re-establish public trust and encourage a truly representative democratic process, Kurdistan’s electoral system must address these issues with concrete reforms:
1. Enhanced Transparency in Reporting: The Independent High Electoral Commission should embrace a more nuanced approach to reporting, including turnout figures based on biometric IDs, total eligible voters, and the entire population. A multi-tiered reporting structure would provide a clearer and more honest picture of democratic engagement, preventing the manipulation of turnout data.
2. Greater Voter Inclusivity: The biometric ID system should be just one of several methods for voter identification. Opening up alternative pathways to ensure that all eligible voters can participate without undue barriers would enable a more comprehensive representation of the public will.
3. Educational Outreach and Civic Engagement Initiatives: Public education campaigns on the importance of voting, coupled with initiatives to bolster confidence in the electoral process, could counteract the prevailing disinterest. Reinvigorating civic engagement is crucial for reversing the current downward trend in participation.
4. Independent Monitoring and Analysis: Independent observers, both domestic and international, should play a more prominent role in monitoring elections, with a particular focus on barriers to access and voter experience. Comprehensive third-party analysis would provide invaluable insights, laying the groundwork for meaningful electoral reform.
Conclusion
The 2024 Kurdistan Parliamentary elections bring to light a pressing need for reform in how turnout figures are calculated, presented, and understood. The heavy emphasis on biometric voter turnout as a stand-alone metric obscures the true picture of public engagement, failing to reflect the declining rates of participation and the underrepresentation of various groups within Kurdistan. By adopting a more transparent, inclusive, and educational approach, Kurdistan can foster a healthier electoral environment, ensuring a more representative and participatory democracy for the future.