PUK DEMANDS EQUAL SHARE OF POWER, INVOKING 39-SEAT PARITY WITH KDP

With the PUK-NGM bloc matching the KDP’s seat count, the Patriotic Union insists on an equal division of the cabinet, and says it wants to change how the region is governed, not just who governs it.

The Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) reiterated this week that it is prepared to enter coalition negotiations with the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) strictly on the basis of parliamentary seat counts, a position that, following its alliance with the New Generation Movement (NGM), results in an exact 39-to-39 parity that the party says entitles it to an equal share of the next regional government.

PUK President Bafel Talabani announced that the party would release a formal programme for the next four years alongside a proposed cabinet structure in the coming days, framing the move as a demonstration of the party’s readiness to govern. Talabani also described the PUK-NGM relationship as a stabilising force in Sulaymaniyah, and pledged to reach out to other political parties across Kurdistan.

Abbas Fatah, a member of the PUK leadership council, clarified on Wednesday that the party’s demands in the talks are not purely about portfolio allocation, but about fundamentally restructuring how the KRG operates. He indicated that the PUK had objected to a previous proposal that would have left civilian posts, and by extension, governance style, unchanged, a formula the party found unacceptable.

Fatah confirmed that the PUK and its allies hold 39 seats in the Kurdistan Parliament and intend to negotiate on that basis, positioning the combined bloc as the KDP’s equal at the table. This framing directly challenges the KDP’s longstanding position that, as the single largest party with the same number of seats and a broader electoral mandate, it should hold primacy in government formation.

Political analysts have noted that the symmetry of the 39-39 split has fundamentally altered the dynamics of the negotiations, transforming what the KDP viewed as an electoral mandate for dominant leadership into a deadlock that increasingly resembles a two-party veto system.