Distributed Competencies and Lost Responsibility

When an Iraqi citizen complains about a dilapidated school, a broken road, or delayed services, he finds himself shuttling between three authorities, each claiming that jurisdiction lies with another. This confusion stems not only from neglect but also from the ambiguity surrounding the division of powers among the federal government, the regions, and the governorates. Article 100 of the 2005 Constitution delineated exclusive competencies for the federal authority, including foreign policy, defense, fiscal policy, customs, currency, and nationality affairs.

Article 105 assigned all matters not listed in that enumeration to the regions and to governorates not organized into a region, prioritizing regional legislation in cases of conflict over shared competencies. However, the text on paper differs from implementation in practice. Shared competencies have not been regulated by detailed laws. For instance, the management of oil and gas remains a point of contention between Baghdad and Erbil, as Article 112 refers to the management of existing fields in cooperation with producing regions, without any law having been issued to define the meaning of this cooperation.

In the governorates, the Constitution granted provincial councils broad administrative and financial powers, and the Law on Governorates Not Organized into a Region was enacted to regulate this. Nevertheless, funding remained tied to the federal budget. Consequently, governors are held accountable by the public for services they do not control financially, while federal ministries hold the funds and evade direct accountability. The result is as much social as it is legal: citizens who do not know which authority is responsible often direct their anger toward the entity closest to them—usually the local municipality or the state in general—even though the decision may lie with a distant federal ministry.

This ambiguity undermines trust in institutions and provides politicians with an opportunity to shift blame. Three steps are required: first, a law that precisely defines shared competencies; second, a simplified guide published by each governorate, clarifying for citizens which authority is responsible for which service and how to file complaints; and third, linking financial responsibility to accountability, ensuring that those who control spending are held answerable for the outcomes. A federal state does not succeed merely by distributing powers on paper, but by ensuring that citizens understand the boundaries of each authority. Without knowing who governs what, people cannot hold anyone accountable or demand their rights.