Political Instability in Post-invasion Iraq: Is Ethnofederalism Responsible

According to the critics of ethnofederalism, the political instability found in post-2003 Iraq has resulted from the adoption of the federal system, in its ethnofederal form. Their argument is that ethnofederalism (multinational federalism) works on institutionalizing the historical grievances of the society segments, especially the minorities such as Kurds. These scholars argue that, not only grievances are institutionalised, but also the identities of antagonistic minorities. They hypothesise:  the more identities of minorities are formally institutionalized; the more they will be institutionally empowered, and thus the more these minorities would step towards secession. Accordingly, the minorities undisputedly become stronger and consequently their voice for exit would be stronger, and this in turn leads political instability. However, this dissertation argues that the blame for political instability in post-2003 Iraq should never be put on ethnofederalism, but alternatively on two other major intervening variables. These two variables are the insufficient legitimacy of rebuilding the Iraqi state and deficiencies found in the processes and structures of several major institutions. Furthermore, this federalisation process has been accompanied by to other parallel processes that each has its share in leading to political instability, namely transitional justice and democratisation. Political instability is defined as widening the gap between formal and informal roles and structures (Margolis 2010).