Is Article 125 a Step Toward Mixed Autonomy?

By Mikhael Benjamin

Debate continues within Assyrian political and intellectual circles over the true significance of Article 125 of the Iraqi Constitution and whether it offers any meaningful pathway toward the protection of Assyrian rights and historic lands. While some activists dismiss the article as symbolic and devoid of practical value, others argue that it may constitute an important constitutional foundation for a future framework of local self-governance and administrative protection.

Critics of Article 125 contend that it falls far short of the aspirations of the Assyrian people, particularly in its failure to explicitly guarantee autonomy or provide enforceable legal safeguards for Assyrian ancestral territories. For many, the only acceptable solution is the establishment of a distinct autonomous administrative region within the historic Assyrian homeland.

Yet the question is not necessarily whether Assyrians possess a legitimate right to autonomy. Few would dispute that Assyrians have a historical and moral claim to self-rule in parts of their ancestral lands, particularly within districts located across the governorates of Duhok, Erbil, and Nineveh. Rather, the debate increasingly centers on strategy, timing, and constitutional feasibility.

Supporters of a more incremental approach argue that the immediate priority should be the implementation of legislation grounded in Article 125 itself. They maintain that transforming the constitutional guarantees already present into practical realities may serve as an essential first step toward broader forms of self-rule in the future. More importantly, they warn that without urgent legal and administrative protections, the continued demographic decline of Assyrians in their historic regions could eventually undermine any future autonomy project altogether.

At the center of this debate lies the interpretation of Article 125 and its constitutional context. The article guarantees the “administrative, political, cultural, and educational rights” of Iraq’s various national and religious communities. Although often overlooked, proponents argue that the concept of “administrative rights” carries significant implications. In practical terms, they say, such rights imply the ability of communities to manage local affairs, preserve and administer their historical lands, and shape development according to their own communal interests and priorities.

Viewed through this lens, Article 125 may represent a limited but genuine form of local autonomy.

This interpretation gains further weight when considering the article’s placement within the Iraqi Constitution itself. Article 125 appears in Chapter Five, the section dedicated to the powers of regions and local administrations. That chapter outlines the federal structure of Iraq, consisting of the capital, regions, decentralized governorates, and local administrations. According to this reading, local administrative governance for minority communities forms part of Iraq’s constitutional federal framework.

Nonetheless, critics raise a significant concern: the administrative authority envisioned under Article 125 appears limited to districts (aqdiyah) and sub-districts (nawahi) operating within existing governorates, rather than constituting a fully autonomous region. Yet advocates of the article respond that such a framework may still offer substantial benefits under current political realities.

Among the arguments advanced in favor of pursuing Article 125 legislation are several practical considerations:

• It represents a constitutionally recognized and legally enforceable right.
• Any legislation contradicting the constitutional guarantees of Article 125 could potentially be challenged before Iraq’s Supreme Federal Court.
• It is politically more achievable within Iraq’s current balance of power and more likely to receive broader regional and international acceptance.
• It may help preserve the remaining Assyrian demographic presence in areas where Assyrians still constitute significant population concentrations.
• It could permit the establishment of Assyrian administrative sub-districts through the grouping of villages or linking of geographically dispersed Assyrian communities.
• It may provide legal mechanisms for reclaiming lands unlawfully seized from Assyrians over previous decades.

For supporters of this approach, such measures are not viewed as alternatives to autonomy, but rather as foundational steps toward greater self-rule over time.

The broader challenge, however, lies in the constitutional and political complexities surrounding the formation of a fully autonomous region. Under Article 118 of the Iraqi Constitution and Law No. 13 of 2008, the creation of a region requires either the support of two-thirds of provincial council members in the affected governorates or petitions signed by one-tenth of the voters in each governorate involved.

In the Assyrian case, these conditions present considerable obstacles. Historic Assyrian territories today are divided between the Kurdistan Region and territories administered directly by the federal government in Baghdad, complicating any attempt to establish a unified autonomous region under current conditions.

For this reason, some researchers and activists advocate what might be described as a “mixed autonomy” model — an intermediate arrangement between simple local administration and full regional autonomy. Such a model would seek to maximize local Assyrian administrative authority within existing constitutional structures while laying the groundwork for broader forms of self-governance in the future.

Underlying the entire discussion is a growing sense of urgency. Many Assyrian intellectuals warn that demographic decline, migration, land confiscation, and political fragmentation pose an existential threat to the continued presence of Assyrians in their ancestral homeland. In that context, the debate over Article 125 is no longer merely theoretical. It has become a question of whether immediate constitutional mechanisms can still be utilized to preserve a historic indigenous presence before it diminishes beyond recovery.

For many observers, the central issue is therefore no longer whether Assyrians deserve autonomy, but whether the pursuit of attainable constitutional protections today may ultimately determine whether broader autonomy remains possible tomorrow.