According to Kurdpress, Mohammad Kamal, the leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party in Kirkuk, along with a high-ranking delegation from his party, visited Mohammad Sanaan, the new governor of Kirkuk.

Bovar news media wrote: As seen in the pictures of this meeting, the delegation of the Democratic Party congratulated the appointment of the new governor with a smile and a bunch of red flowers.

This warm reception takes place while a few days ago, when the new governor was elected by the Kirkuk Provincial Council, the Democratic Party reacted very strongly and strongly rejected this process.

At that time, the leaders of this party had considered this choice as the result of "agreements behind closed doors" and ignoring the rights of Kirkuk's population, but now the scene of giving flowers has practically questioned all those previous positions.

Meanwhile, if we go back to two years ago, when Ribwar Taha from the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan was elected as the governor of Kirkuk, the attitude of the Democratic Party was completely different.

At that time, not only there were no flowers and congratulations, but this party officially refused to be present for congratulations and instead of political interaction, it took the case to the Iraqi Federal Court and filed an official complaint to cancel the election of the Kurdish governor.

Also, during his period of responsibility, there was no cooperation with Ribwar Taha as the governor of Kirkuk, and even obstacles were created; Among them, he was not allowed to travel to Erbil as the governor of Kirkuk.

These developments have raised a serious question among Kirkuk public opinion and observers: Is the criteria for accepting or rejecting positions in Kirkuk based on national identity and service delivery, or is it solely dependent on internal rivalries among Kurdish parties?

Giving flowers to a Turkmen governor after his election was rejected, and on the other hand, a legal complaint and boycott of a Kurdish governor, has a clear message: in Kirkuk, the issue is often not the office itself, but who is leaning on it and which political front he belongs to.