By George Koumoullis
After the revelations of the Pandora Papers, Nicos Anastasiades goes to great toil to convince us that he is inspired by unscrupulos patriotism and fair honesty! In the recent anti-occupation course Morphou analyzed the “patriotic” interpretation of political equality. Unfortunately, the Cypriot vessel navigates in a stormy sea, defying the danger of being swallowed. Given the opportunity, it reiterates that convergence in terms of political equality, where each decision will require at least one Positive Vote, constitutes a political inequality because, according to Mr. Anastasiades, the Turkish Cypriots should not have a voice on issues that are the responsibility of the federal government, but concern only the Greek Cypriot state.
President Anastasiades, denying the right of the Turkish Cypriots to have the right to vote in any decision in the Council of Ministers, rejects the definition of political equality as defined by a decision of the UN Security Council. It therefore also rejects the convergence achieved on this issue, namely that seven Turkish Cypriots and four Turkish Cypriots will participate in the Council of Ministers and that every decision of the Federal Government, as well as its joint committees, will require at least one positive vote on each side.
Our image is hopeless: if DISY shares the view of the President of the Republic of Cyprus, it means that all parties in Cyprus, except AKEL, reject the political equality which presupposes the effective participation of the Turkish Cypriots in all decisions. How can a solution be reached, even if Tatar is turning to the IRS, when we do not accept political equality?
In conclusion, political inequality is not the participation of the Turkish Cypriots in all the decisions of the federal government. Political inequality is exactly the opposite, namely the denial of political equality (as defined by the Security Council) for which its most ardent supporter is its last – Nicos Anastasiades and his associates, i.e. the archothers, thess and financiers who, for obvious reasons, wish to maintain the status quo.
In democratic federations, without exception, all states (or cantons or states) regardless of population have equal rights and, therefore, there is no question of majority-minority, nor small and large. For example, in Belgium there are 6.5 million Flemings and 3.5 million Walloons, but the Council of Ministers has an equal number of ministers and there is no question of the Flemish ministers representing the minority not participating in the decisions of the Federal Government because they are not concerned about the matter under discussion. In the U.S. Senate, each state, regardless of population, elects two members, e.g., the largest state, California and the lilliputian Wyoming with a population of 40 million. and 1/2 million. respectively they elect two senators and, therefore, Wyoming has the same voice as California and decides on issues that concern the entire territory of the United States. Perhaps the best example is offered by the EU, which acts as a quasi-federation. Cyprus has the same right to vote as Germany of EUR 80 million. people – the two countries have one vote. The Council of the EU decides unanimously on a number of issues considered sensitive by the Member States, e.g. the common foreign policy and family law. In other words, Cyprus, whose population is only 2% of that of the EU, can veto, for e.g. sanctions against Belarus, and this is not considered, as Anastasiades would consider it, to be political inequality.
It is argued by some that a positive vote of the Turkish Cypriots will lead to deadlocks and that the Constitution will not be functional. These are excuses in sin. Let us emulate the EU in which there are so many disagreements but which nevertheless functions smoothly because its officials sit, talk and seek convergence. This should also happen in Cyprus – a culture of dialogue, a culture of collectively addressing political and other issues based on dialogue. The incessant divisions and divisions, as the experiences of 1963-64 remind us, instead of peace, build springboards for new conflicts.
