In just about no country in the world does the executive gain power as a result of the simple majority wish of individuals. There are good reason why this is so. Even those countries that use a PR system mitigate straight majority rule to achieve democracy (have a look at NZ PR system for example).
In all democratic countries in the world the executive gain power as a result of a direct or indirect (through their representatives) support from the majority of the population. If that was not the case then what would be the point of elections? I asked you to give an example of a democratic country where this doesn't happen, and you failed to do so. (except if you claim that in NZ it is possible for an 18% minority to govern against the will of the 82%)
What is necessary to meet the needs of the point of democracy in Cyprus is unique to Cyprus, as Cyprus is unique. The point is defining clearly what democracy does or does not mean and then to seek a system that achieves this in the circumstances that prevail within Cyprus.
There is nothing so unique to Cyprus to change the basic democratic principles as they exist in every country in the world. Here it is
again from the definition of democracy:
These elements define the fundamental elements of all modern democracies, no matter how varied in history, culture, and economy. Despite their enormous differences as nations and societies, the essential elements of constitutional government--majority rule coupled with individual and minority rights, and the rule of law--can be found in Canada and Costa Rica, France and Botswana, Japan and India.
There has to be a means to meet not just
* Majority rule.
but also
* Government based upon consent of the governed.
You seek to make the former 'supreme' in order to deny the later to the TC community, whenever as a community it wants something different to the GC community as a community.
The great majority of the governed would be more than happy with a democratic state like it exists in all other countries of the world. Of course the anarchists and the extremists exist everywhere, but this doesn't mean that democracy and its principles should be dissolved because a small minority does not accept them. If that was the case then democracy would exist nowhere.
I get it from the application of common sense, rather than from the needs of perusing an ethnic based 'cause'.
On the contrary. What I say about democracy is what exists in all other democratic countries of the world, I didn't make it up myself. On the other hand your "common sense" is just your wishful thinking that creates a "democratic" version which exists in no other country and it is tailored made to fit your needs, and in clear violation of our democratic rights.
I understand there is a reason why member states within the EU do not share power simply on the basis of population size and straight individual numerical majorities, in order for the needs of democracy in such an institution to be best served. I understand why in federal states there are degrees of federal equality that are regardless of the population sizes of these federal elements, in order for the needs of democracy to be best served. Just as I understand your need to try and argue that democracy means one thing and only one thing (but only within Cyprus, certainly not in the EU or UN) and can only be served in one way - by majority rule of individuals.
EU is no country, but a union of countries where the unit is the state and not the citizen. In the case of federations the country is divided into geographic locations, either for administrative reasons, or because the states existed before the creation of the country (and definitely not by means of ethnic cleansing). However even in those cases the citizens are equal. There is nothing to prohibit a citizen to be the resident of any state he wishes.
The racist discrimination of people that you demand for Cyprus, where citizens are divided based on their ethnic background, exists in no other country.
What you fail to understand Piratis is the difference between a matter of personal choice and one of physical unchangeable attribute. One can chose to be or support nazi ideas or communist ideas and one can freely change this and the degree to which one supports them. For such matters majority rule can be an effective means of achieving democracy. However when the determining factor as to what 'group' one is in is not a matter of personal choice but physical attribute, this is exactly when majority rule fails to achieve the aims of democracy.
There are many many multi-cultural multi-ethnic countries which are democratic and follow the same democratic principles as I described them. (and not the one of your "common sense") If you don't like this system then maybe you should start by applying it to Turkey which has a 20% Kurdish minority as well as Greek and other minorities.
When an issue concerns COMMUNITIES and not just individuals, then the demands of democracy would be for on community one vote. That is, when how I vote and how such a change affects me is defined principally by the unchangeable attribute of which community I belong to, then to say the only way democracy is served is that my community never gets its desire and yours always get its desires AND the right to impose them on my community as well is quite simply NOT democracy at all.
Then according to you there is no democratic country in the world? (if there is then again I will ask you: Give me an example)
I never said that your community will never gets its desires. As a community you are free to practice your religion, your language and your culture and this is in fact covered in the "minority rights" which is part of democracy.
What I will say is that to me as a TC what you really want is clear and unambiguous, and calling that desire democracy does not change the clarity of what it is you really want. Namely for the GC community to have the right to impose a purely GC will and desire on the TC community against thier will in our shared homeland. Demanding this in the 50's and 60's was divisive between the communities then and remains so now. You can blame the British for 'dividing' the Cypriot communities but the fact remains it is your insistence of the above that divides us then and now.
First of all, "impose" is what happened when the Ottoman Turks ruled this island with no democracy and no human rights. When you have democracy the decisions are taken in a democratic way by the democratically (one person one vote) representatives of the people, or even directly by the people with referenda. Furthermore when I propose to you
proportional representation of TCs in all government departments (including ministers etc) and even 1 president every 5 to be a TC, and then you tell me that what I want is for the GC community to impose its
purely GC will, then I am sorry but your arguments become obviously ridiculous.
Anyways, although we went a bit out of topic I think the initial poster should have understood already why there is this division between "TCs" and "GCs". If they just apply your "common sense" approach to their own country, where for a minority even proportional representation is considered not enough, then they can easily see why the conflict exists.
