Cyprus-Forum.com

[zan]

But then so are some of the others as well...I am also of the opinion that Papad. has never wanted a solution based on equal power sharing and I can still remember his articles in the old Kyrikas newspaper about 20 years ago which were always against this kind of solution and proposed maintaining the status quo indefinitely as suggested by people like Dountas and his followers.
I am also sure that Lillikas was put in charge of the campaign against the Annan Plan as soon as Papad. realised his bluff had been called by accepting mediation and the only way out was for him to get the people here to do the dirty work for him!But if the international community really wanted this problem to be solved instead of just botched-up before Cyprus joined the E.U. they should have at least guaranteed it would be enforced in all it's provisions,but nobody was prepared to do that and coupled with the negative campaigning by the rejectionists,people were confused and afraid to take a decision that would have irrevocable consequences if they said yes.......I also believe quite a large number really believed Papad's assurances then that he could get a better solution once Cyprus joined the E.U.
But the last few years have proven him wrong and it will be interesting to see how this affects the votes in February's election.I would suggest that if there is to be another referendum on a future solution-which I personally believe is wrong in principle anyway as it is the responsiblity of the elected leadership to decide on such matters-if they cannot,they should not be in power- because the man in the street cannot possibly be expected to comprehend the legalities and technicalities of such a decision.A good historical example of how the majority can be wrong would be to consider how the Germans supported Hitler in the 1930's and a very recent example is the supposedly 64% majority in favour of Putin in Russias election,even though everyone knows the poll was fixed......
Unless people have have unbiased and informed access to all the facts and can consider them without emotional influences,they cannot be expected to make the right decision which takes into account the international influences and implications as well for example..Cypriot politics are still at an early stage of development and very immature and the world overlooked this fact when they decided to use a referendum to solve this problem.
If it does happen again,then I would suggest they allow plenty of time for free and rational debate and do not enforce deadlines of a few weeks which made people even more suspicious of the motives behind it.....
Above all Zan,there were serious loopholes in the final version of the plan a notable one being about the central bank and how the economy would function-knowing how much Cypriots worship money,this in itself was enough to wreck it!!

I agree with most of what you say and that is how it should be handled but it does not take way from the fact that we had hundreds of Cypriot lawyers and the man described as the best mind in law in Europe, as in Tpap, and 5 drafts of the Annan Plan and, it should be celebrated that 9000 pages were drawn up and not seen as a negative thing, and that so much detail went into the solution down to each and every federal law that a whole new constitution was formed, but Tpap still found things wrong with it......What was he doing all that time???????

[Piratis]

Bananiot and Piratis,

Thank you both for your answers.

So just to cut to the chase, you are both saying, that the percentage of the "NO" vote on the Annan Plan has not changed at all today. All that may have happened is, the total of 75% "NO" votes are still there, but divided by 3 separate candidates, so in essence, I do not think it would make too much difference who wins the elections, the 75% "NO" votes are still there. I think this should send a clear message to Talat and the gang, that it is not PapaD who did not and does not want anything resembling to the 2004 AP, but rather 75% of the voting GC's. Before my Fanatical TC friends start pointing fingers to the GC's by saying, "Ah,ha, you see, the GC's do not want peace with the TC's", lets reverse the conditions on the AP and lets see how many of the 65% TC's who voted for the AP will remain to be 65%.!!! In my opinion, I think the GC's did the only thing they could have done back in 2004, which was to say "NO", no matter whether PapaD cried or not. This was a referendum for the citizen to decide on their country and future and not a decree by the leaders. How on Earth you can throw 9,000+ pages of information to the people and expect them to make a decision in a week. I hope when the next peace Referendum comes to be voted on, that each side is given no less than 3-6 months, so that it can be discussed in the Papers, TV and Radio.

Kikapu, I have never met anybody who changed his mind about the Annan plan, nor anybody who took his decision due to Papadopoulos speech.

All polls months before the referendum and Papadopoulos speech where showing that the Annan plan would be rejected by the vast majority, even for Annan Plan 3 which is considered somewhat better than Annan plan 5.

According to Zan, Papadopoulos and everybody that opposed the Annan plan should have remained silent and allow the pro-Annan campaign to pass without a debate. He forgets that in Cyprus we still have democracy despite their attempts to disolve it.

Just like there was a pro-Annan plan campaign there was also an anti-Annan plan campaign. The difference is that the anti-Annan plan campaign was funded exclusively by Cypriots, while the pro-Annan plan campaign was funded mostly by outsiders.

So there was the campaigns and also an exhaustive debate of Annan plan on all the media. And from this debate it became obvious that the pro-Annan campaigners had almost no arguments. In fact they were trying to convince the Cypriot people to vote in favor of the Annan plan not by explaining to them why doing so would solve the Cyprus Problem, but by threatening them that if they dared to vote "no" a ton of bad things would happen to us.

In a previous post Bananiot separated the "no" voters into "hard no" and "soft no". I am not sure what the "soft no" are since in the polls contacted the question "Would you accept the Annan plan with minor changes" the majority of the people still answered "no". But if we were also to divide the people that voted "yes" then you would see that most of them voted yes either because of the threats or because they were hopping that the Annan plan could be later on changed by legal means. Those that accepted the Annan plan as the solution where only a tiny minority.

[Bananiot]

Kikapu, zan is correct here, the 9000 pages contained legal staff that Papadopoulos proposed to be included in the plan that was placed in front of us and this raises another question: Why the heck make such a proposition and have people working endlessly on overtime to meet the time limits, when you are going to send the plan to hell?

Another thing of interest that emerged the other day is that the idea of the three foreign judges belongs to the Greek government and perhaps this is the reason Papadopoulos was so lenient in his criticism of this.

Kikapu, the fact that 76% of the Greek Cypriots voted "no" has a lot to do with the President. If at the time we had a President who was a fervent supporter of the plan, I assure you, the result would be the reverse. Such is the degree of maturity of the people in Cyprus, or this is the degree of development of politics in Cyprus, as cymart eloquently put it. Thus I tend to agree with cymart that a future referendum on the fate of Cyprus would still be avoided and all responsibility taken by the person running the country rather than asking the people to bear the brunt of difficult decisions and then blame them for the shortcomings of their decisions. Equally important, is that those months prior to the referendum and months afterwards, the people were deeply divided and even today those of us that voted for solution are easily branded as traitors even by high standing government officials and the President himself.

Kikapu, we were scorned and ridiculed before the referendum. Our cars became targets for the fanatic "no" supporter and one could see hundreds of cars with large "no" posters on them but not a single one with a "yes" poster. The "yes" kiosks in all cities were vandalised the minute they were set up but the "no" kiosks flourished. The times were indeed very mean for a democratic decision to be made. Even today, the governemnt guiltifies the opposite view and spreads xenophobia and inwardness. It preys on the primitive fears of people and welcomes "associations" that spring out that call for a check on foreigners that enter Cyprus. The Interior Minister was set to go and speak at one such "association" last month but had to cancel at the last instance after a furore broke out on the radio.

Only a new government can put things right. We need a democratic and open Cyprus. A multicultural Cyprus run by the two communities as equal partners. We need to get rid of the Koulises, Pittokopitises and all these little fascists who have destroyed the image of our country and are ruining our chances to live together in a free and democratic environment.

[phoenix]

Piratis' analysis makes sense, and as I am an average person I know I too would make my own mind up given such pro- and anti- sentiments.

If Bananiot persist in personally equating the President as the decision maker . . . then I don't see a problem with that either. Because that would be his job if he was doing it well.

I thought the whole point of a Democracy was that we elect representatives to speak for us, and carry out decisions in favour of the majority requirements..

[Bananiot]

So you want a President that will be led by the people, not a President that will lead the people. In that case all decisions should be taken after a referendum or at best after tapping the public opinion. This is not democracy Phoenix.

[phoenix]

So you want a President that will be led by the people, not a President that will lead the people. In that case all decisions should be taken after a referendum or at best after tapping the public opinion. This is not democracy Phoenix.

I would vote for a President that held views consistent with mine, thereafter once in power, represent my views and lead accordingly.

One that merely leads might be more akin to a Dictator.

A referendum (bar extenuating circumstances) defeats the object of placing trust in the election process.

[Bananiot]

The President of Cyprus is basicaly a dictator. This is because no checks and balances exist after 1963. He is the supreme ruler. His word is law for five whole years. No one can touch him and a despotic ruler like Papadopoulos can be very unhealthy for democracy.

[Piratis]

Bananiot would prefer if Papadopoulos had not allowed the AP to a referendum so then they could easily claim that the AP was rejected by Papadopoulos alone, and pass their lies easier about the Cypriot people willingness to accept something similar to that monstrosity.

If there is one good thing that came out of the Annan plan that is that for the first time in history the Cypriot people where allowed to voice their opinion about the kind of "solutions" that they would never accept.

Kikapu, the fact that 76% of the Greek Cypriots voted "no" has a lot to do with the President. If at the time we had a President who was a fervent supporter of the plan, I assure you, the result would be the reverse. Such is the degree of maturity of the people in Cyprus, or this is the degree of development of politics in Cyprus, as cymart eloquently put it.

If it was like that then Papadopoulos would be elected in the upcoming elections with 76% from the first round.
Yes, there are some Cypriot sheep, but those sheep follow their parties not the president. AKEL has the most sheep, but in the case of Annan plan the outrage against it was so much that while the AKEL central committee had decided to support the Annan plan they soon changed their mind seeing that most of their supporters, even the sheep, would not follow them this time.

Only a new government can put things right. We need a democratic and open Cyprus. A multicultural Cyprus run by the two communities as equal partners.

One person one vote is democratic. Equating the 82% majority with an 18% minority is not.

What we need is a democratic Cyprus where all Cypriots are equal regardless of their ethnic background. If we wanted two separate parts ruled by two separate communities then what we have today wouldn't be called the Cyprus Problem.

[Piratis]

The President of Cyprus is basicaly a dictator.

The system we have in Cyprus elects a president in the most direct and democratic way possible. The person elected as president is the one chosen by the majority of people - period.
There are many checks and balances and the president, for example, can not pass laws, the budget or change the constitution without the approval of the parliament. And thats a good thing because it means that even if a communist like Christofias is elected he still can not turn Cyprus into a communist dictatorship even if he wanted to. Keep this tip in mind Bananiot because you will need it for your campaign in the second round

[cymart]

The major flaw in Cyprus is the presidential system itself because it gives far too much power to one person and in a society which is still as we seem to agree,not yet very politically developed,this can be very dangerous.This kind of system will lead to cronyism and corruption and circles of vested interests develop who resist any attempts to change things,just as has occurred in Cyprus since 1960... and especially since 2003...
As one newspaper columnist wrote today,the most influential Papad. supporters are the church and the developers who are all doing very nicely under the status quo!