Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

mikkie, I can't imagine a legislative body that does not have a system of checks and balances. In my opinion, The executive(s) of the federal state should have veto power and the senate should have the power to override the veto when necessary. I don't think such a mechanism of checks and balances would cause deadlocks if the conditions of veto and override of veto was used with legal rationales in frame of relevant provisions and articles of Federal Constitution and laws. Senate and presidential council is not a place where everyone can act how he/she wishes. Their actions are limited with what the relevant provisions and articles of Federal constitution and laws vested to them.

[Alexandros Lordos]

Hmmm... It seems to me he tries to nullify the political equality of TC community in presidential council and he claims that majority rule in presidential council will resolve the deadlocks. I don't think TCs will ever accept this. What do you think?

I am certain the TCs will never accept this. It's a dead end.

One daring suggestion that I have about the Presidential Council is as follows:

Instead of the Council having collective authority, and the President and VP just being "figureheads", let's grant full executive authority to the President, as Head of Government, and let us also make the vice President minister of foreign affairs. The posts of President and Vice President will still rotate as per the Annan Plan, so that in every five year term (60 months) we will have a GC president with full executive authorites for 40 months (and in that period the foreign minister will be TC) and a TC president with full executive authorities for 20 months (and in that period the foreign minister will be a GC).

How does this sound?

[-mikkie2-]

I like my solution better. It gives the power to the people. The checks and balances can be forced by virtue of the people exercising their power - it is THEIR government. And having a system where each constituent state votes seperately for the president means that any candidates will have to address the issues of both sides. If they fail to do so then they will simply loose the trust of the people and be voted out. This way also means that a president could be a TC or a GC or Maronite or Latin or whatever. It removes the 'ethnic' label on things which I think is what we need to get away from in the longer term.

Look at the UK. All the main positions of power are taken up by Scottish people. Blair and Brown are Scottish for example.

Someone needs to take bold and creative steps to create a system that will work. Having a rigid system with 'checks and balances' will simply mean that government will operate at a snails pace. It also means that we are hanging on to the problems and uncertainties of the past and projecting them into the future.

I realise that proposing such a scheme will not get anywhere due to the polarisation of the two communities, but if an open minded approach is taken then who knows?