Hi Kifeas
Kifeas wrote:My friend,
I truly sympathise with your anxiety regarding this aspect of communal political equality. You feel that this is somehow a privilege that you (TC community) had under the 1960 constitution and therefore under no circumstances it should be taken away from you. Greek Cypriots also had some privileges under the 1960’s political arrangement and the unitary state environment, which unfortunately cannot be reinstated to them under any type of a federal solution. These privileges were the unrestricted freedom to move, settle, form new or expand existing communities, engage in business activities, expand properties, etc, etc, throughout the entire territory of their country. Under this or any other type of federal solution, it is inevitable that those same privileges that they once had before 1974, will almost never be recovered in full. They will be faced with certain, few or many, permanent restrictions.
First of all let me tell you that it is not a privilege. It is not a privilege because GCs has the same right as well. Have I ever any point in time advocated a system that would have a chance of passing laws against the majority wishes of GCs. NO. All I am asking is that any law that is passed should be accepted by the majority of both communities. Very simple really. I do not think you can call this privilege. It is equality. If you think equality as privilege than this implies that GC community, in your eyes, should have more rights than TC community.
I know that majority of GCs tend to think majority approval of laws by each community is unacceptable because they are majority numerically. All I am trying for you to admit that you think GCs should have more rights than TCs as a community. I am a very open person and I say what I want openly without hiding at the behind of my finger. I adwise GCs to do the same thing too.
The same attitude exits in the idea of bizonal
bicommunal federation. Many GCs are against, but they can not come forward and say it openly. That is why they keep on interpreting this BBF thing as only BF (B stands for bizonality not bicommunality). I openly say what I want. My primary concern is equality of communities (the way I have described it no necessarily numerical equality in senate or somewhere else). This is much more important then bizonality. I am not saying that bizonality is not a desirable aspect as well. But it is not our first priority. So many TCs are willing to accepts some dilution to the communal equality if they can get bizonality. But this dilution should so much (as you have suggested fro example) because what we get in return bizonality does not compensate what we loss.
Plus I have numerous times in this topic or in other topics. For me, (again I can not talking here for the whole the communities, nor do I need to as well, because we are not trying to solve the Cyprus problem but merely discussing the issues) important thing is not to achieve separation of communities. For me a solution that gives all the rights you have asked for in the above paragraph that exist in the 1960 agreements and actually you are willing to give up in federal solution (I remember you were ready to put restrictions on settlement) is not needed. I can easily live in a mixed state. What I can not live is a state where rights of one community is bigger than the rights of the other. Hence my readiness to turn back to 1960 constitutional agreements (on provision of some conditions which have nothing to do with the constitutional rights. We have discussed these already I think.) So lets find a solution where you do no loose those rights and we do not loose our rights.
Kifeas wrote:Perhaps things could become the same if both sides agree to return to the pre-1963 political, demographic and geographical situation. Do you believe that such a thing can possibly happen? After so many settlers inhabiting the north, after so many GC properties being sold to foreigners, after so many years in which GC were forced to remain separated from their communities and properties in the north and thus accustomed and shaped their lives in new environments throughout the southern half of Cyprus; can we seriously believe or expect that we may turn the clock 30 or 40 years back? This is a privilege that GCs once had, but now have lost forever and cannot regain, even under the most favourable solution. Consequently, TC must be prepared to loose certain privileges of that era.
Yes we can turn back to the pre 1963 positions. I can outline to you my proposal of implementation if you want. But the way I see it, it is GC sides insistence of continuation of current RoC that is preventing us to do that.
Kifeas wrote:Now, you suggest (demand I should say,) that any new political arrangement should require separate majorities on the basis of the two communities. Unfortunately this is a very difficult (almost impossible,) thing to be accepted by GCs. Why? Because the Turkish Cypriot community is no longer a Turkish Cypriot community but instead composed also by a large number of non-Cypriots (mainland Turkish settlers.) The separate majority that you ask, in the case of your community can easily be formed, any time in the future, by those settlers plus a small number of TC nationalists, upon a "request" from Ankara. After all, that is how Denktash was ruling the TC “community” for so many years. That means that it is technically possible for the Federal legislation and government to enter into continues stalemates, because of the wishes of an external power. The fears that you have not to be dominated by the GC community also exist on behalf of the GCs, due to the existence of the settlers as members of your community. In the case of GCs, these fears are even more eminent, because it is the largest, economically more stable and prosperous community of the two and under no circumstances it can afford to deposit it’s political, social and economic future in the hands of a fraction of it’s population (settlers) which will gain such a dangerously disproportionate role in the federal government.
Let me ask a question first then go on and make more comments. IF all the settlers return then would you be willing to accepts the separate majorities? (with exception of the settlers who are married to TCs, and MAY BE with the ones who are born here and have lived here say 18 years [this second part after may be is not really necessary but it is simply more humane so you may take it out if your want]),
First of all
(demand I should say,)
I am merely telling you my opinion. There is no demand because we are not bargaining here. We are debating.
Secondly in the case of solution, the amount of settlers which are already (unlike what you believe) under 40% of TC population will be even less because many of the would be forced to leave.
Secondly you claiming that you do not want to give any say to settlers is no different than me saying we do not want to give any say to people who supported EOKA. The reason is you are basing your judgment that settlers are more nationalistic, are more loyal to Turkey than Cyprus, so Turkey will always have some say in Cyprus. I can claim the same things for people who supported EOKA. They wanted Enosis, they are nationalistic, etc. etc.
These rhetoric are not based on anything but fear. NO rational thinking would justify it. You are saying when people go to vote, they will care about Turkeys rights more than their own. I personally do not know anybody that will choose any countries rights over his own. If you are saying they are nationalistic. Trust me many of the settlers are less nationalistic than Denktas and UBP. Now are you saying that you do not want those elements as well.
Unfortunately, there will always be nationalistic elements in a society and there is no other reason to believe that any settler will vote for the benefits of Turkey but his own is completely unfounded.
Furthermore do you really think that Denktas had stayed in power all these years just because of the existence of settlers. You really should do some more analytical thinking and refuse to accept the propaganda machine of your own government just like I refuse the propaganda machine of my government that we can not live together with GCs under an arrangement like RoC. I for one voted for Denktas twice before. I know in my family many people had voted for him. He always had very huge support in TC society until the last years, because we had realized that he would oppose to any solution even if something that TCs deem fair.
Kifeas wrote:Therefore, in order to counterbalance the above problem, two things can happen. Either all settlers live Cyprus and we somehow we manage to get a purer Turkish Cypriot community, or, an almost equivalent proportion of GCs participate in the political affairs of the TCCS, both on a state and on a federal level in order to counterbalance the inevitable presence and political role of these settlers.
Answer the question above then. If all the settlers turn back with the above exception would you agree then?
Kifeas wrote:It is not a matter of being chauvinistic or disrespectful to these people’s needs and rights. I accept that as human beings they should be treated with the outmost consideration and sympathy. However I am not prepared to subsidise them politically against my own interests as member of the GC community. I also feel that no one has any such a right to expect me to be able to digest an arrangement such as the one you and other TCs are suggesting.
I am truly sorry for not being able to make it any simpler for anyone to understand.
There is no reason to be sorry dear Kifeas. I respect every opinion which is put forward with proper reasoning and civility. You are more than welcomed to express your views, and you are never forced to accept our views as well, just like we are not forced to accept your views too. WE are here trying to talk, so that we learn from each other so that may be one day common understanding and compromise may be formed in between our communities so that we can live peacefully either integrated or side by side.
For me nothing is more important than human life. I would oppose anything that I believe will cause more bloodshed on this island. So it is better to talk and agree on things then settle on an agreement that we do not like. That is why although I do not accept many of their reasoning of GCs in rejecting Annan Plan as valid, I respect them and more than willing to talk about them.
Apparently they did not like Annan Plan so they voted it down and they have all right to do so. Just like my right of opposing and voting “No” to any plan that does not involve the above described equality.
***
Dear Alex,
Alex wrote:Turkcyp,
first of all please accept my apologies for responding only to a segment of your post, for the time being. I will try and get back to you on the rest later.
First of all, no apologies are needed.
Alex wrote:You are saying that I am choosing "a complicated way when something simpler could do the job". There is however a reason that makes me deeply anxious about ethnic based voting for the senate, and forces me to seek "complicated solutions": It is about obeying established and solid principles of governance. Let me explain in detail.
In all Federations, the legislature is separated in a bicameral way. The one house is meant to represent all individuals equally, while the other house is meant to represent all constituent states equally. As a resident and voter of a particular constituent state, I have a voice on the Federal level as an individual equal to all other individuals of a Federation, through the proportional house, and I also have a voice as a member of my constituent state which is equal to all other constituent states, on the Senate level. Such is my political identity as a citizen ...
Now, by unhinging voting rights for the Senate from constituent state citizenship, what do we achieve: Essentially, we undermine the whole concept of a Federal Solution, and start importing (out of context) elements of a bicommunal unitary state. Most critically, we undermine the prestige of the constituent states, which lose their role of providing internal citizenship status, since internal citizenship is in practice redefined accroding to ethnic origin. Thus, by trying to have the best of both worlds - the best of a bicommunal unitary state and the best of a Federal Solution - we end up having neither, but instead end up with a politically unstable system which disenfranchises its citizens and makes them feel that they do not truly belong in their constituent state. And yet, the constitution of the TCCS, in the preamble, states that "the state is indivisible from the people living within its border". Do you see now how ethnic voting for the senate, is a case where the bizonality of the solution is being sacrificed for the sake of "extra bicommunality"?
Think about this: In a Federal System, the Senators are supposed to represent, on a Federal Level, their constituent state. Right? Thus, when they are considering a new law they should be thinking "how will this impact on the legal and adminisrative system of my constituent state, how will this impact on the economy and society of my constituent state". If however in the Cypriot Federation we diverge from this rule of governance, then who and what will the senators represent? It is not the communities that will comprise legal, administrative and social systems, it is the constituent states. What sense does it make for the GCCS senators to represent GCs living in the north? Are these GCs a part of their internal society? No. They are a part of the TCCS in every way that matters in politics (religion and culture do not matter in politics, they are personal and a-political issues).
Then how are we guaranteeing the equality of two communities. Again I can not talk for the whole TC society but, for me communal equality is more important than federalism. I truly do not care if we live in a mixed unitary state. I could be very happy with the 1960 constituional environment right now. And we can even change it here and there (without touching the equality of communities) to make it more acceptable to both communities. Again let me re ittireante, for me, the structure of country (federal, unitary, confederal, kingdom, etc.) is only at the secondary importance to the equality of communities.
For some reason we are talking about federal solution here, because that is what is agreed on in the past. But just because we are talking about federal solution should not force me to accept substantially less of communal equality. Otherwise I would say forget about the federal solution, if it will take a unitary state for me to live in to achieve communal equality, then so be it. That is more important.
Alex wrote:These are the reasons I am willing to consider what you call "complicated solutions" in order to re-ground the Federal Senate in its appropriate foundations. If we require separate majorities from each constituent state in order to pass a legislation, so as to overcome the fact that two or three GC Senators of the TCCS might possibly betray the interests of their constituent state and support the constituent state of their ethnic kin instead, then so be it - let's require separate majorities. But let's not abandon the fundamental principles of Federal Governance, because there will be a price to pay for our indiscretion.
I understand the reasons you are trying to look into complicated solutions. But this does not and should not eliminate the major question for TCs. Whatever its structure is unitary, federal, confederal, does the solution involves the equality of communities (the way I have described) or not? There are two answers YES or NO.
IF answer is YES then we start looking into complicated scenarios like yours or mine (three citizenship) if answer is NO, then it really does not matter what the structure is because me personally will vote “NO” for it.
I think we can accommodate the equality of communities in any structure, be it federal, or unitary. I prefer federal to unitary but if you do not that is fine with me because that is not the main primary objective that we want.
I think that is what GCs really should start thinking. “Are we really ready to accept the continuation of communal equality ( I have said ‘continuation’ because in 1960 agreements it existed) or not? YES or NO. IF yes then we can start discussing what kind of unification if NO the we can start discussing what kind of partition.
