Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

Erolz, we are going circles and I got tired.

The essence of what I say is that all Cypriots should be equal in one Cyprus and the human rights of everybody should be respected. the rights of the communities should be respected also, but communities do not have rights for their own federal state, 50% power etc. You believe they do? I don't, take it as you want.

The purpose of the analogy with the EU is to counter the constant GC claim that as a matter of principal any 'union' that does not give absoloute equality accross all individuals is undemocratic unfair and unstable. You repeatedly ignore the point of the analogy and then twist it's use to mean something that was never intended by the person using the analogy (me) - and this only days after complaing of people twisting your meaning!

Erolz, there is no analogy because EU is not a country. There are 180 countries in the world, yet as an example you bring a union of separate countries. If you use as a model what is used by a union of separate countries, then what you get as a result is separate countries. (=partition)

[erolz]

The essence of what I say is that all Cypriots should be equal in one Cyprus and the human rights of everybody should be respected.

I agree this as the ultimate goal - it's just how we get there that we have differences.

the rights of the communities should be respected also, but communities do not have rights for their own federal state, 50% power etc. You believe they do? I don't, take it as you want.

What rights do communites have in your opinion? Are the rights of the communites equal or not?

Erolz, there is no analogy because EU is not a country. There are 180 countries in the world, yet as an example you bring a union of separate countries. If you use as a model what is used by a union of separate countries, then what you get as a result is separate countries. (=partition)

I will try once more - but with little hope.

GC claims that any representation other than pure one person one vote is undemocratic, unfair and unstable.

To counter this I use examples where pure one person one vote is not considered undemocratic, unfair or unstable.

I prefer the EU example where disporortionate political representation in far from one person one vote, because this is an example that the RoC is itself involved in (I also use the UN as another example). This is dismissed as irrelevant because it refers to a union of countries and not a union of states within a federal nation. However to me it is clearly an example that an entity can have politcal represntation based on a 'unit' other than the indivdual and yet still be considered democratic, fair and stable. If it can be the these things in the EU it can also be these things within Cyprus - as I see it.
I also use the example of ANY federal nation, where once again there is political representation that is not based on pure one person one vote but on equality of component states (for this is the actual meaning of federation). This is dismissed becuase these examples are not of federations based on ethnicity, but state citizenship. However to me it is clearly an example that an federal nation can have politcal represntation based on a 'unit' other than the indivdual and yet still be considered democratic, fair and stable. If it can be the these things in other federal nations it can also be these things within Cyprus - as I see it.

You can always dismiss an anlogy as not being 'relevant'. The whole point of an anology is to find a different senario where a _single issue_ has similarites to make your point. The similarity I seek to highlight with my anaologies is that a poliotical system CAN be based on represntation of units other than just indivduals and still be considered democratic, stable and fair. You dismiss any such analogy becuase other elements that are NOT the point I ma trying to highlight do not match the situation in Cyprus exactly. In this sense there is no analogy that can ever be used to make the point I am trying to make - because any analogy will always have differences (that are not the point the anaology seeks to highlight).

Do you realy believe that in principal or even within a (federal) nation any political represntation based on a unit other than the indivdual is undemocratic, unfair and unstable? Or is that only the case if the non indivdual unit is based mainly on ethnicity?

ps

Erolz, we are going circles and I got tired.

As far as that is an apology (?) I thank you for it. Well all get tierd and frustrated and angry (heavn knows I certainly do). However we have to keep bashing away at this stuff and try not to take the easy route of cynism, despair and the like.

[Piratis]

What rights do communites have in your opinion? Are the rights of the communites equal or not?

The true rights of communities are those that make citizens more equal to each other, and not the opposite. For example if I have the right to read an official document in my native language you should have it too. The way I see it, the rights of communities are what make communities different: religion, culture (history), language. In this things we have community equality. If you take religion, language and culture out from TCs and GCs, then we are just Cypriots, and therefore for all other matters we decide as equal Cypriots.

I will try once more - but with little hope.

You don't need to try more. I got your point: Different forms of democracy can exist. The same way that women can be beautiful in different ways and I can like one more and you can like the other more. But we can also have a beautiful dog. If we agree that a dog is beautiful and then I tell you that I know a woman that looks exactly like this dog, would any sane person argue that this woman is beautiful as a woman because she looks like a beautiful dog? So I got your point don't worry, I hope you got mine also.

Do you realy believe that in principal or even within a (federal) nation any political represntation based on a unit other than the indivdual is undemocratic, unfair and unstable? Or is that only the case if the non indivdual unit is based mainly on ethnicity?

I believe that there are different types and different degrees of democracy. The perfect democracy can not exist. The system of each country is a complicated one, and to decide the degree of democracy in each country the system as a whole should be examined.

Although I would like get a democratic system as close to perfection as possible, I am willing to accept just an "ok" system.
Political equality of communities the way you present it is something that makes the system undemocratic in my opinion, and I would never accept it.
A federal system can be democratic, and I would have no problem with a system like the US for example. However a federal system can be undemocratic (just like any other system can be), and the one you suggest is an example of such undemocratic system.

[erolz]

You don't need to try more. I got your point: Different forms of democracy can exist.

Actually my point is that a system can have disproportioate representation for indivduals (by giving equal representation to groups of differing sizes) and still be considered fair, democratic and stable. The examples of this a legion.

A federal system can be democratic, and I would have no problem with a system like the US for example. However a federal system can be undemocratic (just like any other system can be), and the one you suggest is an example of such undemocratic system.

So for you a federal system is democratic if it allows people to move without restriction from one state to another but not democratic if it does not? Is that a fair 'summary' of your position?

I would accept the US system as long as there were guarantees that one state would be numericaly controlled by the TC community. Is this not the very reason we are considering a federal solution? As a means to ensure the TC community has a fair say in the decisions that affect it? What would be the point of a federal solution in Cyprus with no protection for ensuring a numerical majority in each state by the two communites?

[metecyp]

What would be the point of a federal solution in Cyprus with no protection for ensuring a numerical majority in each state by the two communites?

No point whatsoever...I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Federation comes with restrictions. That's the nature of federation and some can argue that it's unfair in that sense but as long as we talk about federation there will be some restrictions. There are 2 options.

1- You don't accept restrictions claiming that they are unfair and against your human rights. Then you don't accept federation.

2- You accept federation and hence restrictions. Then we can talk about how to adjust the degree of these restrictions to make everyone's lives better.

I believe Piratis and many other GCs (except maybe Alex) are in the first category. They're opposed to the idea of federation because anything that doesn't guarantee the return (or the right of return) of 100% refugees is unfair and against human rights for them.

[Kifeas]

I would accept the US system as long as there were guarantees that one state would be numericaly controlled by the TC community. Is this not the very reason we are considering a federal solution? As a means to ensure the TC community has a fair say in the decisions that affect it? What would be the point of a federal solution in Cyprus with no protection for ensuring a numerical majority in each state by the two communites?

Erolz,

Last night, I proposed to you an even better for you (TCs) system than the US system that you claim you now accept, with guarantees that the north state (TCCS) will be numerically controlled by the TC community as you claim above, but after consulting with TurkCyp you concluded rejecting it.

[Kifeas]

I believe Piratis and many other GCs (except maybe Alex) are in the first category. They're opposed to the idea of federation because anything that doesn't guarantee the return (or the right of return) of 100% refugees is unfair and against human rights for them.

Metecyp,
I think you are not reading everyone’s postings in this forum or if you are reading them you do not consolidate what they say.

[erolz]

Last night, I proposed to you an even better for you (TCs) system than the US system that you claim you now accept, with guarantees that the north state (TCCS) will be numerically controlled by the TC community as you claim above, but after consulting with TurkCyp you concluded rejecting it.

I actually did no such thing. No wonder your idea of history 40 years ago is so warped when you are able to distort / misunderstand or twist stuff written only days ago and for which there is a full documentary record.

As far as you suggestion involved seperate consent from the two communites I agreed with it. As far as it required a majority of all senators I did not.

[Kifeas]

I actually did no such thing. No wonder your idea of history 40 years ago is so warped when you are able to distort / misunderstand or twist stuff written only days ago and for which there is a full documentary record.

I pass on this!

As far as you suggestion involved seperate consent from the two communites I agreed with it. As far as it required a majority of all senators I did not.

It required a what? …. majority of all senators????
Where did you get this from???
What do you mean by that?
Where did I say something like this?
Can you provide me with a quotation?

[Kifeas]

I actually did no such thing. No wonder your idea of history 40 years ago is so warped when you are able to distort / misunderstand or twist stuff written only days ago and for which there is a full documentary record.

Actually I shouldn’t pass on this.
What are you talking about, Erolz? Can you be more specific?