Cyprus-Forum.com

[turkcyp]

Kifeas,

A very simple question for you.

- Would you accept a bill where 60% of GCs had opposed to?
and very related to that a second question
- Would you accept a solution where there is a chance of that is happening?

No complicated answers please a YES or NO would suffice.

Take care,

[Kifeas]

Kifeas,

A very simple question for you.

- Would you accept a bill where 60% of GCs had opposed to?
and very related to that a second question
- Would you accept a solution where there is a chance of that is happening?

No complicated answers please a YES or NO would suffice.

Take care,

The following is not an answer to your question above, not because I do not have an answer but because I do not like to give simplistic answers to equally simplistic questions.

I will though bring to your attention the following.

In Turkey, the Erdogan party received 25% of the votes in the last parliamentary elections. That means that 75% of Turkish citizens rejected this party and favored other parties with different ideologies.
The Erdogan party (AKP) has elected the vast majority of MPs (absolute majority) and is in the position to pass or reject any law it wishes, plus to form a government.

Exactly the same happens in Greece. New democracy (Karamanlis party) received 41% that means that 59% of Greek voters rejected his party. Yet he has absolute (more that 51%) majority in the parliament, he passes laws and he also formed the government.

In the previous (1990) elections in the US Bush received less than 20% of votes out of the total population and less than 40% of votes out of the total population of those that actually participated (voted) he also received some 600,000 less votes than Al Gore on the total US voting population.


I can answer your question in satisfactory way, if you can accept not a one word answer (Yes or No) but a more analytical answer.
Take care,

[magikthrill]

ah but Kifeas the situations you described are different.

in all these countries the two different groups of people speak the same language. except for the kurds in turkey. and the 10% minorities in the US whose understanding of ENglish is limited.

but still the situation is different cause the one group was never mistreated by the other group. except of course for the blacks that were slaves in the US. and the communists and fascists in Greece.

so wait, how is the situation different again?

[turkcyp]

The following is not an answer to your question above, not because I do not have an answer but because I do not like to give simplistic answers to equally simplistic questions.

I will though bring to your attention the following.

In Turkey, the Erdogan party received 25% of the votes in the last parliamentary elections. That means that 75% of Turkish citizens rejected this party and favored other parties with different ideologies.
The Erdogan party (AKP) has elected the vast majority of MPs (absolute majority) and is in the position to pass or reject any law it wishes, plus to form a government.

Exactly the same happens in Greece. New democracy (Karamanlis party) received 41% that means that 59% of Greek votes rejected his party. Yet he has absolute (more that 51%) majority in the parliament and he also formed the government.

In the previous (1990) elections in the US bushed received less than 20% of votes out of the total population and less than 40% of votes out of the total population of those that actually participated (voted) he also received some 600,000 less votes than Al Gore on the total US voting population.


I can answer your question in satisfactory way, if you can accept not a one word answer (Yes or No) but a more analytical answer.
Take care,

Oh no KIfeas,

You are seriously not comparing apples and oranges are you?

One is deficiencies in election system that exists virtually in all forms of representative democracy.

The other one is opposition of 60% of a senators of one society (and on the assumption that they are the true representatives of the society hence majority of the society) to a bill.

Once the MPs are chosen, no matter how deficient the election system is, they are accepted as the true representatives of the societies, otherwise the whole system of representative democracy will not work. And since they are accepted the true representatives of the society, presumably they will act in accordance with the wishes of their constituents.

So what you are asking us to accept is not to accept a deficiency in an election system but rather accept that bills may be passé with %60 of TC society is opposing to it.

Let me ask you another question. In a scenario that GCs are 20% of the Cyprus.

Would you accept the system you are proposing? Would you accept a bill has passed lets say with %60 opposition of GC senators, that actually benefits only %40 of GC society (hence get only %40 of GC senators vote, assuming that representative democracy work the way it should) but neglect the %60 of GC society?

This may be a bill relating budget distributions to specific regions. This may be a bill relating, I don’t know, construction permits in different areas. The scenarios endless where we can find an issue where only 40% of GC society would benefit but %60 of GC society would not but with the majority of TCs the bill is still passed.

Your example is completely irrelevant because it shows the deficiency in an election system. Presumably no matter how deficient an election system is once the MPS are chosen they become the true representatives of society, and act accordingly.

What would be a better example is to show me a parliamentary system where %60 of MPs of a society object a bill and that bill becomes a law.

Before you jump any further and claim that but 60% of whole Cyprus society is not objecting the bill. That the point is we have two different societies in the Cyprus, and we may have history that says that we may have situations in the future where one society completely disrespects the other societies wishes, and be discriminatory against them on the basis of ethnicity. So while this fear of ethnical discrimination exists, TCs will never accepts GCs as their true representatives so therefore will never accept a bill where majority of TCs have object even though majority of whole Cypriots does not object to a bill.

It is this fear that makes the 1960 constitution the way it is. It is also the same fear that cause us to have separate referendums last year instead of one big overall whole Cypriot referendum.

The difference between you and I is about how we can overcome this fear. Your way is about forcing us to accept a solution which will give us the above threat all the time until we feel no difference between TCs and GCs.

Our way is, let’s start cooperating and start trusting each other then we can change the system and treat as one big Cypriot System instead of separate TC and GC systems.

That is why I would accept in any solution, clauses that forces us to revisit this kind of ethnical separation clauses in the system periodically. So that when the time is right and we trust each other then we can abolish all those restrictions. But until then sorry I do not trust you the same way you do not trust settlers.

Take care,

p.s. Do not worry. I got my "Yes" or "No" answer from your response.

[Kifeas]

TurkCyp,

Well, If you are aware, in A-plan 5, on many issues, laws could be passed with at least 2/5 (40%) approval from each communities senators. Yet you accepted it and voted YES.

Furthermore, in my proposal the split (i.e. separate majorities) will not be between communities but between constituent sates. Unlike A-plan which provide for 2/5 (40%) of minimum approval from each community, in my proposal the minimum for approval of a law will be a 50%+1 from each constituent sate. Therefore at the end of the day it all boils down to the same percentage.

The approval will not be carried out with a 60% of the constituent states senators against it but only 50%-1.
My approach is for a direct bi-zonal and indirect bi-communal federation. Your approach is rather the opposite, i.e. direct bi-communal and indirect bi-zonal.

[Kifeas]

TurkCyp,

Look, you choose to look at the glass as half empty. I would choose to look at it as half full.

I would have taken into consideration the following factors.

1. Is what I said in my two previous postings.
2. The build up of GCs in the north (TCCS) will be a gradual one and not a one shot. Therefore by the time they will become 25% of the total population perhaps this issue loose it’s importance anyway.
3. This 25% of GCs with TCCS internal citizenship, will not be a solid body with one (presumably GCs nationalistic) ideology which will aim at forming a purely GC ethnic political party and elect all 6 senators that their 25% population will possibly allow them, but instead they will associate and integrate into preexisting TC political parties, according to their individual ideological background and individual interests.
4. The elections of TCCS senators will not be separate between TCs and GCs but instead will be mixed (one list) and under partisan (ideological) platforms. Therefore it might be possible than maybe only 2 or 3 GCs will be elected through these parties, instead of 6 that I gave in my extreme scenario.
5. The GCs that will move into the TCCS will also have personal interests in relation to the place of their residence, i.e. their town or area in the north. Therefore these people and any GC senators elected will primarily look to serve the interests of their area rather and the people who will vote them.

Having taken all these facts into consideration, if I was a TC I wouldn’t have a problem accepting such a proposal. Unless I was one of the nationalist TCs and therefore I would be reluctant to accept the fact that GCs will participate in the elections of the federal senators of my state because, being a TC nationalist I would have much less chances to receive any GC votes and therefore me or my nationalist party (i.e. Eroglu for example) will have a smaller leverage in the political affairs of the TC community.

However, this is exactly what GCs want to achieve by this proposal. To diminish the influence and leverage of nationalistic (Eroglous and Ertoglouoglous) parties in the TCCS affairs and also in the Federal government. Not to abduct the TCCS and the TC community from within, as you might be afraid we want. Unless you are also a member of a nationalist party, in which case I can sympathise with your concerns but I will not accept the GC community to become tight to such a senario of having the federal government under the blackmailing of Eroglous, Ertoglouoglous, gray wolves, etc.

Notice how sincere I am?

[metecyp]

To diminish the influence and leverage of nationalistic (Eroglous and Ertoglouoglous) parties in the TCCS affairs and also in the Federal government.

Sorry to interrupt. OK, let's say we accept your proposal and we prevented Eroglus, Ertugruloglus, Grey Wolves to blackmail the federal government. What, in return, prevents the similar circles in the south (ex-EOKA fascists, Enosists, etc.) to blackmail the federal government? If, for example, one of these extermist idiots proposed to honor the EOKA murderers by the new federal government, is there a mechanism to stop that given the fact that 100% of TCs will feel very uneasy with such a proposal?

[Kifeas]

To diminish the influence and leverage of nationalistic (Eroglous and Ertoglouoglous) parties in the TCCS affairs and also in the Federal government.

Sorry to interrupt. OK, let's say we accept your proposal and we prevented Eroglus, Ertugruloglus, Grey Wolves to blackmail the federal government. What, in return, prevents the similar circles in the south (ex-EOKA fascists, Enosists, etc.) to blackmail the federal government? If, for example, one of these extermist idiots proposed to honor the EOKA murderers by the new federal government, is there a mechanism to stop that given the fact that 100% of TCs will feel very uneasy with such a proposal?

Very simple answer metecyp,

1. The what you call ex-EOKA fascists, Enosists, etc., are only a small minority, mabe 10% say 15% and therefore such proposal will not gain approval even by a majority of GCCS senators.
2. The TCCS will still have to approve it by separate majority, i.e 13 out of 24 TCCS senators. Even if we take the extreme senarion that 6 out of the 24 TCCS seantots are of GC origine and even if we again take the extreme senario that all these 6 GC senators choose to agree with such a proposal, STILL you will need an additional 7 senators from the TCCS to agree with the 6 and form the 13 needed majority from the TCCS.

We are talking about separate majorities here.

Are you happy or you need more reasons? I have more if you want.

[metecyp]

Are you happy or you need more reasons? I have more if you want. Wink

I'm happy. Thanks.

[insan]

To diminish the influence and leverage of nationalistic (Eroglous and Ertoglouoglous) parties in the TCCS affairs and also in the Federal government.

Sorry to interrupt. OK, let's say we accept your proposal and we prevented Eroglus, Ertugruloglus, Grey Wolves to blackmail the federal government. What, in return, prevents the similar circles in the south (ex-EOKA fascists, Enosists, etc.) to blackmail the federal government? If, for example, one of these extermist idiots proposed to honor the EOKA murderers by the new federal government, is there a mechanism to stop that given the fact that 100% of TCs will feel very uneasy with such a proposal?

Very simple answer metecyp,

1. The what you call ex-EOKA fascists, Enosists, etc., are only a small minority, mabe 10% say 15% and therefore such proposal will not gain approval even by a majority of GCCS senators.
2. The TCCS will still have to approve it by separate majority, i.e 13 out of 24 TCCS senators. Even if we take the extreme senarion that 6 out of the 24 TCCS seantots are of GC origine and even if we again take the extreme senario that all these 6 GC senators choose to agree with such a proposal, STILL you will need an additional 7 senators from the TCCS to agree with the 6 and form the 13 needed majority from the TCCS.

We are talking about separate majorities here.

Are you happy or you need more reasons? I have more if you want.

Kifeas, what you have suggested seems acceptable but not because of what you are trying to elliminate and what you are trying to protect. You say the percentage of extreme nationalists is 10 or 15 percent in GC community. Presumably the percentage of extreme nationalist is same in TC community. You must not confuse nationalists with ultra-nationalists. It is a fact that most of the Cypriots who vote for right wing parties are nationalists in different degrees.

As for your suggestion, it is very similar to what was envisaged by Annan Plan. However Annan Plan also envisaged a presidential council as a "checks and balanaces" mechanism in order to elliminate the probable to be appear unbalanced political formations.

In my opinion, in case of a opposition to any bill by simple majority of the senators of either community with some constitutional and legal rationales; the bill should be checked and balanced by presidential council.