Cyprus-Forum.com

[brother]

The self-interest that drove the ‘no’ vote
By Loucas Charalambous


‘A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights’ – Napoleon Bonaparte

WE HAVE completed a year since the referendum today. In this period I have tried to collect as much information about the motives which led three quarters of the Greek Cypriots to reject the settlement. The data is very revealing indeed and is more than enough for anyone to reach very sound conclusions.

The most interesting conclusion is that those who rejected the settlement were from a variety of groups of the population and did not vote according to their traditional political preferences. Each group had completely different motives for voting negatively. Those who voted ‘no’ could be separated into five main categories: the self-interested, the terrified, the carried away, the patriots and the pseudo-patriots.
There is not enough space for a detailed analysis of all these categories. I will therefore confine myself to looking at the first category, with the promise of dealing with the others in future columns. After all, the ‘self-interested’ category is by far the biggest. I have labelled them thus, because their rejection of the settlement was based on the belief that it would affect their financial/business/professional interests. In reality, apart from a few exceptions, this fear was misplaced. How and by whom this fear was spread is another story.

The self-interested fall into the following categories:

1. The clergy (bishops, monks, priests) and their dependents. They were afraid of a fall in the value of the Church’s huge real estate holdings and of adverse effects on its business enterprises.

2. Rich businessmen – industrialists, importers, hoteliers, travel agents and all those in the tourists industry. The irrational fear which determined their decision was that the opening of northern Cyprus would reduce business and consequently their profits. An example of this was the drinks manufacturer who generously funded the ‘no’ campaign, because he was afraid that with a settlement his products would face strong competition from a Turkish drink.

3. Landowners and developers, especially in areas in which land prices had soared in the last few years – like the Church; they were terrified that the value of their real estate would fall.

4. Refugees and non-refugees who are exploiting Turkish Cypriot properties in the south, as well as refugees who do not want to lose the benefits that their status gives them. There are many such cases and here are two: A refugee from a big village that was to be returned in the first phase of the implementation of the Annan plan, took a leading part in the ‘no’ campaign because he is exploiting a Turkish Cypriot property in Ayios Theodoros, worth £5 million. Another refugee from a village that would have been returned in the first phase, voted against the peace plan, because with a settlement his children would have lost the £40,000 housing benefit they were entitled to as refugees.

5. National Guard personnel and civil servants, who were afraid they would lose their jobs or see their careers adversely affected in the event of a settlement. The existence of a large number of overpaid National Guard staff is the crime of the Vassiliou and Clerides governments, as they created a military establishment in Cyprus. I had predicted a while ago that, one day, they would constitute an obstacle to a settlement.
6. Politicians and political opportunists who were terrified of losing the post they held or the one they hoped to get. Power-sharing with the Turkish Cypriots had to be avoided at all costs as the number of high ranking posts would have been reduced, as would their opportunities for advancement.

It could be said that the most convincing, general explanation for the rejection of the settlement is one that I share – the Greek Cypriots, in their majority, are content with partition. They are not bothered by the occupation or the presence of the Turkish army, the possible, negative consequences of which, as politically immature individuals, they ignore.

They are not interested in Kyrenia, Famagusta or the Karpass. As new Sybarites, they are afraid that they might lose what they have – their luxury homes, their Mercedes and BMWs, their cash and their big meals. Strange as it may seem, 30 years after the invasion, the people who have adapted more to the consequences of the invasion are the Greek Cypriots, not the Turkish Cypriots.


YOU SEE I FIND THIS EDITORIAL WITHIN REASON AND IF WE THE TC WERE IN YOUR PLACE WE MIGHT HAVE THE SAME HANG UPS, you have had the coast clear for years and have all got rich and comfortable and why would you want to risk affecting that lifestyle, feel free to correct me or tell me otherwise.

[Alexis]

Much of what is said has some truth.
People will always vote for their interests and I see nothing wrong with this.
In fact it was futile for the UN to attempt to 'sell' the referendum on just reunification of the island. The Annan plan was a constituted a complete overhaul of the country's political and social landscape, it was more than just a vote to reunify the island. The plan had many direct economic implications for a large majority of Cypriots. I strongly believe that the way the referendum was handled badly, not only by the UN, but by
the Cypriot governments, media and the international community.
People will always vote for their own interests. What must be done is to
convince Cypriots that it is in their interests to vote yes next time
(if there is a next time).

[turkcyp]

I disagree with the article in substance not at the essence of it.

I agree with the article when it pointed out that it was economical reasons that forces the “No” vote but at the same time I disagree with the article when it named 5 circles that had supposedly pressured the “No” vote.

These circles might be getting negative consequences from the plan, but the biggest reason is actually is the fact that majorioty of GCs would not be gaining anything from ANY plan financially but will be forced to share the power with TCs and MAY BE will even have negative downside in terms of increased taxes during transition phase.

Majority of GCs simply do not care about the continuation of “status quo”. As they were never refugees and they will not be gaining anything from the solution after all.

[Kifeas]

These circles might be getting negative consequences from the plan, but the biggest reason is actually is the fact that majorioty of GCs would not be gaining anything from ANY plan financially but will be forced to share the power with TCs and MAY BE will even have negative downside in terms of increased taxes during transition phase.

TurkCyp, the second paragraph of your analysis is closer to the truth than anything else being said so far in this thread and particularly in L. Charalambous article.

However you need to give a proper answer to the fact that almost the same percentage of “No” votes came from all the refuges, including those originating from the areas that were going to be given to the GCCS after “territorial adjustments.” More specifically, the “NO” percentage from refugees originating from areas that were to “remain” under the TCCS was more than 80% and the “NO” percentage from refugees originating from areas that were to be “returned” to the TCCS was around 65%.


A general remark (comment) to everyone, especially to all non-GCs in this forum. If you are seriously interested and wish to understand the GC point of view in this particular and in any other issue relating to the Cyprus problem, please ignore anything being written by this author with the name Lucas Charalambous. Any analysis and any conclusion that I have so far read from this person, equals to one big thing. “Rubbish.”

Read for example one paragraph from his article:

4. Refugees and non-refugees who are exploiting Turkish Cypriot properties in the south, as well as refugees who do not want to lose the benefits that their status gives them. There are many such cases and here are two: A refugee from a big village that was to be returned in the first phase of the implementation of the Annan plan, took a leading part in the ‘no’ campaign because he is exploiting a Turkish Cypriot property in Ayios Theodoros, worth £5 million. Another refugee from a village that would have been returned in the first phase, voted against the peace plan, because with a settlement his children would have lost the £40,000 housing benefit they were entitled to as refugees.

If we take into consideration that only 15% of all GC refuges are benefited from possessing TC properties in the south, most of them not to any serious level due to general well known agricultural problems that the entire sector is facing, then how does the 70% average of “NOs” from all GC refuges becomes explained?

Mr L. Charalambous took 2-3 examples that might have some elements of truth and with a very sound “scientific” analysis (read Alchemy,) he reached to the conclusion that explains the "No" vote of GC refuges!!!

Congratulations Mr. L. Charalambous! You are now a candidate for a Nobel price award in the sience of Al- Chemistry.

[Viewpoint]

Kifeas

A general remark (comment) to everyone, especially to all non-GCs in this forum. If you are seriously interested and wish to understand the GC point of view in this particular and in any other issue relating to the Cyprus problem, please ignore anything being written by this author with the name Lucas Charalambous. Any analysis and any conclusion that I have so far read from this person, equals to one big thing. “Rubbish.”

I totally disagree and always read his articles which i find balanced and unbiased he always gives both sides of the coin and levels issues at both communities. Hes probably saying things you dont want to hear and block out labelling it rubbish, I dont like what Sener Levent writes but i dont label it rubbish. The example you refer to is not very good as hes refering to certain individuals who are exploiting TC property.

He does hit a valid point the numbers who are not refugees have no real desire or need to reunite, they are content so why rock the boat.

[Kifeas]

Viewpoint,
Although I decided long time ago not to reply to any of your postings, unfortunately I am compelled in doing so to this one.

If you read more carefully what I have said, you will discover that I was mainly referring to all non-GCs who are seriously interested and wish to understand the GC point of view.
Well, I do not consider you one of them.

[Bananiot]

Still, its pathetic you try to impose your thoughts on the so called non Cypriots because you think you know better. I am sure people like cannedmoose have a mind of their own and can evaluate articles without your help.

[Viewpoint]

Kifeas I dont have a problem with that, there are many viewpoints and they all have a place on forums like this one. We are all different so are entitled to our own views without being forced into a Kifeas mould you feel is appropriate, in time you to like me will consceed to the realities that surround us all, it just takes some longer that other to evaluate and realize that the utopian solution we all seek in not out there.
How can you make two different communites agree on fundamental issues when they do not trust each other or see eye to eye, this cannot be forced it has to be desired and thus fully committed to. You are still in the stages of denial that a clean divisional break is the best solution but in time and with the current politcal will you will see that what I am saying is right.

This is what I believe but am willing to be persuaded otherwise the only way this can be achieved for your administration to show they genuinely desire a solution and will share political equality with us in a united Cyprus, if you really believe they will achieve this then many TCs will start to think more positively. Until then my recognized partition solution will stand.

May I ask you a question, how many years will it take for you to sit and say we are getting nowhere and the likelihood of a solution as we envisage it is non exisistent, will you continue to believe your administrations verbal excuses and stalling for 2 4 5 years????

[Kifeas]

Still, its pathetic you try to impose your thoughts on the so called non Cypriots because you think you know better. I am sure people like cannedmoose have a mind of their own and can evaluate articles without your help.

Bananiot,
Is your above posting being directed to me?

By the way I am still waiting for your answer to my previous postings referring to your allegation that Papadopoullos was the vice president of the Akritas plan, which aimed at cleaning out (exterminating) the TC community from Cyprus in one night.

I posted the full text of the Akritas Plan in that threat. Have you read it? Have you singled out any one single paragraph that supports your above allegation? How long should I wait for your reply?

Don’t you know that the longer it takes you to document your above allegation the more it harms your credibility and the more it allows others to call you a liar and a malicious distorter of facts?

[-mikkie2-]

The GC's did not vote OXI because they would be sharing power with the TC's. They voted OXI because the overwhelming cost of the solution was placed on the shoulder of the GC's, refugees came at the bottom of the list regarding properties and consequently we would have to COMPENSATE OURSELVES for being kicked out of our homes and that we would not have the basic human right to settle anywhere in Cyprus.

Politics is a secondary issue.

If TC's can't understand or comprehend these very BASIC facts then there is no hope for a solution. Any other discussions on solving the Cyprus Problem might as well be about the weather! I gather it is getting nice and warm over there!