Cyprus-Forum.com

[Oracle]

Of course in real life/nature the lambs are in the majority and the wolves in the minority ....

[erolz3]

Surely, we are far better! Which other Western and EU member country has ever allowed a leftist with a communist background to become its president?

As far as my point goes being 'leftisit' is fundamentaly different from being black or white, or male or female, or GC or TC, as far as defining sub groups and how that realtes to one person one vote as a means of achieving the objective of democracy. One chooses to be 'leftist' as a matter of personal conviction and on can change such a personal conviction and be 'rightist' next week and 'eftist' again the week after. One can not choose if one is black or white, or male or female, or TC or GC, one simply is or is not.

It is when the decision as to how you vote one way or another is based entirely or almost entirely on one of these UNCHANGING subgroups that one person one vote becomes and ineffective means of ensuring that people have an effective voice in the descisons that shape their lives. This is not the case when the sub group that defines how you vote is itself a changing and chagable one that is a matter of indivdual personal conviction.

[-mikkie2-]

The whole point of democracy is to to give the individual the right to have their say.

It is not a question of voting in a particular way because you are a GC or a TC or a Wolf or a Lamb. This is largely dependant on the political parties that are established in any one country and in how those political parties are governed by law.

In the establishement of a state or country, political parties need to work under certain rules and conduct. It is this that will largely control how politics is run in any country. This is usually governed by a constitution. This would generally outlaw or marginalise certain extreme political groupings that could put public order into question.

In the case of Cyprus it would be quite feasible to have a constitution which would ensure that poltical parties would not be established based on racial or ethnic lines and to ensure that each party has fair representation of all communities on the island. In this way it is possible for all ethnic groups to have representation and would thus free up the idividual from the fear of being dominated by either one community or the other.

Under the current proposals for a solution, the TC fears mean that as a community, they wish to obtain a disproportionate say in the running of the country. On the flip side, the GC fear of being dominated by Turkey and TC's means that they want a state where they TC's have a share of power that is proportionate to their size.

This in itself has led to the forced bizonal aspet of the problem, which as we are now seeing, is unravelling after the ECJ ruling re the Orams, which has solidified the rights of property ownership in Cyprus.

[erolz3]

As far as the point being made goes it is no different if it is two lamb and one wolf deciding on what to have for dinner, than two wolves and one lamb, though the latter is the more striking image.

In a senario where it is two lambs and one wolf deciding what to have for dinner, as far as lambs vote based not on personal conviction and the wolf like wise but soley because they are a lamb or a wolf, then in such a senario the reality is that the wolf NEVER gets to have what he wants for dinner and the lambs ALWAYS get what they want. In such a senario one can not truly believe that the wolf has an effective say in the decision as to what he has for dinner and as such one person one vote actualy undermines the objective of democracy that he SHOULD have an effective voice in such decisons.

In this simplistic model, a more effective means to ensuring both wolves and lambs have an effective voice in what they have for dinner (the aim of democracy) would be for each sub group to have a seperate democratic voice as a sub group. This would ensure that wolves could never vote to eat lambs and lambs could not force the wolves to only ever eat grass. Some compromise along the lines of we will eat grass 2 days and rabbits on the third day would need to be found and such would achieve the aims of democracy much better, ensuring thast both lambs and wolves had a degree of effective voice in the decsion what they should eat for lunch, with neither able to deny the other of an effective voice in such a decision.

[erolz3]

It is not a question of voting in a particular way because you are a GC or a TC or a Wolf or a Lamb. This is largely dependant on the political parties that are established in any one country and in how those political parties are governed by law.

In any normal typical senario this is the case.

The problem in Cyprus is that at the end of British rule GC and TC did 'vote' about the biggest possible issues affecting their lives based almost totaly on their unchanging status as either GC or TC.

No you may well argue that is all in the past, but the reality is that I hear from all too many GC TODAY that GC voting purely as GC and not as indivdual cypriots have a democratic right to impose a purley communal will and that is not a pan cypriot one, on TC and TC have no rights to oppose such as a community. Given the history of CYprus this scares and worries me. I just do not think that in a situation like Cyprus GC voting as a communal group because they are GC have the rignt to impose anything they want on TC as a communal group in the name of democracy, as I understand it.

On any issue that is pan cypriot and that has support and non support spread amongst GC and TC alike I have no problem at all with one person one vote as a means of acheiving democracy.

However if an issue was to arise whereby the way all GC voted was one way because they were GC and TC the other way because they TC then I would argue and want sperate communal voice, such that neither could impose its will on the other.

I realise that such is aytpical in many ways, but then the situation in Cyprus is aytipcal in many ways.

If after a period of time I live in a united Cyprus where I truely believe we have put in the past any possible senario where we would desire and decide things based on our being members of the TC or GC subgroup but purely as Cypriots with differing opinions and desires accross those groups, then all an any need for 'protections' would be unecessary. However I just do not think we have reached that point and in order to get there from where we are today for me we will need a period where the TC community does have such protections.

Do I want an equal voce for the communites on ALL decisions. No I do not.

Do I want an equal voice, or at least a required seperate consent vocie for each community on decisions that are essentialy 'community' decisions, ie those where how you vote is determined primarily by which community one is in (which also the same as saying those decisions which affect each community differnetly), then I am afraid that yes I do require this given the history of Cyprus. Nor do I think the granting of such is inherently 'undemocratic' but actualy more democratic in such unlikely and unique cases.

[Get Real!]

Unless they all become either wolves or lambs I can’t see how they can use the same pen…

[erolz3]

Unless they all become either wolves or lambs I can’t see how they can use the same pen…

That wouldnt be an argument for partitoning into two seperate pens would it ?

[Get Real!]

Unless they all become either wolves or lambs I can’t see how they can use the same pen…

That wouldnt be an argument for partitoning into two seperate pens would it ?

It’s more like an argument for streamlining citizens into Cypriots (lambs) or foreign nationalists (wolves).

[erolz3]

It’s more like an argument for streamlining citizens into Cypriots (lambs) or foreign nationalists (wolves).

So you mean the smaller numerical group, despite being 'native', should be forced to become the same as the larger or if they do not they should be considered foriengers?

Basically TC should simply become GC or accept they are not cypriot at all ?

If this is your argument then thank you for your frankness is about all I could say really. I think you can already see why its not so attractive a solution to me.

[Hermes]

The ruling is not about who's rights are 'paramount' in terms of current users and pre 74 owners as far as I can see and certainly not in the context of a settlement? THe ruling was about enfocment in EU states other than RoC that made orignal ruling.

That is not how the "Bar Council" of the "TRNC" sees it:

“Politics has been mixed into the latest court decision and property rights have been held above all other rights.”

While the Law Office of the Republic also sees the ECJ verdict as having important implications for displaced Cypriot's property rights:

“The ECJ’s ruling allows Cypriot displaced people to defend in an effective manner their property rights against the usurpers of their properties, before civil courts of the Republic”

If you read the ECJ ruling it gives the ultimate say of ownership with the ROC courts and crucially over-rides the "facts on the ground" created by the Turkish invasion:

"The claimant, in reliance on Cypriot legislation to the effect that property rights relating to the northern area subsisted in spite of the 1974 invasion and occupation, brought proceedings for, inter alia, the delivery up of the land, its restoration to its original state, and damages for unlawful possession."

So, of course the ECJ verdict will affect the talks and crucially the outline of a settlement. Why else is the north in such a panic over this verdict?

One of the reasons the Annan Plan was rejected was because of its property provisions effectively asking the G/Cs to pay compensation to refugees for land that had been seized from them by force.

Clearly, not all Greek Cypriot refugees will get their properties back and not all will wish to return, but there has to be a clear acknowledgment of their ownership rights, and some kind of mechanism that recognises their claim to the property even if it does not mean they can live there. There will also need to be an external body to provide compensation equivalent to the value of the land lost.

If the T/C vision of a settlement is one that denies Greek Cypriot's their ownership rights, in order that the Turks get to keep what they obtained by force, then we will get nowhere in the talks. And if all the hysteria in the north about this verdict is anything to go by, then T/Cs are apparently not so much interested in justice or freedom but see the aim of the talks as to hang on to their ill-gotten gains. This is pretty squalid if you ask me and will deservedly get them nowhere.