Cyprus-Forum.com

[Alexandros Lordos]

Putting aside for a moment the various disputed issues regarding troops, settlers and properties, how would you feel about a political structure where the basics of political equality are retained (eg proportional lower house but communally equal upper house, equal number of supreme court judges from each community etc.), but without having two separate local adminstrations, or at most having temporary bizonality arrangements, so that the populations are allowed to mix on the ground as it naturally occurs?

[Othellos]

Putting aside for a moment the various disputed issues regarding troops, settlers and properties, how would you feel about a political structure where the basics of political equality are retained (eg proportional lower house but communally equal upper house, equal number of supreme court judges from each community etc.), but without having two separate local adminstrations, or at most having temporary bizonality arrangements, so that the populations are allowed to mix on the ground as it naturally occurs?

This is along the lines of a question I asked the other day. What is the priority of the TCs in the event of a solution: equality at the individual and communal level as this was explained by turkcyp in another thread, or a separate zone under TC effective administration but where the civil rights of any GC residents will be inevitably compromised (and therefore there will be no equality)?

O.

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[Alexandros Lordos]

If you define equality more we can comment on.

If it is something like 1960 constitution you are talking about which was BU(bicommunal unitary) you are talking about, then I would not mind. But again define equality mechanism.

In this thread I wanted to avoid getting into details, so that we can test the acceptability of the overall principle. You are free to visualise the details of political equality any way you see fit. I don't have a problem with the ideas you have proposed from time to time, neither do I have a problem with the 1960 arrangements, nor do I have a problem with the Annan Plan arrangements (with some modifications). Let's just say, we use whatever system works best so as to safeguard effective participation of the two communities in decision making without needless deadlocks.

And plus why do we need two seperate houses if it is not a federation. I do not understand why do we need two houses even in federation let alone unitary. Smaller state please

Did you know, Turkcyp, that many constitutional experts describe the 1960 constitution as "functionally federal" - since in effect two different constituencies share power at the central government level?

Again, I don't want to get bogged down in details. We can have one house with proportional representation but with the requirement for separate majorities of members from each community, as you have suggested, or we can have two houses, one proportional and one 50-50, with the requirement that both houses have to agree for a law to take effect. Whatever works best is fine by me. I don't think cost is an issue however - after all, we are talking about having one government only, instead of three, so costs will be quite low anyway.

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[Alexandros Lordos]

OK, then. IF we had to choose between federation and equality, I would choose equality.

So the proposal made in this thread is for you "tolerable"?

I think when Makarios and Denktas agreed on BBF in 1976, they both thought that they were taking that BF into a higher level. The problem was that TCs thought that they would just take whatever existed and add bi-zonality on it. On the other hands GCs thought that they would simply turn BF from on to another BF (from bi-communal federation to bi-zonal federation). Otherwise they would not keep on insisting still on return of all refuges which means bi-zonal federation but not a bi-communal one.

I see Annan Plan as a compromise between these two versions of BBF, one envisioned by GCs and one envisioned by TCs.

I think this is a point I have made before, but I will make it again now. Ever since 1977, the GC side's thesis has been that even if all entitled GC refugees return under TC adminstration, and assuming that significant territory is returned under GC adminstration, then TCs would still be the numerical majority in the TCCS. (200,000 total refugees, 120,000 returning under GC administration, 80,000 returning under TC administration, 140,000 TCs, therefore 65% of TCCS citizens will be TC)

So, no, the GC thesis has always been for a bizonal-bicommunal federation, while the Denktash thesis has always been for a confederation of two ethnically pure and sovereign states. Denktash never wanted ANY GC refugees to return under TC administration. Of course, with the current TC leadership, I am sure a different negotiating policy will prevail.

When I desire small government, there are two reasons for it. One is as you have mentioned is the cost. The other and more important for me is to bring level of government and administration closer to the people. This is why I vehemently support decentralization away from federal and state government to local levels. The lower you go the more participation you get from society in managing themselves the more close we get to true democracy (direct democracy.)

Yes, this is why federal systems tend to be more effective than unitary systems, especially in large countries (take USA, Germany, Canada, Australia). However, when it comes to local government, you should also take note of the fact that local government elections tend to be "low-profile contests", receiving much less public attention, and candidates of much lower caliber, than national elections. Thus it is arguable if decentralisation to the level of local government leads to better representation and more direct democracy.

p.s. I really enjoy discussing with you.

Same here

[Dhavlos]

Unitary State with political equality? ...yes

Just for the record, this is the type of thing i would prefer rather than bizonality.

Can i ask...when you say political equality, do you mean that in the lower house, each community would have to agree to legislation for it to be law, or would it be done in one vote?

Also i feel that if you have a unitary state, then local government needs to be important, close maybe to devolution.

[Alexandros Lordos]

Can i ask...when you say political equality, do you mean that in the lower house, each community would have to agree to legislation for it to be law, or would it be done in one vote?

As I told Turkcyp above, I am not at the moment focusing on the details. So long as effective participation of the two communities to decision making is guaranteed, but without needless deadlocks.

Also i feel that if you have a unitary state, then local government needs to be important, close maybe to devolution.

Yes, this seems to be the implication ... You would have strong municipalities, some of them greek-speaking, some of them turkish-speaking, and some of them bilingual, depending on their demographic make-up. Also, district authorities would play an important role.

[Dhavlos]

i know this is getting off the subject a little, and detailed, but i do not beleive there should be problems with deadlocks.

Like we may have stated before in other forums, if parties represented both communities, then deadlock would not really occur because the members in the parlaiment would almost certainly follow the party line. I think deadlocks thus are easily avoidable.

hope that made sense

[Alexandros Lordos]

i know this is getting off the subject a little, and detailed, but i do not beleive there should be problems with deadlocks.

Like we may have stated before in other forums, if parties represented both communities, then deadlock would not really occur because the members in the parlaiment would almost certainly follow the party line. I think deadlocks thus are easily avoidable.

hope that made sense

Well, the key phrase in what you said above is "if parties represented both communities". The whole issue is how to achieve this critical "if", because without it we will definitely have deadlocks. This is why I am a strong supporter of cross-voting.