Cyprus-Forum.com

[Saint Jimmy]

It either shows that he is very badly informed about the events he attends, or that a more serious problem exists.

Yes, that's what I'm saying, plus that I'm much more inclined to believe the former, rather than the latter.
Perhaps the answer lies in what brother's saying

Well jimmy i understand that you do not want your president to be the dubious guy who lies all the time

but still, I think I could reverse the same argument to him...
Either way, I don't see how either one of us can be positive about it.

It may well be the product of the Cypriot medias inability to pose harsh questions to the country's leaders. I've never seen an interview in which TPap has really been put under the kosh and subjected to some brutal questioning... maybe we should get Jeremy Paxman to interview him when he visits the UK next week.

This is certainly a very real issue. And it's not true just as far as Tassos is concerned. The only time I can recall a journalist being not only unfriendly, but near-damn hostile to a politician, is before our last presidential election, when Souglis (a journalist whom I don't really respect) was questioning Nicos Anastasiades - it got really bad on air, they exchanged harsh words (that made good TV ). Even then, though, I suspect Souglis's attitude was not the result of journalistic integrity, but mere disagreement on the A-Plan or, even worse, mere resentment on the journalist's part.

[cannedmoose]

It may well be the product of the Cypriot medias inability to pose harsh questions to the country's leaders. I've never seen an interview in which TPap has really been put under the kosh and subjected to some brutal questioning... maybe we should get Jeremy Paxman to interview him when he visits the UK next week.

This is certainly a very real issue. And it's not true just as far as Tassos is concerned. The only time I can recall a journalist being not only unfriendly, but near-damn hostile to a politician, is before our last presidential election, when Souglis (a journalist whom I don't really respect) was questioning Nicos Anastasiades - it got really bad on air, they exchanged harsh words (that made good TV ). Even then, though, I suspect Souglis's attitude was not the result of journalistic integrity, but mere disagreement on the A-Plan or, even worse, mere resentment on the journalist's part.

Interesting James, what do you think this is due to? Is it a hangover from the past pre-modern system of politics in Cyprus where the headman of the village commanded total respect? Is it a hangover from Makarios' day when to criticise the President was effectively criticising the Church also? (I can't see this line personally, but it's worth putting forward), or do you think it's because those in the media collude with prominent figures to make it so, i.e. in Cyprus, because it's such a small place and everyone knows everyone, to criticise political leaders is to risk incurring their wrath when you might need them further down the line?

I think it's a mix of the first and the final points. To me, the system is highly unbalanced and paternalistic. In a healthy democracy, the first line of rebuttal for politicians comes from the media, not the general public who are more apathetic about politics. In Cyprus, this rebuttal function appears to be either very weak or non-existent and only present when it comes to those politicians who are either very marginal or outside of the governing coalition. I know that in the UK, this media criticism is sometimes all-encompassing and even works where there really is little to criticise, but it is a healthy check and balance on the influence and mentality of politicians. For example, if the Home Secretary knows he has to face Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight, he knows he will be in for a tough time and prepares accordingly. He also knows that if the policy is dross, he will end up with egg on his face (looking stupid).

To go off at a slight tangent, but still related to politics, I think the same thing was present when it came to Cyprus EU accession. The politicians agreed it was a good thing (most did anyway), the public largely agreed and the media certainly agreed. The result was that those who did not agree (the roughly 15-20% of pre-accession Eurosceptics) had no representation in official channels whatsoever. I think Cyprus is the only country in the EU where this was the case and where apparently no questions were asked. The only thing I've read from the pre-accession period that questioned Cyprus' membership was a book by someone called Andreas Chrysafis, 'Who Shall Govern Cyprus - Brussels or Nicosia?' in which he presents a highly eurosceptic opinion, somewhat unbalanced at times, but eurosceptic certainly. Was this also evidence of officials, media and business leaders working in a 'corporatist' fashion? (largely because of the 'European solution' no doubt).

[Saint Jimmy]

Interestingly enough, I would stress point no.2!
Barring Vassiliou, all our post-Makarios Presidents have so far been Makarios's political offspring. Especially in Cyprus, where the President inherently carries so much power, this has been a deciding factor in how the media works, on more than one levels - it's not just how they go about interviewing politicians, it's also the mechanism that gets journalists on TV and away from the Press, and much more. I mean, Clerides gave the TV licenses to 'his' guys, more or less - regardless of whether they turned against him along the way.
Another interesting point, in my opinion, is that caustically critical journalists seem to 'disappear'. I say this having Makarios Drousiotis in mind, who had to become something of a journalistic outcast, writing mainly for a Greek newspaper, and occasionally on Politis, and, of course, writing books of his own. And I'm not too sure that has absolutely nothing to do with his critical attitude towards public figures.

[cannedmoose]

Interestingly enough, I would stress point no.2!
Barring Vassiliou, all our post-Makarios Presidents have so far been Makarios's political offspring. Especially in Cyprus, where the President inherently carries so much power, this has been a deciding factor in how the media works, on more than one levels - it's not just how they go about interviewing politicians, it's also the mechanism that gets journalists on TV and away from the Press, and much more. I mean, Clerides gave the TV licenses to 'his' guys, more or less - regardless of whether they turned against him along the way.
Another interesting point, in my opinion, is that caustically critical journalists seem to 'disappear'. I say this having Makarios Drousiotis in mind, who had to become something of a journalistic outcast, writing mainly for a Greek newspaper, and occasionally on Politis, and, of course, writing books of his own. And I'm not too sure that has absolutely nothing to do with his critical attitude towards public figures.

It's interesting that you chose the option I'd discounted...

I understand your point about the current generation of leaders being the peers of Makarios but I'm not sure that we're thinking about this influence in the same way. My point was that Makarios was a leader both temporal and spiritual, so if media criticised him, they were essentially criticising the messenger of God on the island as well. As we all know, Cypriot political leaders tend to remain on the fence about all things spiritual unless it suits them to do otherwise. Even the AKEL politicians, supposed dedicated communists whose programmes hint at the party's secular nature, dutifully line up for Church when the occasion calls.

It's also interesting what you say about political appointments within the media. Is this still how PIK works? And what about the commercial stations? Are their interviewers more critical or are they are desperate to be anchors on PIK because of the ethos that 'government jobs are best'? Surely it couldn't be claimed that if a commercial channel was critical of government it could be removed from the airwaves?

To be honest, the more I look into how the Cypriot political systems works, the more I see a 'cronyist' and 'corporatist' system in which it is the views of a small group of very powerful MEN that determine how things work. I know this is the case across very many systems, but it is rare in Europe, and almost non-existent in Western Europe for political power to be so unchecked. I'm sure a lot of it is the product of both a paternalist tradition and a political system founded in disruption and missing segments that were supposed to check the power of the top leaders.

[Saint Jimmy]

It's interesting that you chose the option I'd discounted...

I understand your point about the current generation of leaders being the peers of Makarios but I'm not sure that we're thinking about this influence in the same way. My point was that Makarios was a leader both temporal and spiritual, so if media criticised him, they were essentially criticising the messenger of God on the island as well. As we all know, Cypriot political leaders tend to remain on the fence about all things spiritual unless it suits them to do otherwise. Even the AKEL politicians, supposed dedicated communists whose programmes hint at the party's secular nature, dutifully line up for Church when the occasion calls.

Indeed, we look at this from different angles.
My view is that Makarios's influence on the majority of his close people lies in some of the methods he used, which worked so well for him. One of these methods is control of the media. Perhaps I am wrong, in that this systematic abuse of the media may have begun in the Kyprianou era (during which it was certainly present).
As far as AKEL's supposed secularism (the word is secularism, right? Or is it secularity? It doesn't ring right...) goes, I too think it's sort of, ahem, flexible. I can still recall Christofias himself in tears weeks before the 2003 presidential elections, making statements on TV about a priest who lost two sons during the invasion, with the priest himself by his side, in a clear attempt to draw the religious segments.

It's also interesting what you say about political appointments within the media. Is this still how PIK works? And what about the commercial stations? Are their interviewers more critical or are they are desperate to be anchors on PIK because of the ethos that 'government jobs are best'? Surely it couldn't be claimed that if a commercial channel was critical of government it could be removed from the airwaves?

I believe political appointments within the media (PIK in particular) are still the norm, especially in high-ranking positions (obviously, the ones that matter). The Kenevezou shenanigans are still recent enough, which she denies quite loudly.
But it gets ridiculous in commercial stations. As I mentioned above, some of the people you mention later on, the 'small group of very powerful MEN', were the recipients of the first TV licenses by the Clerides government (Papaphilippou-ANT1 and Hadjikostis-Sigma). The other recipient was the Church (Logos, subsequently taken over by MEGA Channel). These people generally take the hard line on the Cyprus issue, so it makes sense for the media to act accordingly, in any development - and appointments to be influenced by this fact.

To be honest, the more I look into how the Cypriot political systems works, the more I see a 'cronyist' and 'corporatist' system in which it is the views of a small group of very powerful MEN that determine how things work. I know this is the case across very many systems, but it is rare in Europe, and almost non-existent in Western Europe for political power to be so unchecked. I'm sure a lot of it is the product of both a paternalist tradition and a political system founded in disruption and missing segments that were supposed to check the power of the top leaders.

I would say this is a fair assessment.
In many respects, the media landscape could be said to resemble the centralised structure of the States, where public opinion can relatively easily be shaped according to the needs of a dominant coalition (usually corporate). Only in this case, the coalition is not corporate; rather, it is 'cause-motivated'. That is, aimed towards influencing the RoC policy (even the strategy) on the CyProb.

[detailer]

cannedmoose wrote:

To be honest, the more I look into how the Cypriot political systems works, the more I see a 'cronyist' and 'corporatist' system in which it is the views of a small group of very powerful MEN that determine how things work. I know this is the case across very many systems, but it is rare in Europe, and almost non-existent in Western Europe for political power to be so unchecked. I'm sure a lot of it is the product of both a paternalist tradition and a political system founded in disruption and missing segments that were supposed to check the power of the top leaders.

This is the wrong part of the eastern culture. Even a opposition politician who critises this kind of attitude harshly, chages 180 degrees after two years in power. This is because he associates himself with the state, he thinks (or the people around make him think like that) the state can not work without him. Of course since the state is something very holy, he believes that he is semi-god or something.

Surely this is not only the fault of the leaders, people also want this kind of sheepherds to lead them and politicians play their parts.

[cannedmoose]

Thanks for that point detailer, I certainly think that Cyprus doesn't fit as neatly into the West European party system model as much as people would have us believe. I think in Western Europe, politicians are similar in that their views tend to be tempered by being part of the government, particularly when that involves being part of a coalition, but I think the Cypriot system is extreme in that respect. I put a lot of it down to the all-encompassing sweep of the 'national issue', in which to adopt a contrary stance is to encourage vitriol to be heaped upon you, therefore in any policy sphere even remotely connected to the Cyprob, politicians are wary of stepping outside the boundaries of the agreed position.

I think the case in point in this respect is AKEL. Understandably, as Cyprus was seeking accession, AKEL held off from its criticism of the EU as an institution, only expressing it through party programmes and manifestos rather than through the more visible means of mass media, or through its observers in the European Parliament. However, now that membership is secure, one would expect AKEL, as a largely unreformed vestige of stalin-esque communism to rail against EU policies on a daily basis, yet we don't see this, apart from their voting against the Constitution which is a dead duck anyway. There are the odd murmurings but nothing more. I put that down to two factors: their shaky position in coalition with unnatural partners - if DHKO and EDEK jumped ship AKEL would be left out of government; and also to the fact that the EU is still regarded as a factor in the Cyprob, therefore to campaign vociferously against it would be counter-productive. I think this is dangerous, where are the eurosceptic representatives? I'm going to be writing a paper on this soon and it's clear that euroscepticism is on the rise in Cyprus, yet there are no clear channels for its expression, which in ideological terms would be AKELs natural function. Therefore, a risk is that a single-issue party, like UKIP or Veritas in the UK example, will be formed on the basis of opposition to Europe. Do you think this is possible?

Returning to the issue of collective political thinking on the Cyprob, I'm surprised at the stance that Anastasiades took on the referendum issue, a stance that I think showed real leadership, not just for opportunistic purposes, but because he actually believed in it and was willing to put his position on the line for it (e.g. if the majority had been pro-AP, yet all the politicians were anti-AP, for Anastasiades to have jumped would have smacked of opportunism). As a result, it also created a fracture in DHSY, a fracture that probably went beyond just the AP, and to a battle of egos within the party as well.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but is the National Council composed of representatives from every political party in the Vouli, no matter how small the party? If so, this Council may be designed to forge national purpose on the Cyprob, but it would also be a factor in engendering a corporatist culture amongst the leading cabal of politicians.