Cyprus-Forum.com

[Viewpoint]

Alex i dont trust the EU they have great problems delivering promises and at times of crisis completely useless. They have no army that would be able to take swift action and there would always be the risk of politcal barriers being cleverly placed by GCs to stop any action, if you are happy with this sort of guarantee then let them guarantee the GCCS security.
I understand your insecuirty about Turkey and what happened in the past I support the idea of Turkey guaranting the secuirty of only the TCCS. How would you feel about that, under no circumstancies would she have right to intervene in the GCCS.

[Alexandros Lordos]

Alex i dont trust the EU they have great problems delivering promises and at times of crisis completely useless. They have no army that would be able to take swift action and there would always be the risk of politcal barriers being cleverly placed by GCs to stop any action, if you are happy with this sort of guarantee then let them guarantee the GCCS security.

Viewpoint, my concern is that there should be one integrated security force for the whole of Cyprus. GCs and TCs should participate in it, and they should work together to deal with any crisis that develops. I wouldn't trust the EU either for our security, but what the EU could help with is to guarantee for this security force the impartiality that is required. Eg, By giving our soldiers opportunities to train together in another country, by having some non-Cypriot commanders in key positions of the army hierarchy.

Even in the Annan Plan, we had this philosophy with the Federal Police, which would have used joint units of GCs and TCs to deal with crime between the two Constituent states. What I am suggesting is an extension of this system to the level of the army as well, but with the non-Cypriot element included to add impartiality.

I understand your insecuirty about Turkey and what happened in the past I support the idea of Turkey guaranting the secuirty of only the TCCS. How would you feel about that, under no circumstancies would she have right to intervene in the GCCS.

That's an interesting suggestion (and I very much thank you for understanding my concern). I have some concerns about the proposal but it is worth discussing. On the plus side, it is balanced. On the minus side, it could too easily lead to escalation and partition with the slightest provocation by a few hot-heads. Also, I don't trust Greece to defend us as effectively as Turkey would defend you. Greece is too far away, and too absorbed in her own concerns.

I would find your suggestion much more acceptable if it is combined with an integrated Security Force, as follows: If there is trouble, the integrated Security Force (as described above) is sent to deal with it. If the trouble persists and the Security Force cannot deal with it, then and only then will Turkey have a right to intervene to protect TCCS security, and Greece to protect GCCS security. How does this sound?

Personally I prefer this because it is a more stable system, which will guarantee the integrity of the re-united Cyprus more effectively. My hope is that you can also accept it, since you will still have Turkey's protection if you really need it. Furthermore, I hope that with such a system we will never actually need to invoke either Greece or Turkey, because the internal security system will be strong enough to absorb all the shocks. Then again, if we make such a bad mess of the whole thing that an integrated security force can no longer function, then yes, perhaps the only solution would be for Greece and Turkey to step in - even though this would very likely mean yet another partition.

I feel we had a very constructive conversation today, and I thank you for it. Have a very good night.

[Viewpoint]

Alex

I would find your suggestion much more acceptable if it is combined with an integrated Security Force, as follows: If there is trouble, the integrated Security Force (as described above) is sent to deal with it. If the trouble persists and the Security Force cannot deal with it, then and only then will Turkey have a right to intervene to protect TCCS security, and Greece to protect GCCS security. How does this sound?

The idea of having the security guarantees of Turkey and Greece as back up to an intergrated security force is aceptable to me and hopefully we will never need them to step in as we should be wiser when dealing with matters which concern a united Cyprus. The buffer of the intergrated security force could also serve as a deterrant to those hot heads that will always try to escalate trouble between our communities as in the past.

[Alexandros Lordos]

Alex

I would find your suggestion much more acceptable if it is combined with an integrated Security Force, as follows: If there is trouble, the integrated Security Force (as described above) is sent to deal with it. If the trouble persists and the Security Force cannot deal with it, then and only then will Turkey have a right to intervene to protect TCCS security, and Greece to protect GCCS security. How does this sound?

The idea of having the security guarantees of Turkey and Greece as back up to an intergrated security force is aceptable to me and hopefully we will never need them to step in as we should be wiser when dealing with matters which concern a united Cyprus. The buffer of the intergrated security force could also serve as a deterrant to those hot heads that will always try to escalate trouble between our communities as in the past.

So we have solved the security issue. There you are!

[Viewpoint]

Alex if the problem was int he hands of the people it would have been solved long ago but unfortunately those that we choose to represent us do not always deliver and are influenced by other factors such as power greed, self interest and outside forces.

[Alexandros Lordos]

Alex if the problem was int he hands of the people it would have been solved long ago but unfortunately those that we choose to represent us do not always deliver and are influenced by other factors such as power greed, self interest and outside forces.

This is true Viewpoint, but the stronger the public feels about something, the more likely it is that the politicians will do something about it. This is the main benefit of representative democracy.

Of course, if the public chooses to be passive, and not express its concerns actively, then it is easier for the politicians to get away with inaction.

I think in Cyprus this is what is happening now (as well as the trust problems which you correctly point out and which I acknowledge).

[cannedmoose]

Alexandre, I've been doing a lot of research lately on the evolution of Cypriot civil society and came across an article by Caesar Mavratsas which discussed what he regards as the 'weakness' of Greek Cypriot civil society, which he determines as subjugated by a powerful state and a personalistic political system of clientelism and patronage. He describes a 'corporatist' political and social structure within which politicisation and partitocracy exist virtually unquestioned and unopposed because individuals seek to locate and manage themselves within organised groups and through established channels with the ethos that you can accomplish nothing unless you 'know someone' - most often the 'someone' being a person with power in an organised group. We've seen this ethos demonstrated many times on this forum and you displayed it yourself yesterday when discussing Erolz's plan for cemetary clean-ups in respect to knowing people within the Church.

The most interesting point that I thought he made and one that I hadn't really considered previously was that GC political culture presents a serious obstacle to the rationalisation and modernisation of GC society and restricts the emergence of a modern consciousness so that the concept of a domain of social life which exists independently of politics and the state, in addition to concepts of individual rights and liberties are a foreign concept to GC society. In which respect, mainstream GC culture deviates considerably from the basic norms and values of many other modern European states.

I just wondered from your perspective both as a psychologist and observer of the Cyprus scene whether you think this rings true. In many many respects I think he's hit the nail on the head.

[Alexandros Lordos]

Cannedmoose, I think that Ceasar Mavratsas is being rather extreme in his views and in his denunciation of GC civil society. I don't think it is "all bad" there is definitely a trend for modernisation and "issues based politics" rather than "personalised politics". Mavratsas thinks we have learnt nothing from the era of Makarios, that we venerate our political leaders and subjugate all our judgement to them, and yet let me give you an opposing example: Even the closest advisors of Tassos do not fear to criticize him in conversation, when they believe he has made a mistake. I know this from personal experience. Furthermore, I know from my survey (the very first survey "Understanding the Greek Cypriot response to the UN Peace Plan for Cyprus"), that even those who venerate the office of President still don't abrogate their judgement entirely, and that there are just as many people who keep equal distances from all political figures and retain their independence of mind.

As for "the need to know someone", this is not problematic in itself, but it becomes problematic if "knowing someone" is a vehicle of nepotism. In all modern European democracies "networking" is considered important, if one is to achieve the tasks of his office. Networking is a problem only when it is used to achieve personal goals through a public office. This used to be the case in Cyprus, but it is improving now.

The two big problems of Cyprus' Civil and Political society, I would say, are the following:

- Excessive Party loyalty: There is not enough flexibility to vote for a different party than the one your family votes for, in case you disagree with the party's policies. This is less of a problem amongst TCs, who are, to their credit, more flexible in their vote.

- Passive Civil Society: Everyone just leaves all responsibility to the politicians and the parties, there is a fatalistic attitude regarding the possibility of change through civil initiative.