Cyprus-Forum.com

[Alexandros Lordos]

This particular thread concerns the power-sharing aspect of the Cyprus Problem. You can use this thread to put forward proposals for this issue, "as if" you have been charged with the task of developing a new Peace Plan. And of course, you can evaluate and criticize the proposals put forward by others ...

If irrelevant threads develop, they will as a rule be moved to a separate topic, in order to keep this thread focused on the matter at hand - power sharing.

[fi]

From what I've heard from people on this forum, there must be a special settlement here outside of what democracy normally dictates to make TC feel more confident that nothing is going to be done against their will.

This is a tricky part as to not hamper the functionings of the state. Also room must be given for change in the future in the case that trust has been built, or changes are needed for the functioning of the state. Of course there must be provision that BOTH sides must approve these changes.

Unlike the Anan plan we must exclude any external intervention, participation in the internal functionings of the state

[erolz]

From what I've heard from people on this forum, there must be a special settlement here outside of what democracy normally dictates to make TC feel more confident that nothing is going to be done against their will.

Whilst I am reluctant to once again get into this whole issue of 'what democracy dictates' I have little option but to refute this (entirely unspportable imo) claim. Democracy clearly does not dictate that that poltical represntation MUST relate to numerical numbers -and that anything that does not is undemocratic. You can argue that democracy in a federal nation state where there is an ethnic basis to the component states demands that representation be directly proprtional to numerical numbers (though imo this is not a strong arguement). But to state that democracy demands this, when it is clearly not the case in democratic insitutions around the world or in the case in any exisiting democratic federal country is to me unsupportable.

(if I had a pound for everytime I have had to make this argument on this forum I would have enough for a good meal by now. No doubt before we find a settlement I would have enough for a feast for me and several friends and family)

This is a tricky part as to not hamper the functionings of the state. Also room must be given for change in the future in the case that trust has been built, or changes are needed for the functioning of the state. Of course there must be provision that BOTH sides must approve these changes.

I am perfectly happy if we state that the need for federation / protections for the TC community are a function of thier concerns araising out of historical lack of trust and that they should be steadily removed over time as these concerns receed and trust increase. Provied of course that this is determined by the 'consent' of both parties (as you say should be the case and I agree with) and not to some pre determined timetable that may or may not relate to the reality of the reduction of TC concerns and increasing trust. So I think we agree here

[fi]

We agree on the first part as well.

[Alexandros Lordos]

From what I've heard from people on this forum, there must be a special settlement here outside of what democracy normally dictates to make TC feel more confident that nothing is going to be done against their will.

This is a tricky part as to not hamper the functionings of the state. Also room must be given for change in the future in the case that trust has been built, or changes are needed for the functioning of the state. Of course there must be provision that BOTH sides must approve these changes.

Unlike the Anan plan we must exclude any external intervention, participation in the internal functionings of the state

Fi, I've been reading your replies in these threads, and I find it interesting that you are more flexible on the "power sharing" issue than on either the settlers issue or the property issue. This is on a par with the result of the surveys I've done so far, which show that the strongest demands of GCs regard settlers and properties, not power sharing.

Erol,

I understand your "knee-jerk" reaction to analyses of what is and what is not democratic, and I also agree that there are other models beyond the unitary state system of "one man - one vote". Having said that, you should also appreciate that the Annan Plan had extra safeguards that you wouldn't find even in a regular federal system: Normally in federations, you have equal representation of states in the central government, and then simple majority rule once this equality of states has been achieved. In the Annan Plan, after TC insistence, this system of federal governance was embellished with "extras" to safeguard the positive participation of TCs to each decision, whether in the executive or legislative branch. So in this sense, Fi is right to point out that "TCs ask for something that is outside normal democratic parameters". I also am flexible to consider these extra demands, so long as functionality is not as a result hampered.

For instance, though I accept the model of "positive participation for both communities" at the top level, I thought it was totally unnecessary to translate this principle to the lower administrative levels as well, so that every department director will have a "shadow" from the other community as well.

[Kifeas]

Whilst I am reluctant to once again get into this whole issue of 'what democracy dictates' I have little option but to refute this (entirely unspportable imo) claim. Democracy clearly does not dictate that that poltical represntation MUST relate to numerical numbers -and that anything that does not is undemocratic. You can argue that democracy in a federal nation state where there is an ethnic basis to the component states demands that representation be directly proprtional to numerical numbers (though imo this is not a strong arguement). But to state that democracy demands this, when it is clearly not the case in democratic insitutions around the world or in the case in any exisiting democratic federal country is to me unsupportable.

(if I had a pound for everytime I have had to make this argument on this forum I would have enough for a good meal by now. No doubt before we find a settlement I would have enough for a feast for me and several friends and family)

The etymology of the word Democracy comes from the Greek complex word of “Democratia.”

This word, Democratia, is composed by two words.
Demos, which means the public (all the people) and Crato, which means occupy and /or master and /or rule something. Consequently, the etymology of the word Democracy is: the political system in which all the people rule!

I hope what you are trying to suggest does not mean or imply that, in the end, we will also have to change the word we use and instead call it “Communitocracy.”

[erolz]

Having said that, you should also appreciate that the Annan Plan....

Certainly. My 'knee jerk' reaction is to the thesis that democracy demands representation directly related to numerical numbers and aything other than this is undemoractic. I have never used (to my knowledge) this reactionary repsonse to claims abpout the specifics of the annan plan. To me until we finally put to rest once and for all this incorrect idea that any system of representation disproportioante to numerical is funadamentaly undemocratic, there is little point in getting into the specfics of any plane - be that the Annan Plan or any other.

For instance, though I accept the model of "positive participation for both communities" at the top level, I thought it was totally unnecessary to translate this principle to the lower administrative levels as well, so that every department director will have a "shadow" from the other community as well.

To me the crucial issue for TC is effective (and where necessary equal) representation for TC in a untied Cyprus as the 'executive' level - ie at the level where decsions that affect Cypriots are made. I personaly have no need for such at levels where these decisons are implemented - where I am happy for such positions to be awarded purely on merit (though some form of transitional 'positive discrimination' in areas where for historic reasons there is a disporportionate to populations appointment of posts would be welcome but certainly not a requirment)

[erolz]

This word, Democratia, is composed by two words.
Demos, which means the public (all the people) and Crato, which means occupy and /or master and /or rule something. Consequently, the etymology of the word Democracy is: the political system in which all the people rule!

I hope what you are trying to suggest does not mean or imply that, in the end, we will also have to change the word we use and instead call it “Communitocracy.”

To me the meaning and core principle of democracy is

"Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. "

It's core intent as I see it is very similar to that of SD - namely that people should have an effective say in the decisions that govern thier lives. In the Cyprus context where we have a history of two distinct groups (call them communites or call them peoples call them groups as far as the argument here goes it does not matter) that have had totaly opposed desires based on these ethic groupings and have shown a willingness to impose these desires on the other (politicaly and with force as well) , to actualy deny any equality of these groups at all and insist on a one person one vote in everything actually more against the core meaning of democracy than the reverse. If there are significant areas of decsion making where the desires of the governed are entirely split on these unchanging racial/ethnic lines , to demand one person one vote on all (and never one community/group one vote) is to say that the larger group has a right to always impose it view on the smaller - that the smaller group is not governed by the 'people' (itself) but actualy by another and different ethnic group and thus is against the very principle of democracy to me.

I hope what you are trying to suggest does not mean or imply that, in the end, we will also have to change the word we use and instead call it “Communitocracy.”

No more so that a universal one person one vote system would need to be called a 'communit-autocracy'

[garbitsch]

Basically, something less than Annan plan but not less than 1960 Constitution. I mean, we don't want to be a headache to G.Cs in each and every aspect (not absolute 50% share), but still we want to be asked if Cyprus is going to enter the eurozone or let's say, in general terms, we want to have a say in the matters that will affect the whole Cypriot population. This is not something we want new.

[Piratis]

Basically, something less than Annan plan but not less than 1960 Constitution

Ok, I would accept something not less than the 1960 Constitution for us also.
If you do not accept less, why should we?