insan wrote:Kikapu wrote:Insan, we had a lengthy discussion on "your" Consociational Democracy couple of years ago which was very clear that it had already failed in Cyprus before. Consociational Democracy cannot function when one party wanted Enosis and the other wanted Taksim. Enosis dream has ended for the GCs but Taksim dream is an on going for the TCs, therefore, Consociational Democracy cannot work in Cyprus, not at least until TCs Taksim dream has also ended, and even then, I doubt it will ever work in Cyprus.
1. So excecutive power is only shared by "significant groups", which means the other groups are considered to be insignificant and therefore can be ignored and have their Democratic and Human Rights violated.!
2. There never was a segmented "significant groups", because all the groups mostly lived in mixed villages, therefore, there could not be "segmented autonomy" given to any group in 1960.
3. There never was a proportianal representation and allocation of positions, because more were given to the TC's at 30%, when they only represented 18% of the population, therefore once again, "consociationalism" failed in it's purpose.
4. Minority had a veto power on all issues.
It is time to bring True Democracy to Cyprus once and for all as it is practiced all over Europe and the west in general and stop playing games with failed experiments such as "consociationalism".!
First of all, Kikapu; consociationalism has nothing to do with Enosis, Taksim or other nonsense you suggested. Consociationalism is a necessity for every
deeply divided, multi-etnic, multi-national, multi religious country...
1- Executive power is dhared by significant ethnic/national/religious groups because other groups much smaller in population size line up with either of the significant groups not because as u illogically and ill mindedly suggested they r insagnificant.
2- Segmental autonomy in case of Cyprus pre-1974 means that decision making authority is delegated to separate segments as much as possible... it doesn't have to be on territorial basis... Communal Chambers of 2 significant national groups of Cyprus was the product of segmental autonomy...
for the details please check the below link, page 29.
http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=at7 ... 22&f=false3- 30% quota was allocated to TCs for proportional representation because when TCs began to struggle against the GC dominance at beginning of the British rule their population ratio was nearly 1/3 of the total population of Cyprus. During the British rule TCs were represented in the legislative assembly with the same quota; 1/3.... Most probably TC leadership hope and wished the return of TCs who fled or emigrated to other countries for various reasons... However, after 1960 there had never been such a peacefull environment that would encourage emigrated TCs to return...
Moreover, during the talks between the years 1968-1971; TC leadership accepted the reduction of TC quota to then TC population ratio but this issue was not the only problem of GC leadership... they would continue to struggle until they transform the RoC based on consociational democracy into a majoritarian regime then go to a referandum and annex Cyprus with Greece... after the fall of Junta of course because Enosis with Greece under the Junta was neither in the interest of Makarios nor the GC left who constituted 1/3 of GC population.
4- What's wrong with a legitimate veto based on legitimate Cyprus constitution and laws? Why don't u consider this veto right as a tool to protect the 2 significant national groups of Cyprus from each others tyranny and as a mechanism that would urge them to consociate, cooperate, negotiate to find out a common ground on issues that r vital to them?
Sorry Kikapu but u have a very ill minded personality... God save Cypriots from the persons like u...