Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

I agree with most of what Alasya said.

For me respect is something that has to be earnt - it can not be commanded. I also do not believe any state (or person) has a right to obedience. I grant my obedience (or not) based on my criteria and not any right that someone has to it. Again loyalty is to be earnt and not expected as a given in my view.

Well, that would be very nice in theory, but basically what you say is anarchy. In Democracy the authority has to be obeyed by the citizen and the authority should respect and serve the citizens. If either side shows disrespect courts take action to enforce the law and order.
The laws are not decided by you alone, they are decided by everybody. And now with the EU most of our laws are common EU laws.

If for example the EU collectively decides that gay marriages should be allowed, then we should all accept it. The only other thing we can do is to challenge this law in the courts, but nothing more.

For Cyprus the only way to create a strong common Cypriot identity is to create common interests for TCs and GCs.

If one community wants to gain on the loss of another this unity will never happen and in the future new problems will arise.

Without unity, some foreigners will always be there to take advantage of our differences and they will win and we will always loose.

[Alasya]

I am not against criticism or different view provided it does not border onto inciting ethnic or religious hatred. Nobody ever has the same view anyway even in a totalitarian state like North Korea and Turkmenistan!

I really see no point in creating a CYPRIOT state that nobody will swear allegiance and loyalty to. Maybe I m wrong, but if a democracy means nobody respects the state in which they live, then I admit I am not democratic!

States must command respect, obedience and loyalty, every single state even the UK understands this. Even the most liberal nations like Denmark, Netherlands and Sweden would not be liberal much longer if their state`s terrotorial integrity was ever threatened.

Why bother creating a CYPRIOT state with its own flag, national anthem, symbols and law, if everybody is going to Greek and Turkish?

The fact that "it is better to be united than to be divided" is not a strong enough reason in my view to hold a state together and ensure its continued existence. Particularly as not everybody feels this way, you need tougher measures to prevent ethnic violence and the spead of Greek and Turkish nationalism. You may think that nationalism is dormant on both sides but dont be fooled. Nationalism has spurts of popularity, and can be aroused by the silliest of things, such as a football match. i mean what will happen if Greece and Turkey play a football match, is Cyprus going to be divided again?

Pan-Cyprians have to be tough and uncompromising in order to combat the decades of Greek and Turkish nationalism that has held sway on the island. There is no other option.

No I am not justifying the 1960 -1974 reaction of the Makarios Government, in fact I was criticizing it for not behaving like a Cypriot government, and acting as an agent to Greece. The Cyprus govt then was NOT a Cyprus govt in any way shape or form-it was a G/C govt.

I listed why the Cyprus republic failed in my last message. However lets be fair, the same blame can be attributed to those Turkish Cypriots who participated in the activities of the TMT acting as agents of Turkey. Denktas included!

I fully respect the former PM of Canada, Pierre Trudeau who was himself a French Canadian, in the face of ethnic violence in Montreal instigated by French Candian nationalists that brought the state close to civil war, he threatened to send the tanks in to protect the indivisible character of the state without taking sides. I guess this is a real test to how Canadian you can be. He proved himself to be a true Canadian. As a result Canada survived and today both Francophone and Anglophone Canadians live in peace and prosperity as Canadians.

If we are going to commit ourselves to a union, we should think very carefully about this, we should endeavour to do it properly, with no half measures.

One way of tackling the problem would be to describe both communities in the new Cyprus constitution as Greek-speaking and Turkish-speaking communities, its easier to deal with linguistic differences than to tackle ethnic differences. This will create the impression that we are one ethnic group in a bilingual state. For the record I ve taking Greek classes for two months now.

[Alasya]

Can I just add, that in a future United Cyprus Rep laws will probably reflect international standards.

In no state in the world, does anybody have the right to promote the division of a state. Successionist parties everywhere face tight laws and frequent closures.

You cannot compare Cyprus to London. London is a multi-ethnic city, but the rest of the UK is not multi-ethnic. Most of the UKs 59 million people are English, Scottish amd Welsh not foreign. In London you may have hundreds of different nationalities, but they are all British under the law.

And the UK has one official language, an official religion and the teaching of religious education at GCSE level is compulsory.

[erolz]

Well, that would be very nice in theory, but basically what you say is anarchy.

This is a very complex subject. The biggest single influence on my thinking and in helping me find a coherent expression for 'things' I have felt and believed in my heart, before I was able to express them, is Noam Chomsky. To me Noam Chomsky is a 'giant' of political thought and I can think of no other living person that I do not know personaly that I have greater respect and admiration for. In an attempt to give you (and others) an idea of my thoughts on such matters of 'anarchy' and 'democracy' and the role of the 'state' and it's realtionship to the 'people' I am going to rely on some quotes from various discussions from the 'great man'.

The quotes are from a book 'Class Warfare' by Noam Chomsky which in turn are a republishing of a series of interviews by David Barsamian with Noam Chomsky. (retypyed by myself - all spelling errors etc are mine)

"[John] Dewey himself comes straight from the American mainstream. People who read what he actually said would now consider him some far-out anti- American lunatic or something. He was expressig mainsteam thinking before the ideological system had so grotesquely distorted the tradition. By now it's unrecognisable. For example, not only did he agree with the whole Enlightnement tradition that, as he put it, "the goal of production is to produce free people,". That's the goal of production, not to produce commodities. He was a major theorist of democracy. There were many different, conflicting strands to democratic theory, but the one I'm talking about held that democracy requires the dissolution of private power. He said as long as there there is private control over the economic system, talk about democracy is a joke. Repeating basically Adam Smith, Dewey said, Polotics is the shadow that big business casts over society. He said attenuatiiong the shadow doesn't do much. Reforms are stil going to leave it tyrannical. Basically a classical liberal view. His main point was that you can't even talk about democracy until you have democratic control of industry, commerce, banking, everything. That means control by the people who work in the instituions and the communites."

"If I am asked about what I mean by anarchism, I always point out that what it means is an effort to undermine any form of illegitimate authority, whether it's in the home or between men and women or parents and children or corporations and workers or the state its people. It's all forms of authority that have to justify themsleves and almost never can."

"This was actually an address at an anarchist conference. I pointed out what I think is true, that your goals and your visions are often in direct conflict. Visions are long-term things, what you'd like to achieve down the road. But if we mean by goals that which we're trying to do tomorrow, they can often appear to be in conflict with llong term visions. It's not really a conflict. I think we're in such a case right now. In the long term I think centralised political power ought to be eliminated and dissolved and turned down ultimately to the local level, finally, with federalism and associations and so on. Sure, in the long term that's my vision. On the other hand right now I'd like to strenghten the federal government. The reason is, we live in this world, not some other world. And in this world there happen to be huge concentrations of private power which are as close to tyrrany and as close to totalitarian as anything humans have devised, and they have extraordianry power. They are unaccountable to the public. there's only one way of defending rights that have been attained or extending their scope in the face of these private powers, and that's to maintain the one form of illegitimate power that happens to be somewhat reponsive to the public and which the public can indeed influence. So you end up supporting centalised state power even though you oppose it. People who think there is a contradiction in that just aren't thinking very clearly."

In Democracy the authority has to be obeyed by the citizen and the authority should respect and serve the citizens. If either side shows disrespect courts take action to enforce the law and order.
The laws are not decided by you alone, they are decided by everybody. And now with the EU most of our laws are common EU laws.

Well I start from the 'libertarian / anarchist' point of view that all centralised authority should be constanly challenged to justify itself (in terms of why it is necessary and how it meets the needs of those it supposedly serve). I am not against law and order and accept the need for some form of codified law and a means to enforce it. However I totaly refute the idea that 'in democracy the authority has to be obeyed by the citizen'. Indeed for me in a 'true' democracy authority (in all it's forms) must constanly be challenged to 'justify itself'. Anything less is democracy in name only. Laws can be and are often are wrong. Such laws need to be changed. They can not (generally) be changed in the courts. Laws are change in the wider politcal sphere and disobedience is one of the primary means by which laws that need to be challenged and changed can be, In this sense disobendince is not just desirable but actualy a necessity and a duty of all people, as is the constant challengeing of authority to justify its necessity and existance.

For Cyprus the only way to create a strong common Cypriot identity is to create common interests for TCs and GCs.

I do not disagree with this.

If one community wants to gain on the loss of another this unity will never happen and in the future new problems will arise.

You remain obssesed with the idea that the division in Cyprus today is the result of a TC desire to steal and gain from GC. That theft is the driving motivation for the continued division. I just do not agree with or accept this analysis. I can also similalry argue that your insistance that TC have no right to determine their own future in Cyprus and the future of Cyprus in general (and in partnership with the GC community) except as a politcal minority in a GC dominated politcal majority, is nothing more than an attempt of the GC community to 'gain' the whole of Cyprus at the 'loss' of the TYC community. I want a settlement that addresses both the GC communites loss from 74 onwards AND the TC communites loss of any say or level of equality as communites from 63. You apparently want a settlement that only address the former and ignore the later, which to me is an attempt to gain at our loss. So while I agree with the principal in yor expression above we still have fundamental differences about what 'gains' and 'losses' there are that need to be addressed.

Without unity, some foreigners will always be there to take advantage of our differences and they will win and we will always loose.

Again I do not disagree with this, but for me the desire for unity is not one born primarily from a desire for greater ability to resist outside influences (that is just a useful consequence), but simply because unity is always a better goal than division. I also total refute the idea theat unity can be 'imposed'. Any imposition of unity is not unity but in fact a for of totalitarianism.

[pantelis]

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-liberal-democracy.htm

[pantelis]

http://www.libertocracy.com/Webessays/t ... ocracy.htm

[erolz]

I really see no point in creating a CYPRIOT state that nobody will swear allegiance and loyalty to.

Personaly I find the whole concept of 'swearing allegiance' to a state an outdated, unecessary and even dangerous idea. I have never been required or expected to do anything of the kind in the UK and I find such acts elsewhere (here in Cyprus in the USA and elsewhere) a strange and unsettling spectacle.

Maybe I m wrong, but if a democracy means nobody respects the state in which they live, then I admit I am not democratic!

Can we stop talking about democracy as if it is a single clearly defined absolute idea with a single meaning that is practised the same everywhere. It simply is not so and such simplifcations do nothing in my view to aid understanding of anything.

States must command respect, obedience and loyalty, every single state even the UK understands this. Even the most liberal nations like Denmark, Netherlands and Sweden would not be liberal much longer if their state`s terrotorial integrity was ever threatened.

I just disagree with this. See above post really. If a state can be undermined by mere 'ideas' then it has no legitimate right to it's authority in the first place in my opinion.

Why bother creating a CYPRIOT state with its own flag, national anthem, symbols and law, if everybody is going to Greek and Turkish?

I see no contradiction in being both Cypriot and being Greek or Turkish Cypriot as well. I have never considered myself to be Turkish but neither do I deny the 'Turkish Cypriot' aspect of my heritage.

The fact that "it is better to be united than to be divided" is not a strong enough reason in my view to hold a state together and ensure its continued existence. Particularly as not everybody feels this way, you need tougher measures to prevent ethnic violence and the spead of Greek and Turkish nationalism. You may think that nationalism is dormant on both sides but dont be fooled. Nationalism has spurts of popularity, and can be aroused by the silliest of things, such as a football match. i mean what will happen if Greece and Turkey play a football match, is Cyprus going to be divided again?

You can not in my view fight or counter ideas like Greek or Turkish nationalism with 'force' and 'suppression'. You can only try to counter them with (superior) ideas. Any attempt to do otherwise is doomed to fail. Unity requires consent. Without consent there can be no unity (and here I agree with Piratis I think) and any 'enforcement' of unity is not actually unity but is in fact totalitarism.

Pan-Cyprians have to be tough and uncompromising in order to combat the decades of Greek and Turkish nationalism that has held sway on the island. There is no other option.

Again I just do not see the world in the same way that you do here. You cannot fight ideas with force. You can only fight it with better ideas. You cannot defeat hatred with force, only with love. Just because the thing you wish to opposed is 'tough and uncopromsing' that does not mean to me that the only option is to be equaly or more tough and uncompromising.

No I am not justifying the 1960 -1974 reaction of the Makarios Government, in fact I was criticizing it for not behaving like a Cypriot government, and acting as an agent to Greece. The Cyprus govt then was NOT a Cyprus govt in any way shape or form-it was a G/C govt.

I am not saying you were using your arguments to justify such actions only that they could be used so. Who decides if the government of a state is working for the interests of the people of that state or as an agent of some other state (especially is obedience and loyalty to the state by citizens are requirments that need to be enforced by the state)?

[erolz]

http://www.libertocracy.com/Webessays/tyrannyodemocracy.htm

Interesting links especially this second one. Thanks Pantelis.

[Piratis]

we live in this world, not some other world

This is what I thought too after reading the first part of your post. All theories should be judged based on the human nature.

When I was a child I used to be communist (before I found out that this system already existed and had a name). Later on I realized that real communism is not something that can be applied to real humans. A true pure democracy is not something that can be applied either. But a "real world democracy" is better than the "real world communism" or any other real world political system. We should not have Utopian aims. The aim should be how we can make democracy as good as it can be in the real world.

You remain obsessed with the idea that the division in Cyprus today is the result of a TC desire to steal and gain from GC.

If you read the posts of Turkcyp you will see that this is not far from the truth for many TCs. The keyword in the quotation above is "today". It doesn't mean that TCs are bad and GCs are good. It means that what we have are two rival groups that instead of cooperating they go against each other. If in 1960 GCs had the power, they would have packed all TCs and send them to Turkey. If TCs had the power they would have "achieved" partition. Tomorrow, when the balance of power will shift, the "good" GCs will become "bad" and the "bad" TCs will become "good". So don't take me wrong, I am not a racist! When I said "If one community wants to gain on the loss of another" I didn't mean that "one community" is always the TCs and "another community" is always the GCs.
The only solution to this is to stop this rivalry. And to stop it they only way is to have common interests and feel like equal citizens of one indivisible country.

I can also similalry argue that your insistance that TC have no right to determine their own future in Cyprus and the future of Cyprus in general (and in partnership with the GC community) except as a politcal minority in a GC dominated politcal majority, is nothing more than an attempt of the GC community to 'gain' the whole of Cyprus at the 'loss' of the TYC community.

First of all, TCs will have their own federal state, within which they will be able to determine their own future. They will determine their education system, they will have their own federal authorities, they will have their own police, even their own federal laws (as long as they do not contradict with central state and EU laws).

In Cyprus as a whole TCs will be able to determine the future as equal citizens like all other Cypriots, and on top of that they can have a veto power on some very critical matters.

Domination is what Turkey did to the Kurds. What I propose has absolutely nothing to do with GCs dominating TCs.

[erolz]

We should not have Utopian aims. The aim should be how we can make democracy as good as it can be in the real world.

The aim should be how do we make _society_ (in all its widest aspects) as good as it can be in the real world. How you achieve that without 'utopian aims' I do not know? Surely you have to 'aim as high as possible' to get as close to the target as you can?
As far as making democracy as good as it can be (which is a much less ambitious goal than the above) a good starting point is too look at how democracy can be tyranical. Denying that it ever can be so is to me not likely to lead to a 'better democracy'.

The only solution to this is to stop this rivalry.

I am more than happy to listen to any 'real world' suggestions you might have as to how we might jointly start to achieve this. With respect I would suggest calling TC 'Thieves behind Tanks' is not one of them.

And to stop it they only way is to have common interests and feel like equal citizens of one indivisible country.

That to me is and 'end destination'. However it is one that is a long long way from where we are today and in order to get to this end destination a route has to be mapped. For me that route requires a journey 'through' a bizonal federated state. Which brings us to :-

First of all, TCs will have their own federal state, within which they will be able to determine their own future. They will determine their education system, they will have their own federal authorities, they will have their own police, even their own federal laws (as long as they do not contradict with central state and EU laws).

In Cyprus as a whole TCs will be able to determine the future as equal citizens like all other Cypriots, and on top of that they can have a veto power on some very critical matters.

Domination is what Turkey did to the Kurds. What I propose has absolutely nothing to do with GCs dominating TCs.

On the above we are pretty much in agreement. There is still the issue (for me) of if this kind of consitiution reflects a 'gift' or 'concession' from the GC side or an acceptance of its underlying 'fairness' - but let's not dwell on that for now. I also think the defintion 'that where a decision affects the two communites differnetly it should be subject to consent from each equally' to 'veto powers on some very critical matters' but I think we are aiming for the same result regrdless of wording.