Kikapu wrote:Simon wrote:Kikapu says:It's very simple. Absolute power corrupts, so for the benefit of the whole country, it is better to have checks and balances from both communities. Under normal conditions and situation, it could operate like any other Democratic country. The problem is, we have not earned each others trust yet, due to our very recent history together.
Kikapu, this is clearly a contradiction. If you are not a minority group and therefore not a separate group at all, then you would not need these very separate powers! We can have checks and balances; but if you are separating and distinguishing the communities; then you have to accept that your community is a minority in Cyprus, simple as that.
As a way of compromise, I would accept Kifeas' Plan.
Simon,
TC,s are a minority, but only in numbers and not a minority as a citizens of Cyprus, so that's why they reject to be protected only with "minority rights". Since the TC's have been grouped together now, for the last 32 years, naturally, they have also become a community. Being a community should not make them just a "minority" without any rights to participate in the decision making of the peoples business by the government, because foremost, they are Cypriot Citizens, before anything else (not including the settlers).
In any case, why split hair. You agree with the "Kifeas Plan", so lets move onto other pressing matters that Soto raised couple of posts back. I really hope, that we all understand, that Cyprus problems is not an easy problem to solve. Not with a "Unity Cyprus" or a "Partition". Each have their own difficulties, if we spend to much time arguing on every little detail. At some point, we will have to accept the best possible solution to benefit maximum number of Cypriot citizens, and do the very best to the rest of the citizens, to normalize their lives, as soon as possible. There's no magic "silver bullet". It's no wonder that the "Annan Plan" was pages and pages long, and I expect, the next one will be just as long.
A minority /majority issue can only exist in terms of numbers. There is no meaning to a concept such as “minority as citizens.” Such a notion doesn’t exist! There is no modern western democratic country in which not all of its citizens are equal to each other! The whole discussion is absurd!
Furthermore, I do not understand this TC paranoia with the issue of being a (numerical) minority. They regard the mere word or term as some kind of an anathema. As if to belong to a minority group it means you are some kind of a leper, or an inferior human being, or not an equal citizen with all he rest at the same time. As if for example the Greek-American citizens of the US, who if taken separately will only constitute less 1% of the total US citizen's population, are by default an inferior or less equal on an individual level with the Italian-American citizens who if take together may constitute perhaps 4% of the total US population, or they are second class citizens to the Anglo-Saxon American citizens that if taken separately may constitute more than 50% of the US population. Yet, some 15 years ago the US nearly had a Greek-American president (Michael Dukakis) and 35 years ago the US had a Greek-American vice-president. The previous CIA director (George Tenet) was a Greek-American. Can the Greek-Americans claim that they are a second class group of US citizens, even though they are as an ethnic group, a minority of less than 1%? Have they been prohibited from calling themselves Greek-Americans, speak their language and run their Greek language schools, fly the Greek flag everywhere in their private association buildings, homes and public holidays, or to practice their religion and have their churches? The answer is no! Therefore, in which way they differ, in terms of rights or equality, from the Anglo-Saxon Americans that constitute more than 50% of the total?