Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz]

This is a good discussion but it would lead nowhere, unless we define what we mean by political equality.

In terms of Cyprus what is meant by political equality of the two communites is a system that does not allow one community to impose it's will on the other against their will. It really is that simple as I see it.

What is "political power" and how does it translate to "people's power".
What is the definition of "people's power"?

Well firstly 'people power' only makes sense when there is one 'people'. When there is two seperate peoples with differing wants and desire before the issue of 'people power' (how 'the people' influence and control the decsions that affect thier lives) there is the issue of power between the peoples / communites. Whilst there is much truth in the idea that most government systems today (and democracy as a system) actualy serves the interest of the 'rich powerful few' against the interests of the 'rest' we have to first deal with the issue of differences between the two communites in Cyprus. Whilst a very strong case can be made that the 'rich powerful few' effectively enlsave, manipulate and control the 'many' even in countries like the USA and the UK they do so without killing people or direct physical violence. This is why the first priorty is to sort out a settlement between the two communites in Cyprus, before we can worry (and unite as the 'many') against the rich power few of either or both communites. At least thats how it seems to me.

What are the safeguards, that a 50/50 government will serve the interests of the people and not the personal interests of the "leaders" or the outside interests they may be contracted to serve?

What are the safeguards that ANY political system will server the interests of the people and not those of the 'rich powerful few' (internal or external). The fact is there are no safeguards. Will a 50/50 government be more or less likely to serve the interests of the many against those of the 'rich powerful few' than nay other system? I do not know but I do not automaticaly assume that a 50/50 system will be any worse in this regard to any other system.

The problem is not what percentage of what race will run what part and how much of the island, but how is the island going to be run?

No I am sorry pantelis but this idea just denys all the history of Cyprus to date. In the first instance the problem is exactly what % of which community will control what happens in Cyprus. The reason for this is that historicaly the struggle in Cyprus has been for one community to exert its will and control over the other and for the other to resist. The history of Cyprus has not been for the 'many' of both communites to struggle against the interests of the 'rich few' in each community. To pretned that it has is to ignore history and reality. You may well be right that what the many from each community should do id unite against the rich powerful few of each community - but that is just not gpoing to happen whilst those same 'many' have such different views as to how Cyprus should be run and controled and have such good historic reasons to distrust and fear the other.

Do we not have problems with the present leaders and the way the govern? What should be the responsibilities of the new governors of a united/federation of Cyprus and what should be the responsibilities of the people to these governors? Are the TC and GC going to contribute differently? Is that what we are fighting about?

Of course we have problems with present leaders and the way we are governed. Who does not? Are these problems more important and pressing than finding ways which we can live togeather in a single geogrpahical island with killing and oppressing each other. No they are not.

I am not trying to sell anything with this post. All I want to define, is what are we actually looking for.

With respect it certainly does feel like you are 'selling' an idea with this post. The idea that the 'many' on each side should be united against the 'rich powerful few' on each side. The idea ignores the reality that historicaly both the many and the few on the GC side where united in their desire to oppress the many and the few on the TC side. Your idea ignores the reality that it was _ethnic_ division and ethnic violence that has shaped every aspect of Cyprus today.

At the end of the day, when all the property issues, the settlers, the refugees, the armies etc, are settled, what do we want to be left with?

And the issues of control between the two communites? You just ignore this all togeather. Certainly I would like to be left with a system that limtis the ability of the powerful few on each side to shape Cyprus to thier interests rather than the interests of the many - however before this desire is the desire to ensure that one community can not do this to the other. That is the history of Cyprus. Ignoring it will not make it go away.

Money and a better life of course, but how are we going to sustain these, if we do not have a smoothly functioning system of governance, without room of corruption and as little as possible... exploitation by the "big capital"?

What are we after?

To put it simply there is a hierachy of 'needs' people have with some taking priority over others. On top of this list, before worries of economic prospects and exploitation, are the needs for existance and to live without fear of physical violence. Only once that has been established can indivduals move on to 'prosperity'. Suggesting we focus on 'prosperity' whilst ignoring 'safety' gets us no where that I can see?

[Alexandros Lordos]

we need people in this forum who will pick us up and get us out of the grumbling mode ...

Alexandros, you seem like one of those people. What's your suggestions for a just and viable solution to the Cyprus problem.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, my friend

On the matter of political equality and governance, I think that something quite close to the Annan Plan could work, with the following amendments:

a. Senate special majority (at least 40% of TC senators + simple majority) to apply only in most essential matters ... in all other cases normal qualified majority (at least 25% of TC senators + simple majority) to apply. This will make deadlocks less likely, while still providing safeguards to TCs that no decision against their interests will be made.

b. Supreme Court to have a stronger tie-breaker mandate: Now it can only intervene in matters critical to the functioning of the state, but it should be able to intervene any time it is called to do so following a deadlock, through a simple-majority invitation by either the Presidential Council or the Senate (whichever of the two experienced the deadlock in the first place).

c. The three foreign judges should all be European, but with the proviso that Greece, Turkey and Britain will be permanently excluded, plus each side - GC and TC -will choose three more countries to exclude whenever it is time to appoint a judge (ie the GCs will exclude pro-Turkish countries and the TCs will exclude pro-Greek countries). In this way, we can be reasonably assured of the neutrality of the judges.

d. Deadlocks in the Presidential Council to be resolved by the Supreme Court within two working days, and in accordance with the laws currently operational in the Federal State, in order to avoid administrative paralysis.

e. Enforceable consequences for the side that breaks away from the agreement, either attempting to dominate the Federal Government or seceding away from it - for instance, barring the guilty side from seeking international recognition.

And of course, the good-will by all concerned to make it work and not repeat the mistakes of the past, as our friend Saint Jimmy is very correctly saying ...

[pantelis]

I am sorry to tell you Erol, that you have missed my entire point.
There is no sense of continuing this discussion.

[erolz]

I am sorry to tell you Erol, that you have missed my entire point.
There is no sense of continuing this discussion.

Sorry it was not intentional. It seemed to me your point was we have other 'enemies' than each other? If I got that wrong then I appologise. Of course it is entirely up to you if you wish to continue the discussion or not but perhaps if you tried explaining your point again I might get it next time?

[pantelis]

Erol,

Before trying to explain what my point above, is, tell me how much you agree with my statement below, or give me your theory (short form), if you totally disagree.

The core of the Cyprus (domestic) problem has been mainly the disagreement of the local politicians about which side's leaders would hold what level of power (if any), over the entire, or part, of island's population and resources.

[erolz]

Erol,

Before trying to explain what my point above, is, tell me how much you agree with my statement below, or give me your theory (short form), if you totally disagree.

The core of the Cyprus (domestic) problem has been mainly the disagreement of the local politicians about which side's leaders would hold what level of power (if any), over the entire, or part, of island's population and resources.

I think the core of the problem has been that GC (leaders and people) persued a course that was totaly unacceptable to TC (leaders and community) and without any regard for TC desires, on the basis that as the numerical majority they had a right to impose their communites wishes on a TC numerical minority (and if necessary the might to impose it should TC resist it).

[pantelis]

Erol,
Are you repeating exactly what I have said, or is it my imagination? If not, tell me where you disagree with my statement.

[magikthrill]

I think the core of the problem has been that GC (leaders and people) persued a course that was totaly unacceptable to TC (leaders and community) and without any regard for TC desires, on the basis that as the numerical majority they had a right to impose their communites wishes on a TC numerical minority (and if necessary the might to impose it should TC resist it).

I agree. Just like Turkey and the Kurds.

[erolz]

Erol,
Are you repeating exactly what I have said, or is it my imagination? If not, tell me where you disagree with my statement.

Well I guess the difference is that I think the core of the problem was more to do with the way the GC went about achieving their aims that what they actualy wanted per se. That is not to say that the wants were not majorly problematic (to TC) in themselves but if we put aside enosis and take the issue of a single united cyprus with a straight one person one vote then I do not think the core of the problem was the desire but how the GC sought to achieve this. I think a different strategy could have produce very close to this desire if it had been taken from 1960.

PS to magic - as a TC and a human being and as someone whose natural tendencies are to worry about the weak I have the utmost sympathy for the plight of the kurds as a people. The world (including Turkey) has treated them attrociously I think and they desrve at least some form of autonomy in my view.

[magikthrill]

alas only in a dreamworld do minorites achieve their own autonomy. and in cyprus through illegal means.