Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

The principle is clear: If there's a situation where there are seperate components (call this a community, a constitutent state, a state, etc.) of different sizes (call this area size, population size, etc.) and if these components want to be under one roof (call this federation, union, etc.) and if there's a fear that the smaller components can be dominated by the larger ones (politically, economically, socially, etc.), there's always a mechanism which favors the smaller state. This is not considered racist or unfair but rather a necessary safeguard to ensure well-being of all components.

I want to live in a country where GC view the TC community with respect and understanding, where they accept our concerns for being dominated politicaly and why we have those fears. Where they do not consider it a natural or democratic right for GC to be able to politicaly dictate to the TC community what will happen to all of Cyprus and all Cypriots without any let or hinderance.

What I am doing is countering GC views that a system that gives political representation disproprtionately to numerical numbers is fundamentaly unfair, iundemocratic and unstable.

The conceptual basis for a desire for TC community to have some politcial represntation disproportionate to its exact numbers is EXACTLY the same as the conceptual basis for why the RoC should have the same within the EU (and UN and other places) and the same as the baisis of equality od component states in federal situations.

From all the above postings of Metecy and Erol, I wouldn’t subtract even one iota, before agreeing to them.

Why? Because the terminology that is used in all the above is both moderate and reasonably accommodating. Can you compare it though with the uncompromising, and discouraging for the GC side, verbose of the official TC side, which speaks about, and demands only, absolute (50:50) political equality between the two communities (and not constituent states?)

The question therefore, is not whether the TCCS (rather than TC community,) should have a more effective decision making participation or a disproportionate to it’s numerical size political representation, but instead, how much more of this disproportionate representation is necessary so that it fulfils it’s purpose and at the same time, it doesn’t become unbearably unfair to the GC side.

My strong belief and feeling is that a 50:50 split that the official TC side constantly claims, or anything indirectly leading to such a split, and as both of them were eventually projected in the A-plan; are totally unfair for the GC side. They would be totally unfair in any other case were you have only two units that come under one roof, especially when one of the units is more that four times larger than the other one.

[erolz]

Why you do not accept ANY of the systems in any other EU country then??????

I accept any federal state as the 'model' for a solution is Cyprus because all such federal states accept and incorporate the concept of equaility of federal component states regardless of relatvie population sizes (something you stil insist is unfair undemcoratic and unstable) - provided there is some protection for one of the federal component states to not become politicaly and numercialy dominated by GC. I require this 'protection' not because I am racist or because I want an ethnicaly pure TCCS but because I accept the reality that the Cyprus problem has it's roots in the desire of one ethnic group to impose it's will upon the other and for the other to resist this imposition. Thius for there to be a solution to this, the solution has to accpet this cause and incorporate it into the solution at least until such time as we can jointly build a Cypriot identidty and nation (as oppsoed to a Greek identity/ nation or even GC idendtity / nation).

No it is NOT THE SAME AT ALL.
You can not apply as system of associating independent countries in a single country. This is why no EU country does such thing. Is this so hard for you to understand?

Look I can understand and accept (thoug obviously not agree with) arguments that political represntation disproprtionate to communites size is not right or fair in the specific case of Cyprus. What I can not accept or understand are arguments that such disporprtionate systems of representation are inherently and fundamentaly unfair and undemocratic and unsatble as a matter of PRINCIPAL. Is that so hard for you to understand?

Anyway we have been round this loop many many times. If you wish to carry on insisting that disproprtionate represntation is in in princpal unfair, unstable and undemocratic, whilst at the same time enjoy the benefits of such disproportional representation where it benefits you then continue to do so. I suspect that a continuation of this will only lead external opinion increasingly to the conclusion that you are not really concerned with fairness and democracy but actualy with securing your maximal demands in Cyprus - just as the analyst in the cyprus mail article has concluded.

[magikthrill]

erol,

From your post I understand what you are trying to say by democratic principles applyign to disproportionate sizes. At the same time though what I understand is that the reason why the Cyprus problem will never be solved (solved I mean a fair accepted union - in time it will be united with Turkey reaping the benefits I am sure of this) is because the demands of the TCs lead to could never be satisfied by a federation but only through a confederation (or a disguised federation acting as a confederation like the A plan).

Of course the problem in this lies once again what you seem to find trivial, the property issue. As Piratis has stated if in fact TCs owned the northern part of Cyprus then it would be more fair (still not completely fair - see US civil war) for them to demand their own state.

You know the more time I spend on this forum the more I realize how this issue is complicated in EVERY POSSIBLE WAY it is looked at. Crazy shit m8.

[erolz]

The question therefore, is not whether the TCCS (rather than TC community,) should have a more effective decision making participation or a disproportionate to it’s numerical size political representation, but instead, how much more of this disproportionate representation is necessary so that it fulfils it’s purpose and at the same time, it doesn’t become unbearably unfair to the GC side.

My strong belief and feeling is that a 50:50 split that the official TC side constantly claims, or anything indirectly leading to such a split, and as both of them were eventually projected in the A-plan; are totally unfair for the GC side. They would be totally unfair in any other case were you have only two units that come under one roof, especially when one of the units is more that four times larger than the other one.

My personal view, and I am not the TC admin nor even necessarily averagely representative of 'typical' TC views, is that for any political decsion that affects one community materialy differntly from the other, then seperate consent should be required from each commuity or component state and that any political decision that affects the two communites the same a simple majority of all Cypriots should be sufficent.
I realise that this is a statement of 'principal' as to how it should be decided what should be based on 50/50 and what on straight numercial numbers and that it may be difficult (though not impossible imo) to incorporate such into an agreement and may alos require external 'arbitration' when there is dispute as to if a decision affects the commuites differently or not - which again is less than ideal in some ways but still acceptable to me personaly. Anyway that's my position.

[erolz]

Of course the problem in this lies once again what you seem to find trivial, the property issue. As Piratis has stated if in fact TCs owned the northern part of Cyprus then it would be more fair (still not completely fair - see US civil war) for them to demand their own state.

It's not that I consider the issue trivial (and if I have given that impression then that is my error). For me if TC had been concentrated in a single geographical area in Cyprus it certainly would have made it easier to grant/accept TC commuity it's human rights to self determination without having to impinge on any GC indivudals rights but for mean eaiser is not the same as fairer. To me if TC have a right to self determination (or a degree of self determination) if they were all in one geographical area then they also have that same right when spread. It's just a lot harder to implement those rights in the later case and thus requires compromise on the full and total execrise of these rights - which is fine with me. What is not fine with me is a denial of these rights at all - whether based on geographical arguments or others.

You know the more time I spend on this forum the more I realize how this issue is complicated in EVERY POSSIBLE WAY it is looked at. Crazy shit m8.

I agree with your assment here - though I am also of the opinion that there is almost nothing 'complex' that is not also 'simple' at one level or another and nothing 'simple' that is not also 'complex' at one level or another -but thats getting metaphysical now

[magikthrill]

My personal view, and I am not the TC admin nor even necessarily averagely representative of 'typical' TC views, is that for any political decsion that affects one community materialy differntly from the other, then seperate consent should be required from each commuity or component state and that any political decision that affects the two communites the same a simple majority of all Cypriots should be sufficent.

But then how can a decision be classified by affecting a community different?
Can you give me some examples erol because you're definition seems vague to me. Im not sure if this is intentional on your behalf but it could be eventually by those making the constitution.

[erolz]

Can you give me some examples erol because you're definition seems vague to me. Im not sure if this is intentional on your behalf but it could be eventually by those making the constitution.

This is not the first time I have had this discussion and in the past have given many such examples but here once again.

Historical examples

Deciding Cyprus will become part of Greece. This clearly affects GC materialy differently to how it affects TC and thus under my system should require seperate consent from TC and GC communites / component states.

Issue relating to religion, culture, language. We have different religions cultures and languages and thus most decision in these areas will affect the communites differently so should require seperate consent. Like what languages are deemed offical languages of the state. However decisions that affect even these areas equally should not require seperate consent - so a law that says bans religious leaders from holding senior goverment positions would for me not require seperate consent unless on community already had many such religo /political leaders and the other did not. Then it may require seperate consent.

Issue like the age of consent and the age of franchise and the age of a right to driving licesense are all issues that for me affect the two commuites equaly and thus would not require seperate consent. It could be argued that the age of consent relates to religous issues and thus is differnt to the two communites. I personaly do not hold this view but if necessariy would accept 'arbitration' on if this affected the two communites differently or not.

An issue like a law seeking to place restrictions on non EU foreign investment in Cyprus would affect TC business (who get vastly more investment from non EU countries mainly Turkey than GC businesses do) differently to GC businesses anb thus would require seperate consent in my system.

This last example is my 'favourite' in that it is not covered by Piratis prefered appraoch of deeming the TC community a political minority in their own homeland and then granting them some extra 'super privaledges' not defined in the human rights charters as the rights of minorites in the form of a pre defined list covering only religion,culture, language and education.

[magikthrill]

Firstly,

It could be argued that the age of consent relates to religous issues and thus is differnt to the two communites. I personaly do not hold this view but if necessariy would accept 'arbitration' on if this affected the two communites differently or not.

This issue could be avoided if religion of freedom is (obviously) respected by the constituion but at the same time here is clear separation between religion and state. (Otherwise you get a brotherl that is the southern US)

Secondly,

in a bizonal bicommunal federation, would the federal issues you well presented be traeted the same way in each component state?

Of course if this is the case then the purpose of bizonality is eliminated. But from what I understand for you bicommunality is more important. Is this correct?

[erolz]

Secondly,

in a bizonal bicommunal federation, would the federal issues you well presented be traeted the same way in each component state?

If deemed necessary I do not see why not. If a GC minority was concerned at TC domination within the TCCS (or visa versa) then I would be happy with a similar 'principal' in the component states as well as between them (federal level)

Of course if this is the case then the purpose of bizonality is eliminated. But from what I understand for you bicommunality is more important. Is this correct?

Yes my position is that bicommunality is more inportant than bizonality - in that I believe the chance today of physical domination / oppresion of TC is much less of a potential; risk than political / economic domination / oppression. Thus it is political protection I am first and foremost concerned with. However I do accept this is not the case for some TC (especially those that suffered physical oppression themselves in the past) and i respect these views even if I do not share them. In this regard I am happy to accept the 'majority' position of the TC community. If the majority say they fear physical oppression and need bizonality as a safeguard against this then I accept that as the will of the TC community - even though it is not my personal position.

[Piratis]

Look I can understand and accept (thoug obviously not agree with) arguments that political represntation disproprtionate to communites size is not right or fair in the specific case of Cyprus.

No, it is not right in ANY country, this is why there is no country where communities of different size have equal power.

What I can not accept or understand are arguments that such disporprtionate systems of representation are inherently and fundamentaly unfair and undemocratic and unsatble as a matter of PRINCIPAL. Is that so hard for you to understand?

Is it so hard for you to understand that EU is not a country?

I want a democratic country, you want a democratic association of independent countries. (=partition)

I am not arguing that EU is not democratic, I am arguing that EU is not a country.