IT WAS rather hypocritical of the opposition parties to accuse President Christofias of behaving like a party leader and of publicly helping the AKEL parliamentary election campaign. He was the president of all Cypriots, it was argued, and he should not have been displaying partisan behaviour. It is funny how the ethical standards of the political parties scale new heights when they are no longer in power.
However, the high standards of behaviour they are demanding of Christofias were never exhibited by presidents from their own ranks. As president, Glafcos Clerides not only attended DISY election gatherings, but he also instructed his ministers to promote the achievements of the government during parliamentary elections, in order to help the party. Spyros Kyprianou did not even maintain pretences as he used the state machinery to help DIKO during elections. As for Tassos Papadopoulos, he did not want to be the president of those who disagreed with his policies.
In short, in rallying support, Christofias is doing exactly what all his predecessors, with the possible exception of George Vassiliou who was not a party-man, had done.
This hypocritical attitude is similar to the parties’ stance on rusfeti.
If a party is in opposition, it sees rusfeti everywhere, but if it is in the government, meritocracy and respect of procedures reign supreme. Need it is be said that none of the parties are really in a position to take the moral high ground?
The one issue to come out of the exchanges are the links of government ministers, as well as the president, to AKEL. They contribute a sizeable chunk of their monthly salary to the party’s coffers, a fact confirmed by the government spokesman, who said that AKEL members were proud to do so. While they are free to dispose of their money in any way they please, the arrangement suggests that AKEL members are almost owned by the party and are contracted out to the government.
DISY’s Averof Neophytou, who raised the issue claimed that the party collected the entire salary of AKEL ministers and paid them a ‘party wage’. This has not been confirmed, but if it were true it would pose a serious constitutional question – AKEL state officials were in effect serving the party, which paid their salary, rather than the state. But even if this is not the case, the unbreakable bond with the party, exemplified by the donation of a big chunk of a minister’s and president’s salary to AKEL coffers, does raise questions about their loyalties.
This may go some way in explaining why the economy’s interests are of secondary importance in the government’s decisions, which often are more concerned with maintaining AKEL’s popularity.
