WE SAW the last chapter of the Zacharias Koulias saga on Tuesday, when the DIKO executive council expelled him from the party for his apostasy. The diminutive, firebrand deputy had refused to vote for his party leader Marios Garoyian in the election of House president, backing instead EDEK chief Yiannakis Omirou and tilting the contest in the latter’s favour.
Understandably, most of his party colleagues were outraged and demanded the expulsion of this latter-day ‘Judas’, whose apostasy had deprived their leader of another five-year term as House president. Koulias’ apostasy, according to Garoyian, was a blow “against the party code, political morality and democratic legality and his action paved the way for the corruption of the values of public life”.
Very strong words but how justified are they? Does a political party own the conscience of every person on its register and does party membership mean the suspension of an individual’s right to make free choices? Where does the freedom of the individual fit into Garoyian’s idea of political morality? And since when does taking a stand on principle constitute “corruption of public life”?
In the past only a communist party would demand blind obedience from its members, expecting them to toe the line irrespective of their personal views. But on Tuesday DIKO also expelled its deputy leader Giorgos Colocassides, because he publicly stated that he did not support Garoyian’s candidacy. He did not vote but was punished for expressing a view that went against an official party decision. Apparently Garoyian’s political morality does not permit any form of dissent in his Democratic Party.
The only legitimate point made against Koulias was that he used DIKO to get elected, despite disagreeing with his party’s alliance with AKEL. If he felt the alliance was disastrous he should have made this point before the elections; the same applies to Colocassides. Then again, the dissidents could have argued that they did not know whether Garoyian would be standing for the House presidency; he had not made up his mind until several days after the parliamentary elections.
In the end, there are two ways of looking at Koulias’ decision. The deputy believed that by not voting with his party he had stood by his principles – rightly or wrongly he believed that the AKEL-DIKO alliance was disastrous for the Cyprus problem – irrespective of the personal cost. DIKO, which is always taking stands on principle, should have at least recognised this, even if it went ahead with Koulias’ expulsion. But it would seem that according to DIKO’s political morality only parties are entitled to take stands on principle, while party members should do as they are told.
