THE PROPOSED increase in the number of parliamentary seats took a new turn last week, as the smaller parties and some isolated deputies posted their opposition to the move.
The belated reaction of the Green party deputy Giorgos Perdikis lent weight to the theory that he kept quiet for so long, because he had been given assurances that the provision for ‘national candidates’ would have secured his re-election. I must admit that his possible exclusion from the legislature would be the only positive consequence of this story.
Reactions started being voiced after the collusion of the two big parties was official – they admitted that they had reached an agreement. Predictably, in defending their actions, AKEL and DISY resorted to patriotism. Seven extra parliamentary seats are dictated by the ‘national interest’, they claimed.
We are faced with an unexpected development – for the first time in 25 years, the two biggest parties have struck a political deal. The only difference was that the last time the two co-operated – in 1985 – was in order to remove from power the then-president, Spyros Kyprianou because he had rejected an initiative by the UN to broker a Cyprus deal, that came to be known as the ‘de Cuellar initiative’.
Their current co-operation is geared towards serving their respective petty party objectives. Back in 1985 their co-operation was truly in the national interest, whereas today, despite the glossing over of the motives, we are witnessing a co-operation of scoundrels, aimed at providing parliamentary seats for a few more of their members.
Neither party has even attempted to respond to the reservations expressed against the substance of the plan. Why, for instance, did they decide that an additional seven deputies were needed now? Is it justified to put an extra burden on public finances at a time of deep recession? And what political messages are being sent by this unilateral decision to amend the constitution, when we are pretending that we want to solve the Cyprus problem and share power with the Turkish Cypriots?
The only defence we are hearing is that the 10 per cent cut in the basic wage of deputies, combined with some other spending cuts would cover the additional cost of seven deputies. Surely the cut in wages and legislature spending was done in order to reduce state expenditure. If the expenditure remains the same, by adding seven deputies, how have the parliamentary parties contributed to improving budget finances?
There is also an attempt to deceive people, because any reduction in deputies’ basic wage would be temporary, lasting for two years. After the two years the 56 as well as the seven new deputies will receive their full salaries plus the cost of living allowance over two years. In addition, the state will have to pay pensions to more deputies for decades. Should I also mention that the 10 per cent cut would be only on the basic wage of deputies which accounts for only half their revenue? Their expense allowances of €2,820 per month, which is tax free, will not be touched.
As for the argument that 56 deputies are not enough to do all the legislature’s work, it has been exposed as a joke by deputies themselves, who admitted that about half the House Committees were superfluous. They should therefore stop taking us for a ride.
The 1985 co-operation between DISY and AKEL, which had a truly national objective, failed spectacularly as AKEL’s very poor showing in the parliamentary elections meant that the two parties were unable to elect enough deputies for the two-thirds majority required to sideline the president.
If this latest joint venture succeeds we should therefore conclude that the two parties can only co-operate on shady dealings.
