FIFTY years on from the establishment of the Republic; 46 years since the institutional separation of the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities; 36 years since partition and 33 years since the first, internationally-brokered, High Level Agreements aimed at establishing a bizonal, bicommunal federation.
Throughout that half century the debate about the status of the Republic has continued to dominate, characterised by grandiose statements, flights of fancy and maximalist demands, rather than attempts to reflect on lessons which really ought to have been learnt by now. The effort of some to define the parameters within which to conduct this in a realistic and meaningful manner is undermined by those who make recourse to abstract and uncomplicated appeals to restore human rights without taking account of the accumulated obstacles to realising this.
Instead of getting to the nub of the issue we have seen develop a repertoire of emotional triggers, scare words and emotive appeals which seek to censor those who explore beyond the national taboos which encompass such issues as property, the settlers, governance and the coming to be of a new dispensation.
For many years our leaders have sought to explain the significance of preserving the continuity of the Republic of Cyprus by securing a solution to the Cyprus Problem in the form of a dispensation that evolves from the Republic as opposed to one that succeeds it. This insistence was rationalised by reference to the necessity to ensure that in the eventuality that a new bizonal, bicommunal dispensation breaks down the Republic will take precedence and any risk of the world recognising two separate states in Cyprus prevented. This appeared a priority particularly at a time prior to the opening of the Green Line, the Republic’s accession to the EU and Turkey’s commitment to smooth its eventual incorporation within the EU.
More recently, but particularly since the Annan Plan was put on the table and President Tassos Papadopoulos referred to the ‘dissolution of the Republic of Cyprus’ as a blanket statement directed against the Plan itself, this has become a terminology which has been added to that repertoire employed by saboteurs who have nothing much more to do than oppose a bizonal, bicommunal federation. What used to be raised on conference platforms to explain why there should be no virgin birth of a new dispensation in Cyprus has become part of a mantra devoid of its original content and aims at stymieing any realistic solution.
There is a considerable irony contained in the fact that those who currently shout loudest about the integrity of the Republic are the protégées of a generation of politicians who back in the early 1960s had done their upmost to undermine it. This was a generation many of whom felt it their right and duty to stand up in the then bi-communal parliament and launch emotive appeals for Union with Greece and by implication calling for the dissolution of the Republic. They actively played their part in preventing any realistic hope of nurturing inter-communal political alliances by denigrating the Republic. As one astute Turkish Cypriot MP, drawn from the moderate wing of his parliamentary group, was to appeal to his Greek Cypriot colleagues, this rhetoric was akin to pumping up a ball to bursting point and the dangerous consequences of a possible explosion meant the ball had to be deflated as a matter of urgency.
Marking the integrity of the Republic only came gradually. Established in August, 1960 three years later Makarios shifted Independence Day from the 16th of August to the 1st of October in order to avoid a clash with the summer holiday season. But even then the date was not one widely celebrated except by the distribution of telegraphed messages to heads of state around the world. The Cypriot public was not interested and neither were the media. It was only in 1979 that Parliament proclaimed Independence Day a national holiday but it was not to be celebrated by public demonstrations until three years later when the National Guard was mobilised in street parades, and for the first time, marched behind the flag of the Republic.
It may have been inevitable that a Republic which had experienced severe disruption as an outcome of an armed intervention by a neighbouring state would use this symbolism to affirm its status, to reassure its people of the continued integrity of the state and to send a message to the world that as long as the Cyprus Problem persisted regional stability would be compromised.
Yet states do much more than confirm their integrity. They have to resolve complex questions such as what values and principles should guide conduct? And for whose benefit and in whose name should the state act? Any state has to address these issues but perhaps the more so for those that seek to rule over severely divided societies.
In seeking to address this in Cyprus the omens are not good since many of the present generation of politicians appear quite able to repeat the mistakes of their mentors. Greek and Turkish Cypriots shared the Republic for three years but by 1963 the ball had burst.
One of the pins that pricked the ball was a clash over the constitutional provision for the 30 per cent participation of Turkish Cypriots in the new civil service. This was opposed by Greek Cypriots on the grounds that it constituted a violation of the principle of meritocracy. Yet what practical measures have been taken to deal with the fact that the Republic has always been plagued with rousfeti (nepotism), a matter which violates the very same principle.
Fifty years on we have still to go beyond a rhetoric built on posturing in the name of purity of principle and ground those fraught and difficult issues which accompany the Cyprus Problem within realistic parameters which reflect the practical issues that accompany the exercise of state power.
Yiouli Taki is a Senior Researcher at Index: Research and Dialogue
www.indexcyprus.com
