WHEN I wrote last week that the real culprit in the Papasavvas tooth implant scandal was President Christofias I never imagined that he would issue confirmation. I did not expect that he would reach the point of endorsing and applauding the unacceptable behaviour of the deputy Attorney-general.
His statement about the issue was a case of involuntary self-flagellation. In reality it was an admission of guilt, a self-condemnation, even if the president was incapable of realising the implications of his words. This was yet another political act which betrayed the president’s disdain for ethically correct political behaviour.
The statement he made has been given extensive coverage and anyone with sense would draw the same conclusion. I will restrict myself to commenting on two points.
Christofias said: “It is the fashion in Cyprus, when someone has differences with another person he tries to destroy him. I do not agree with the methods of destroying people and personalities. I fear that we are entering a cycle, with no end, which I think would cause the complete degeneration of our political life.”
I have been following Cyprus politics very closely since 1976. In those 34 years I never heard a more appalling political statement. In the crudest way possible, the president not only gave his approval to Papasavvas’ action, not only did he brazenly offer his support and protection (he also referred to him as his friend) but he went a step further.
He viciously attacked those who had condemned his friend Papasavvas’ action and identified suspicious ulterior motives behind the publication of the story by Politis. In other words, Christofias has decreed that Papasavvas had acted correctly and that the paper was trying to destroy him because they had “differences”.
It should be noted that these are not the sentiments of some simpleton peasant defending his relative after a squabble at the village coffeeshop. These are the public views of the President of the Republic, who goes even further, warning that criticism of an unacceptable action by a top state official “would cause the complete degeneration of our political life”.
But if anything causes the degeneration of our political life, it is the behaviour of the President. When the President comes out and defends an indefensible action by his friend, an action that has been condemned by every right-thinking citizen, what else is needed for political life to go down the slippery slope of decline and disrepute?
Without a hint of exaggeration, I consider this statement to be the most powerful bomb ever placed at the foundations of political life and the institutions of our peculiar country. In any other democratic country the president’s position would have become untenable after the display of such a provocatively contemptuous attitude towards the citizens of the country.
The final part of the president’s statement was the icing on the cake. “I am in favour of adherence to the laws and regulations,” he declared. He should excuse us for reaching a different conclusion after the comments he made. Under the circumstances, talk of adherence to laws and regulations could only sound as a bad joke.
