SOCIAL democracy has become rather fashionable in Cyprus in recent years. It all begun a few years ago, when the socialist party EDEK decided to rebrand and rename itself. The ‘socialist’ tag had become rather old-fashioned, especially after the former communist parties of eastern Europe started contesting elections as socialist parties. EDEK therefore renamed itself KISOS, an acronym for the ‘Movement of Social Democrats’, which was more in keeping with Cyprus’ EU aspirations.
The change of name did not have a positive effect in elections, the conservative Cypriot voters unimpressed with the arrival of social democracy. This was probably because the voters understood that nothing had changed apart from the name – the leadership remained the same, as did the rhetoric and the political positions embraced. It was very much a case of old wine in new bottles and the voters were not buying it.
Ten days ago, after a conference of its central committee, DIKO, the party of President Tassos Papadopoulos also decided that it would re-christen itself as a ‘social democratic party’. The party was echoing its leader, who had been saying before he was elected president, that, politically, he was a social democrat. The decision was not the result of any ideological soul-searching or ongoing political debate within the party, but was taken during an afternoon session.
DIKO officials, in fairness, were quite frank about the reason that had forced them to take this decision. When Cyprus joined the EU and sent deputies to the European parliament, DIKO wanted them to sit with the European Socialist Party, rather than with right-wing bloc. It is not known whether DIKO will change name and become the Social Democratic Party, but politically it is likely to remain in the twilight zone of the centre – occasionally swinging to the left and occasionally to the right – just like KISOS. In a rational world, the two parties, whose combined electoral strength is still smaller than DISY=s or AKEL=s, would merge and become a real political force rather than a perennial junior partner in electoral alliances.
There have been discussions for a merger of the two parties in the past but they came to nothing. After the DIKO decision was announced, members of the KISOS leadership raised the issue once again. The merger makes a lot of sense as it would create a party with an 18 per cent share of the vote, offering a real alternative on the Left to the communist party AKEL, which is a political anachronism. AKEL is completely out of tune with the contemporary political and economic ideas embraced by the EU, behaving as if the Cold War was still being fought.
If there were a credible social democratic party that used modern political discourse and enjoyed a respectable following, it would provide a genuine left-wing alternative, particularly for the younger generation, to the obsolete political thinking of AKEL. It is also a question of survival – if DIKO and KISOS do not merge, their support will continue to dwindle until it is completely swallowed up by the two bigger parties. Social democracy might mean nothing more than a change of name for them, at present, but they should recognise that it can also prove the ticket for their survival.
