The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Does it matter where you are born?

Propose and discuss specific solutions to aspects of the Cyprus Problem

Postby Piratis » Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:09 pm

Erolz, I am afraid you are the one who is perverting the meaning of democracy.

What I want for Cyprus is what exists in all other democratic countries in the world. What you demand for Cyprus exists in which country? (maybe Bosnia?)

Here is a definition of the way I, and all democratic countries realize democracy:
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/w ... hatdm2.htm

THE PILLARS OF DEMOCRACY

* Sovereignty of the people.
* Government based upon consent of the governed.
* Majority rule.
* Minority rights.
* Guarantee of basic human rights.
* Free and fair elections.
* Equality before the law.
* Due process of law.
* Constitutional limits on government.
* Social, economic, and political pluralism.
* Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise.



These elements define the fundamental elements of all modern democracies, no matter how varied in history, culture, and economy. Despite their enormous differences as nations and societies, the essential elements of constitutional government--majority rule coupled with individual and minority rights, and the rule of law--can be found in Canada and Costa Rica, France and Botswana, Japan and India.


From where do you get your version of "democracy"? From What Mr X and Ms. Y wrote in 1986 and you adopted it since it suits you?

To bring your irrelevant example of males/females and movies into the real world, would that mean than in your version of "democracy", if 1/10th of the population are Nazis, that half of the time (or even 1/10th of the time) the Nazis should rule the country? In Cyprus 1/3rd of Cypriots are communists. Should we have communism half or one third of the time? Sorry mate, but your version of "democracy" exists in no country for a good reason.

Yes, the desires of the minorities should be considered and accommodated if possible, but this doesn't mean that a minority has the right to stop perfectly democratic decisions that violate the rights of no one, to be taken.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby Piratis » Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:24 pm

By the way, I have personally proposed in the past that 1 every 5 Presidents to be a TC, and I am also an advocate of affirmative action that can guarantee the proportionate representation of all minorities in all governmental departments. Although this doesn't exist in any other country it is a compromise that can be made.

However what you demand is a lot more than proportionate power, what you want is half of it, so come on and show us your version of "democracy" where an ethnic minority is given 50% of the power, and give us the examples of the countries that this is done.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby Piratis » Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:32 pm

And while you are explaining to us your version of democracy, also explain us how this version of yours accommodates your demand of having the TC minority rule by themselves a separate part of the country which is the homeland of 5 times more GCs than TCs.

Thats going to be a really interesting version of "democracy" I should admit.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby Chimera » Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:06 pm

Piratis wrote:By the way, I have personally proposed in the past that 1 every 5 Presidents to be a TC, and I am also an advocate of affirmative action that can guarantee the proportionate representation of all minorities in all governmental departments. Although this doesn't exist in any other country it is a compromise that can be made.

However what you demand is a lot more than proportionate power, what you want is half of it, so come on and show us your version of "democracy" where an ethnic minority is given 50% of the power, and give us the examples of the countries that this is done.


I agree with what you have presented in all your posts; they are clear, precise and diplomatic.
I know nothing about politics, but I think you may be tweeking Democracy to allow for proportional represantation, which I think is sound ideologically.

However, I don't think we can stipulate that proportional representation could be addressed simply by saying that 1 in 5 Presidents should be TC.

Surely a freely elected president, with candidates from all parties represented and standing for election, makes more sense.
Otherwise in the States, for example, they could say one term it has to be a Democrat and the next term a Republican.
Chimera
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:29 pm
Location: U.K., Cyprus, Greece & France

Postby erolz » Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:17 pm

Piratis wrote:What I want for Cyprus is what exists in all other democratic countries in the world.


In just about no country in the world does the executive gain power as a result of the simple majority wish of individuals. There are good reason why this is so. Even those countries that use a PR system mitigate straight majority rule to achieve democracy (have a look at NZ PR system for example).

Piratis wrote:What you demand for Cyprus exists in which country? (maybe Bosnia?)


What is necessary to meet the needs of the point of democracy in Cyprus is unique to Cyprus, as Cyprus is unique. The point is defining clearly what democracy does or does not mean and then to seek a system that achieves this in the circumstances that prevail within Cyprus.

Piratis wrote:Here is a definition of the way I, and all democratic countries realize democracy:
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/w ... hatdm2.htm


There has to be a means to meet not just

* Majority rule.

but also

* Government based upon consent of the governed.

You seek to make the former 'supreme' in order to deny the later to the TC community, whenever as a community it wants something different to the GC community as a community.

Piratis wrote: From where do you get your version of "democracy"? From What Mr X and Ms. Y wrote in 1986 and you adopted it since it suits you?


I get it from the application of common sense, rather than from the needs of perusing an ethnic based 'cause'.

I understand there is a reason why member states within the EU do not share power simply on the basis of population size and straight individual numerical majorities, in order for the needs of democracy in such an institution to be best served. I understand why in federal states there are degrees of federal equality that are regardless of the population sizes of these federal elements, in order for the needs of democracy to be best served. Just as I understand your need to try and argue that democracy means one thing and only one thing (but only within Cyprus, certainly not in the EU or UN) and can only be served in one way - by majority rule of individuals.

Piratis wrote:To bring your irrelevant example of males/females and movies into the real world, would that mean than in your version of "democracy", if 1/10th of the population are Nazis, that half of the time (or even 1/10th of the time) the Nazis should rule the country? In Cyprus 1/3rd of Cypriots are communists. Should we have communism half or one third of the time? Sorry mate, but your version of "democracy" exists in no country for a good reason.


What you fail to understand Piratis is the difference between a matter of personal choice and one of physical unchangeable attribute. One can chose to be or support nazi ideas or communist ideas and one can freely change this and the degree to which one supports them. For such matters majority rule can be an effective means of achieving democracy. However when the determining factor as to what 'group' one is in is not a matter of personal choice but physical attribute, this is exactly when majority rule fails to achieve the aims of democracy.

If what kind of movie one wants to see in my example is purely or almost entirely a function of the unchangable attribute of gender, then clearly democracy is NOT best served by simple indivdual majority rule, as this simple examples shows.

Piratis wrote:Yes, the desires of the minorities should be considered and accommodated if possible, but this doesn't mean that a minority has the right to stop perfectly democratic decisions that violate the rights of no one, to be taken.


When an issue concerns COMMUNITIES and not just individuals, then the demands of democracy would be for on community one vote. That is, when how I vote and how such a change affects me is defined principally by the unchangeable attribute of which community I belong to, then to say the only way democracy is served is that my community never gets its desire and yours always get its desires AND the right to impose them on my community as well is quite simply NOT democracy at all.

Piratis wrote:By the way, I have personally proposed in the past that 1 every 5 Presidents to be a TC, and I am also an advocate of affirmative action that can guarantee the proportionate representation of all minorities in all governmental departments. Although this doesn't exist in any other country it is a compromise that can be made.

However what you demand is a lot more than proportionate power, what you want is half of it, so come on and show us your version of "democracy" where an ethnic minority is given 50% of the power, and give us the examples of the countries that this is done.


Again Piratis you totally fail to understand the issue here. I do not demand that my community gets to make decision for all Cypriots one time in 5. What I demand is that for issues that are based on which community I belong to, where how I vote is determined by that, and how the change affects me is determined by that, that my community as a community has the same right to an effective voice in those decisions as yours does as a community.

Anyway we have argued these same points countless times in the past Piratis and I am not going to continue yet again.

What I will say is that to me as a TC what you really want is clear and unambiguous, and calling that desire democracy does not change the clarity of what it is you really want. Namely for the GC community to have the right to impose a purely GC will and desire on the TC community against thier will in our shared homeland. Demanding this in the 50's and 60's was divisive between the communities then and remains so now. You can blame the British for 'dividing' the Cypriot communities but the fact remains it is your insistence of the above that divides us then and now.
erolz
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Girne / Kyrenia

Postby Get Real! » Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:32 pm

erolz wrote:Majority (of individual) rule is ONE means to achieve democracy. It is NOT the end (point / objective) of democracy. The objective of democracy is that people have an EFFECTIVE say in the decisions that affect their lives....

The “majority rules” principle is directly related to numerical majority of a population and it’s unfortunate that the TC community is very much affected by this in Cyprus.

However, the very fact that the TC community is DISCERNIBLE from the remainder of Cypriots to the point where it requires and requests “minority rights” is the source of the problem itself.

Had the TC community NOT allowed its people to BELIEVE and AIM that they are “different” and simply accepted that what sets them apart from other Cypriot communities, such as language, religion, and culture, fall under “DIVERSITY” then none of the inter-communal animosity would exist.

It is also important to note that it’s much more practical and democratic for a numerical minority to tweak and streamline itself around the masses than the other way round.

Regards, GR.
User avatar
Get Real!
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 48333
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:25 am
Location: Nicosia

Postby Chimera » Wed Aug 15, 2007 3:19 pm

Is it "tweak" or "tweek"; tweaking or tweeking" ?

That should be the word for the day. :wink:
Chimera
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:29 pm
Location: U.K., Cyprus, Greece & France

Postby Piratis » Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:02 pm

In just about no country in the world does the executive gain power as a result of the simple majority wish of individuals. There are good reason why this is so. Even those countries that use a PR system mitigate straight majority rule to achieve democracy (have a look at NZ PR system for example).


In all democratic countries in the world the executive gain power as a result of a direct or indirect (through their representatives) support from the majority of the population. If that was not the case then what would be the point of elections? I asked you to give an example of a democratic country where this doesn't happen, and you failed to do so. (except if you claim that in NZ it is possible for an 18% minority to govern against the will of the 82%)

What is necessary to meet the needs of the point of democracy in Cyprus is unique to Cyprus, as Cyprus is unique. The point is defining clearly what democracy does or does not mean and then to seek a system that achieves this in the circumstances that prevail within Cyprus.


There is nothing so unique to Cyprus to change the basic democratic principles as they exist in every country in the world. Here it is again from the definition of democracy:

These elements define the fundamental elements of all modern democracies, no matter how varied in history, culture, and economy. Despite their enormous differences as nations and societies, the essential elements of constitutional government--majority rule coupled with individual and minority rights, and the rule of law--can be found in Canada and Costa Rica, France and Botswana, Japan and India.


There has to be a means to meet not just

* Majority rule.

but also

* Government based upon consent of the governed.

You seek to make the former 'supreme' in order to deny the later to the TC community, whenever as a community it wants something different to the GC community as a community.


The great majority of the governed would be more than happy with a democratic state like it exists in all other countries of the world. Of course the anarchists and the extremists exist everywhere, but this doesn't mean that democracy and its principles should be dissolved because a small minority does not accept them. If that was the case then democracy would exist nowhere.

I get it from the application of common sense, rather than from the needs of perusing an ethnic based 'cause'.


On the contrary. What I say about democracy is what exists in all other democratic countries of the world, I didn't make it up myself. On the other hand your "common sense" is just your wishful thinking that creates a "democratic" version which exists in no other country and it is tailored made to fit your needs, and in clear violation of our democratic rights.

I understand there is a reason why member states within the EU do not share power simply on the basis of population size and straight individual numerical majorities, in order for the needs of democracy in such an institution to be best served. I understand why in federal states there are degrees of federal equality that are regardless of the population sizes of these federal elements, in order for the needs of democracy to be best served. Just as I understand your need to try and argue that democracy means one thing and only one thing (but only within Cyprus, certainly not in the EU or UN) and can only be served in one way - by majority rule of individuals.


EU is no country, but a union of countries where the unit is the state and not the citizen. In the case of federations the country is divided into geographic locations, either for administrative reasons, or because the states existed before the creation of the country (and definitely not by means of ethnic cleansing). However even in those cases the citizens are equal. There is nothing to prohibit a citizen to be the resident of any state he wishes.
The racist discrimination of people that you demand for Cyprus, where citizens are divided based on their ethnic background, exists in no other country.

What you fail to understand Piratis is the difference between a matter of personal choice and one of physical unchangeable attribute. One can chose to be or support nazi ideas or communist ideas and one can freely change this and the degree to which one supports them. For such matters majority rule can be an effective means of achieving democracy. However when the determining factor as to what 'group' one is in is not a matter of personal choice but physical attribute, this is exactly when majority rule fails to achieve the aims of democracy.

There are many many multi-cultural multi-ethnic countries which are democratic and follow the same democratic principles as I described them. (and not the one of your "common sense") If you don't like this system then maybe you should start by applying it to Turkey which has a 20% Kurdish minority as well as Greek and other minorities.


When an issue concerns COMMUNITIES and not just individuals, then the demands of democracy would be for on community one vote. That is, when how I vote and how such a change affects me is defined principally by the unchangeable attribute of which community I belong to, then to say the only way democracy is served is that my community never gets its desire and yours always get its desires AND the right to impose them on my community as well is quite simply NOT democracy at all.


Then according to you there is no democratic country in the world? (if there is then again I will ask you: Give me an example)

I never said that your community will never gets its desires. As a community you are free to practice your religion, your language and your culture and this is in fact covered in the "minority rights" which is part of democracy.

What I will say is that to me as a TC what you really want is clear and unambiguous, and calling that desire democracy does not change the clarity of what it is you really want. Namely for the GC community to have the right to impose a purely GC will and desire on the TC community against thier will in our shared homeland. Demanding this in the 50's and 60's was divisive between the communities then and remains so now. You can blame the British for 'dividing' the Cypriot communities but the fact remains it is your insistence of the above that divides us then and now.


First of all, "impose" is what happened when the Ottoman Turks ruled this island with no democracy and no human rights. When you have democracy the decisions are taken in a democratic way by the democratically (one person one vote) representatives of the people, or even directly by the people with referenda. Furthermore when I propose to you proportional representation of TCs in all government departments (including ministers etc) and even 1 president every 5 to be a TC, and then you tell me that what I want is for the GC community to impose its purely GC will, then I am sorry but your arguments become obviously ridiculous.

Anyways, although we went a bit out of topic I think the initial poster should have understood already why there is this division between "TCs" and "GCs". If they just apply your "common sense" approach to their own country, where for a minority even proportional representation is considered not enough, then they can easily see why the conflict exists.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby erolz » Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:06 pm

Piratis wrote:Anyways, although we went a bit out of topic I think the initial poster should have understood already why there is this division between "TCs" and "GCs". If they just apply your "common sense" approach to their own country, where for a minority even proportional representation is considered not enough, then they can easily see why the conflict exists.


Indeed than can Piratis. They can accept yout thesis that the reason TC and GC are divided is because the perfidious British made us become so to futher their aims.

Or

They can accept that the reason we are divided is that you believe that GC as a community have the sole right, provided they operate as a community, to decide the most fundamental things about the future of all Cypriots including even up to Cyprus' very existance as a state at all and impose such a purely GC communal desire on a TC community in their own (shared) homeland regrdless of the TC communal wishes and regrdless of how this affects TC differently to GC in the name of 'democracy' and I believe otherwise.
erolz
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Girne / Kyrenia

Postby Piratis » Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:27 pm

What I believe is that all Cypriots as a whole, one person one vote, as it happens in all democratic countries, have the right to decide for their own island without foreign intervention. After centuries of being ruled by foreigners (British, Turks etc) against our will, I believe we finally deserve it.

The reason we are divided is that you want a lot more power than what proportionately belongs to you, and Britain and Turkey were more than willing to provide you the means to take this power on our loss (and on the loss of democracy), as this served their own interests as well.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem Solution Proposals

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests