The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Kikapu's "BBF" Power Sharing Plan.!

Propose and discuss specific solutions to aspects of the Cyprus Problem

Postby zan » Mon Sep 14, 2009 2:09 am

Nikitas wrote:Same goes for the former industrial heartland of England- Sheffield and other former glorious names in industry. So it is not an ethnic thing, it just happens that money tends to attract itself.


It was when the scots came to the south to find work.......Not heard a scots accent for years.......Well...Maybe one drunk at the bus stop I was walking by but then again he could have been irish.......Could not understand a word he was shouting.....

So moving to where the money is is not that simple......First of all there has to be some work there and the quality of what you are being asked to do is another problem....The "Service" industry seems to be a great way of destroying your soul.
User avatar
zan
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 16213
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:55 pm

Postby Naggie » Mon Sep 14, 2009 6:59 am

"people tend to be drawn where the money is. Money overrides quality of life as a draw. In effect the people of CYprus will be drawn to the major business centers of the island and these are all in the south save Nicosia which is half and half, and even there, the business is in the southern part."

"So the danger is not one of the GCs displacing TCs and taking over their 5 seats in the senate of Kikapu's theoretical plan, but the other way round."

You're speculating as to behaviour again. As discussed, people like Viewpoint are looking for guarantees, not speculative promises of behavioural outcomes like 'x might move to y based on a reductionist view of economics' However, moreover, you make precisely my point. Let's take your scenarios and relate them to Kikapu's plan:

'The people of Cyprus will be drawn to the major business centres.'
This would mean Turkish Cypriots being in the minority again, whether this was in the 'greek' state or the 'turkish' as, by default, they are outnumbered. Therefore, political equality under Kikapu's plan here does not work, as it depends on homogeneity.

"So the danger is not one of the GCs displacing TCs... but the other way round."

If TC migrated to the GC state, as touched upon above, then these TCs would be overridden percentage wise when it comes to the 5 seats. Also, be their reducing numbers in the TC state, the effect of any number of other GC (or any other nationality for that matter including ex-pat retirees) diluting the TC percentage would be more dramatic and therefore, again, would threaten the 5 seat status.

However Nikitas, you extend on Kikapu's proposal by stating: "there will be a fixing of political rights in the relevant geographic region, so TCs living in Limassol will have to vote in let's say Kyrenia." This would then effectively solve this problem assuming the TC state is homogeneous which, as Kikapu touched on, involves the transfer of land to the GC state. However, I'm not sure how compatible this is with a democratic and free state - I for one wouldn't like to be voting on matters relating to a state I don't actually live in whilst having no power in the one I do simply because of a fabricated sense of ethnicity and origin.
Naggie
New Member
New Member
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:11 pm

Postby Nikitas » Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:50 am

"I for one wouldn't like to be voting on matters relating to a state I don't actually live in whilst having no power in the one I do simply because of a fabricated sense of ethnicity and origin."

This is the major compromise that citizens of the future state will have to make. There is no other way to attach the voting rights of a certain ethnic group in a bizonal bicommunal federation. Our political rights will be exerciseable only in the federal state of our ethnicity.

It is a bit of an anomaly in modern society. As they used to teach us in law school, modern society has moved from status to contract, that is from what you are to what you agree to. But it seems that Cyprus is not yet ready for such a move, so status will play a role for many years.

One possible exception is voting in municipal elections which, according to EU trends, extend to non nationals who reside in a municipality. It would be ironic if this comes about, since the TCs insisted on separate municipalities since the 50s and it was one of the major sore points with Makario's 13 point plan.
Nikitas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:49 pm

Postby Nikitas » Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:53 am

"The "Service" industry seems to be a great way of destroying your soul."

I agree. A society that makes nothing is a sad one.
Nikitas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:49 pm

Postby YFred » Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:44 pm

zan wrote:
Viewpoint wrote:
Naggie wrote:Kikapu – hello.

I live in the South. I empathise with Viewpoint's viewpoint.

His concern: maintaining TC control of the 5 seats.

You state the the two states must allow for freedom of movement between all ethnicities, under EU law. You state that dropping the TC land to, say 18%, will ensure a homogenous ethnic state and a guarantee of 5 seats.

This two statements are oxymoronic, as you're only looking at how the states will initially look immediately after an agreement. If GCs subsequently move into the TC state (as they are perfectly entitled to and more than economically capable of) they will gain an increase in political power, negating the TC protection of the 5 seats as the state will no longer be homogenous. So the plan does not offer the long-term protection along ethnic divisions that Viewpoint seeks.

Any statements 'regarding this is not likely to happen' are irrelevant – we are looking for political guarantees not sociological predictions.

If we are to play prediction games, one could in fact argue that, with TCs potentially moving south and the disparity of wealth allowing GCs to cheaply purchase TC property, many could easily afford second homes encouraging an osmosis of the poplulation, as TCs use this money to buy elsewhere. This is pure speculation – the colder argument is found above.


Thank you for adding some sanity to the proceedings of the demand for TC capitulation.



Kikapu is writing the Akritas plan mark 2....... :roll:

No, I suspect he has been foiled and will abandon Akritas Mk2 and will present us with Satirka Mk1 just to confuse us. In has to be on brown colour paper and brown ink to be consistent with his nick name and his ideology.
If he can’t see a simple failing of his simple plan, what is there left to say? I suspect it satisfies his need for attention seeking, like most pushduis of his kind.
:wink:
User avatar
YFred
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 12100
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 1:22 am
Location: Lurucina-Upon-Thames

Postby zan » Mon Sep 14, 2009 8:07 pm

YFred wrote:
zan wrote:
Viewpoint wrote:
Naggie wrote:Kikapu – hello.

I live in the South. I empathise with Viewpoint's viewpoint.

His concern: maintaining TC control of the 5 seats.

You state the the two states must allow for freedom of movement between all ethnicities, under EU law. You state that dropping the TC land to, say 18%, will ensure a homogenous ethnic state and a guarantee of 5 seats.

This two statements are oxymoronic, as you're only looking at how the states will initially look immediately after an agreement. If GCs subsequently move into the TC state (as they are perfectly entitled to and more than economically capable of) they will gain an increase in political power, negating the TC protection of the 5 seats as the state will no longer be homogenous. So the plan does not offer the long-term protection along ethnic divisions that Viewpoint seeks.

Any statements 'regarding this is not likely to happen' are irrelevant – we are looking for political guarantees not sociological predictions.

If we are to play prediction games, one could in fact argue that, with TCs potentially moving south and the disparity of wealth allowing GCs to cheaply purchase TC property, many could easily afford second homes encouraging an osmosis of the poplulation, as TCs use this money to buy elsewhere. This is pure speculation – the colder argument is found above.


Thank you for adding some sanity to the proceedings of the demand for TC capitulation.



Kikapu is writing the Akritas plan mark 2....... :roll:

No, I suspect he has been foiled and will abandon Akritas Mk2 and will present us with Satirka Mk1 just to confuse us. In has to be on brown colour paper and brown ink to be consistent with his nick name and his ideology.
If he can’t see a simple failing of his simple plan, what is there left to say? I suspect it satisfies his need for attention seeking, like most pushduis of his kind.
:wink:



I bet he wishes he could find a partner...Any partner :wink: :lol: He is alone now "massaging" his "ego" alone and thinking of his perverted form of democracy!!!!


Take a look at this....

Brian = DT

Stewie = a cross between GR and Oracle.
User avatar
zan
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 16213
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:55 pm

Postby zan » Tue Sep 15, 2009 1:28 pm

[
b]‘People have had enough’
By Charles Charalambous
PASYDY General Secretary Glafcos Hadjipetrou launched a scathing attack yesterday on AKEL MP Aristos Aristotelous, accusing him of producing a survey highly critical of Cyprus’ civil service purely for financial and political gain, and of not having the necessary scientific background to do so.

During an increasingly ill-tempered exchange on a morning show on CyBC radio, Hadjipetrou said:

“When someone uses the letterhead of the House of Representatives, signs himself as Mr So-and-so MP and asks various government ministers to buy a satisfactory number of copies of a knocked-together report, which is not even a book, it’s just a duplicated copy, at €200 per copy.”

He added: “We have asked the Cyprus Association of Opinion Polls & Market Research Enterprises, comprising people who are qualified do these things professionally, to judge whether Mr Aristotelous has the necessary experience and background to carry out a survey which with a few glib phrases rips the civil service to shreds.”

Aristotelous said: “If I carry out one or one thousand surveys, I have nothing to fear, and have nothing to hide. I challenge PASYDY, if it dares, to bring out a survey – not a study as some others do – a survey of what people are saying, and follow up on it. Let them publish it and follow the people’s recommendations to fix things, because people have already had to put up with enough. And if they dare to threaten an MP in this way, just imagine how they would behave towards ordinary people.”

After more heated comments, Hadjipetrou said: “I will be calling on the House Ethics Committee to look into whether an MP can photocopy a knocked-together document and ask for several copies to be bought.”

The 2010 draft budget announced by Finance Minister Charilaos Stavrakis last Friday showed that the total number of civil servants has increased steadily over the last 14 years, from 38,356 in 1995, to 41,199 (2000), to 47,704 (2005) to 51,893 this year.

Aristotelous’ survey was based on the responses of 588 people island-wide to 16 questions, in order to gauge their level of satisfaction with various civil service departments and to identify specific areas of concern.

Many respondents complained of poor personal service, and those who admitted to using bribery or connections – the so-called ‘meson’ – to get a job done at a state department ranged from 64 per cent (Limassol) to 84 per cent (Larnaca).

Overall, Citizens’ Advice Centres, the Road Tax Service and Fire Service were well-regarded, but the police, Land Registry Office, Welfare Office and Town Planning Department rated poorly in most respondents’ view.

Aristotelous brushed off Hadjipetrou’s accusations as “laughable”, and said that despite the PASYDY leadership’s attempt to “distort the facts” and “shut people up over the issue”, the majority of ordinary union members had a different opinion.

“Instead of PASYDY concerning itself with the serious problem of what people – including public employees themselves – are saying about the current situation in the civil service, instead of being concerned that some 30 per cent of civil servants are saying that it takes bribery for the state machine to work, which is an unprecedented thing to hear, Mr Hadjipetrou is trying to sling mud at the researcher”, he said.

Aristotelous insisted that he had sufficient academic background and experience in research, saying that the market survey was “100 per cent scientifically-based”, and “carried out with the help, co-operation and constant supervision by large and reputable polling companies” to ensure that he did not make a mistake.

“The suggestion that I am selling this survey is nonsense,” he said. “I have gone to considerable personal expense over this survey, just like for other surveys, and have not made anything back. Sometimes, instead of absorbing all of those costs, I have found it necessary to ask for some of those costs to be covered. If I were to repeat this survey in the future, then yes I would need some kind of financial support.”

Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2009[/b]


Isn't that the average number of relatives in Cyprus?? 8)

Where is the guarantee that this sort of corruption does not endanger TCs in Kakapus solution......Perhaps in the 9000 pages of law in the Annan Plan???? 8)
User avatar
zan
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 16213
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:55 pm

Postby humanist » Tue Sep 15, 2009 11:38 pm

Kikapu : thank you for your passionate interests in our Cyprus and taking the time to make a positive peaceful change for our Island, I commend you for your efforts and passion
User avatar
humanist
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 6585
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:46 am

Postby Kikapu » Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:48 pm

humanist wrote:Kikapu : thank you for your passionate interests in our Cyprus and taking the time to make a positive peaceful change for our Island, I commend you for your efforts and passion


Thank you, Humanist.!
User avatar
Kikapu
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 13541
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm

Postby Kikapu » Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:52 pm

"BBF" Power Sharing in the "New Cyprus Federation"

The Turkish Cypriots claim that they need "safeguards" in any New Cyprus Government and also have a say so in decision making for their future so that the the majority (GC's) does not push their will on the minority (TC's). This can be achieved if we were to follow some basic Democratic methods practised by the Americans in their running of the Government. For this Federation to work in Cyprus, there has to be certain condition met in order to be successful, therefore compromises need to be made, particularly about land sizes for each state which will be in the New Federation Cyprus. We will discuss the land issues later. Also, for this method to work , almost all of the TC's will need to live in their northern "TC" state.

Unlike the United States where power is shared between political parties based on ideology and not ethnicity, ethnicity power share will be the case in Cyprus, but fortunately, the same democratic principle can apply to power share based on ethnicity for the foreseeable future until the nation of Cyprus is ready and politically mature to rule herself based on ideology and not on ethnicity.

The "political equality" only means one man one vote but for the TC's, they claim in needing "equal power" as it was described in the 1959 Zürich Agreements as a means of "safeguard". Although those agreements were undemocratic, the BBF agreed for a solution for Cyprus can give the TC's "equal power" that comes with True Federation all the same, because all the states in a Federation government enjoy equal representation in the Federal legislator ( Upper House only) where bills are passed to govern the country's business.

Federal Government

Federal Government will have it's own constitution where the constitutional protections for all citizens will be installed . The Federal Constitution will be the law of the land and cannot be overridden by any state constitution written by the north and the south states. Federal Laws will be supreme and protected by the Supreme courts should these Federal Constitution Laws be challenged by individual state or the Upper and Lower House representatives in trying to pass laws that will be in violation of these Federal Laws.. However, Federal laws does not interfere with state laws as long as state laws do not breach any of the Federal Laws. Each state will run their own state as they please within the Federal Laws. This is very important, that states cannot violate any citizens rights by implementing their own laws that would violate the Federal Laws. This is why, any and all concerns of “safeguards” that the TC’s or the GC’s may have, is to have them in the new constitution which cannot be changed unless the constitution is amended, and to amend the constitution, we will have a system where both state will need to approve it.

Federal State Governments

Federal state Governments, both south and north will operate almost as if they are a sovereign nations, but under the umbrella of the Federal Government. Federal States will have control of all institutions within their state, except for Federal institutions, such as Ports, Federal Land and Parks etc, etc, etc.!. However, they will not be able to make any International policies or act outside Federal Governments International Policies. Each Federal States will also have their own State Constitutions and their own State Senate in writing laws and passing bills, their own Supreme Court, and their own leader, in the form of a Governor.

Amending Federal and state Constitutions

To amend the Federal Constitution, both states will need to approve it by 75% majority voted by the state legislators. To amend the state constitution, approved by simple majority of those citizens from that particular state.

Upper and Lower Houses

There will be 2 Houses in the government to pass bills before the President can sign them into law. The elected members of the Lower and the Upper Houses will come from the 2 states in the Federation. The number of members in the Lower House is base purely on the size of the population in each of the 2 states. The Upper House will have exact same number of members from each state regardless of their population size.

Just for the purpose of this exercise I'm going to use the following numbers to show how to work this system of power sharing Democratically. Lower House will have 50 seats and the Upper House will have 10 seats.

Just for practical purposes, lets just say that the north state will have 20% of the population of Cyprus ( TC citizens) and the south state will have 80% of the population of Cyprus (GC citizens). This would give the north state 10 seats and the south 40 seats in the Lower House based on these population numbers. The Upper House will have equal members from each state, therefore 5 seats for the north and 5 seats for the south states. Let me make this very clear that these seats in the Upper and Lower Houses are given to the 2 states and not to each community. These seats belong to the states and not the ethnic groups. The fact that the north state will be mostly TC's and the south state will be mostly GC's, will by default utilize these seats as their own is another matter, but the seats are only given to the states as a matter of allocation in a Federation system, and nothing more.!

President and Vice President

According to the 1960 Constitution in Cyprus, the President has to be a GC and the Vice President to be a TC. At the present talks, it has been suggested to have a "rotating Presidency", where a GC will serve for a while, then a TC, and then a GC and so on. I would even suggest that every Presidential candidate and their Vice Presidential nominee run together as one ticket, so that they are both supported by the people from all the communities. The reason why I bring this up, is because, it is to be part of the power sharing to work with checks and balances that will be explained later, so that the TC's will not need to have a Veto Power rights as before. So lets take it for granted, that there will be a GC and a TC in the positions of a President and a Vice President. The Vice President does not have any executive powers however, but is only a ceremonial position as well as being next in line to be the President should the current President dies or is removed from office.

Selecting the Lower and Upper House Representatives

The Lower House Representatives will be elected from the districts from both the states. There will be 40 districts in the south and 10 districts in the north. Only those living (citizens) in those districts can vote for the House members running in those districts. For the Upper House Representatives, 5 members each for both states, can only run state wide without districts, therefore all citizens from the north can vote to elect their 5 Senators , and the south will also do the same to elect their 5 Senators.

To vote on a bill

In order to vote on a bill in the Lower and the Upper House, certain procedures will need to take place. Bills can be introduced by both the Houses as well as the Executive branch, the President. The bill will need to pass both the Houses by a simple majority before it can be signed into law by the President. This is how it will work.

A bill is drafted by a member of the House. The Speaker of the House will decide to introduce the bill to be voted or not in the Lower House. The speaker of the House will be from the south since they will have the majority with 40 seats, but he or she will not vote on any bills, unless there is a tie, and then they will cast the tie breaking vote. If the bill is introduced to be voted on, then the bill will be voted on by the 49 members in the LH. Only those members who are present and cast a vote will be counted, and if the majority approve, then the bill will go to the Upper House for their vote.

The upper house is where the power is 50-50 between the north and south state. If the bill is not what the TC’s want, this is where they can block it from passing, if the Vice President is a TC, because the Vice President gets to vote only if there is a tie, and if the bill is tied at 5 v 5, then the TC vice President can break the tie by voting NO on the bill and that will be the end of it unless the Upper House can make some changes to please the other sides concerns, and if that is done, it will be sent to the Lower House to be voted on once again , and if passed there, then it will go to the President to sign it. If the Vice President was a GC and casts the tie breaking vote to a YES vote, then the President would be a TC, in which case, he would not sign it into law and the bill will just fail to materialize. If a bill does pass both the Houses and the President refuses to sign it, then the Upper House can overturn the President’s veto by having 6 out of 10 voting to over rule the President and the bill will go forward. In this round of voting, the Vice President will NOT be voting. This is where the main “safeguards” for the TC’s are protected without ever needing a veto vote power.

Bills introduced for voting in the Upper and the Lower Houses are mainly on Federal level matters and not what goes on in individual states, therefore bills passed will effect all citizens and not one state over the other. Most bills will pass after some “Horse Trading” is done between the members of the both Houses, but if a bill is likely to harm one state over the other, then both the south and the north have a way to block it in the Upper House, either by a tie breaking vote by the Vice President or a direct veto by the President, therefore both states have a protection built in, in the Upper House. This is how Federation USA style can be used by Cypriots.

How much land for each Federal States

As I said from the beginning, there needs to be compromises made on land, if the above power sharing to work. In order for the TC’s to maintain all of their seats and 50% power in the Upper House, almost all the TC’s will need to be in the north state, and far less GC’s in the same state. If we take the present land sizes in the north and the south and kept it that way, within a short period of time, the TC’s will lose one or two Upper House seats to the GC’s if 200,000 GC’s (refugees) move to the north where their land is and where they once lived. There will be no other way to overcome this than giving most of the GC land back to them in the north. Do not forget, that being in the EU, there will be complete freedom of movement, therefore neither state will be able to prevent any citizen from living where ever they want. If the TC’s on the other hand lived almost only on their land and made that to be their state in the north, then most of the 200,000 GC refugees will be on the southern state if they returned to their properties in what is the “trnc” today. It may well be, that the north state may not all be in one piece, but in 2 or 3 pieces. Also, it is possible, that some of the GC land given back may also be in large parcels and not actually connected to the southern state. For instance, Kokkina will remain part of the northern state, but will be a separate parcel of land than the rest of the northern state. Same if the Karpaz region was returned, that it may be a separate parcel of land than the rest of the southern state. Again, compromises needs to be made. For the TC’s, they need to maintain their population in one state and land that they own, or else they will risk losing their Upper House 50% power to the GC’s, because they will also be able to vote and run for office in the state that they live in where they pay their taxes to the local government. There is no way to prevent this from happening if the TC’s do not give back substantial land back to the GC’s. I can’t stress this point enough.


Kikapu's 5 year Plan.!

After 45-50 years of problems in Cyprus, going from the past into the future with such vast differences between the RoC and the "trnc" is far beyond the saying of "Night and Day" from the economy, recognition, legality, income, infrastructure and so on. If this was a football match between the South and the North, the ball will not be placed at the centre circle of the field but at the penalty spot at the North's goal at the start of the game as the South runs forward to kick the ball towards the goal. This would be a major disadvantage for the TC's, therefore we need to bring the ball to the half way line to start the game from there, in order for the TC's to have a chance to start a New Country and be part of it as full equal citizens.

Since 1963 many TC's have left the island, as well as many GC's of course. In 1960, the population ratio difference was 4:1 in favour of the GC's, therefore, it would only be fair, if we were to start the new Federation of Cyprus with those same ratios, at 4:1, even though there are nowhere near 200,000 True TC's in the north today. I would venture to guess, we have about 120,000 True TC's. I will not include any settlers given "TC citizenships" for this discussion, since we do not know what the final outcome will be for them, despite some may be staying, but whether they will be given new citizenships of Cyprus or just a permit to stay legally remains to be seen.

What I would like to see is, that the TC's are given 5 years transitional period to "stock up" their TC numbers in the north by True TC's who are living abroad to come back. To reach the 1960's 4:1 ratio parity, the TC's would need additional 80,000 TC's to come back to Cyprus and living in the north state to be a contender to keep their 5 seats in the Upper House. It may also be possible to register eligible TC's and GC's living abroad to the north and south state respectively, so that they can vote as absentees once they have all fulfilled the required processing. With the recent passing of a bill in the RoC where Cypriots living abroad will be given voting rights, then it should make this process workable. This will add additional voters to the north and the south states. Even if many of the 80,000 needed TC's do not move back to Cyprus, they can still vote from abroad only on Federal elections, which will include President/Vice President, Lower and Upper House seats ONLY, providing of course, that they are fully registered with an address in the north state. The same for the GC's living abroad to vote in the south.

Also, for the first 5 years during the transitional period, the only GC's allowed to live in the north state and be able to vote in local, state, and Federal elections, will be the ones who's properties will be already in the 20% of the north state. Same will be for the TC's also in the south state. Only after 5 years, will any other GC's or TC's will be allowed to vote in the said elections above, even if they already moved to live in those states within the first 5 years. This is for the purpose of to get the elections started off with the majority GC's establishing their MP's and the same for the north for the TC's to establish their MP's for all the offices. This is the kind of derogations the EU will give in my opinion, just to get the new election system started in the right direction. After 5 years is up, then it will be free for all and anything goes. I believe the above can be accommodated by the EU Derogation laws for Cyprus to make a smooth transitional period.

Now lets discuss the Federal Elections process and terms in office.

The President and Vice President will serve 5 years with a possibility of another ONLY 1 more term of 5 years.

The Lower House's MP's will serve for 2 year terms with unlimited re-elections.

The Upper House's MP's will serve for 5 year terms with unlimited re-elections.

As we discussed at the top of the page regarding the Upper House seat voting concerns for the TC's, this is what I would propose. Lets say we start the new Federal Cyprus as of January 1st, 2010.

2010 Elections are held for all the offices for Federal and State governments.

The Upper House MP's in a ONE TIME ONLY election, after the 5 MP's are chosen for the north and south states, they will need to be placed in an order from 1 to 5 based on the number of votes they had received from the voters in the north and in the south. For example, the MP who got the least votes will be placed as number 1 and the MP who received the most votes, will be placed as number 5. The other 3 MP's will fall in place as numbers 2, 3 and 4 according to the number of votes they had received. What this means is, The MP's who got number 1, both in the south and the north, will ONLY serve 1 year as a Upper House senator before needing to run for re-election again. The number 2 MP's will ONLY run for 2 years as MP's before re-election and so on. The Number 5 MP's will serve their full 5 years before re-election. The purpose for this method, is to spread out the Upper House's 5 MP seats to be elected 1 per year (2 in total with 1 for the north and 1 for the south), so that the TC's in the north state can feel comfortable that their votes will not be diluted amongst all the candidates that will allow a GC candidate to get a seat easily. Although the same principles would apply in the south with the TC's, in reality, the south state will not face any challenges for their upper seats from the TC's.

Each year, the north's and south's Upper House candidates, TC's and GC's alike within each state, will go through vetting process where there will be first an election to select the candidates voted by the voters and if no one gets 50+% then have a run-off election with the top 2 finalist. If for the sake of argument that in the north state one candidate is a TC and the other a GC, and the population difference is 2:1 in TC's favour (I expect the margin to be much wider actually, 4:1 to 6:1) , a TC should get 50+% in the first round, but if he/she would not and the other candidate is a GC and votes are based on ethnic lines, then a TC should win hands down on seconds round very comfortably. In this system of voting, if approved, can guarantee the Upper House 5 seats for the first 10 years purely for the TC's, since the south will be already guaranteed for the GC's. Ten years is a long time where relationships between the north and the south will improve to a point, where we will start to see elections taking place based on political ideology and not based on ethnic lines, which is what happens in other True Democracies and True Federations. This is how the elections will look like for all the candidates and offices.

2010 elections are held for President/vice President for 5 year term.

2010 elections are held for all the 50 seats for the Lower House MP's for 2 year terms.

2010 elections are held for all the 10 seats for the Upper House MP's(special one time ONLY election to determine numbers 1 to 5 as explained above)

2010 elections are held for all the state and local offices (length of terms to be determined by individual states)

2011 elections are held for 2 Upper House MP's for 5 year term (numbers 1 from the north and south).

2012 elections are held for all 50 lower house MP's for 2 year terms.

2012 elections are held for 2 Upper House MP's for a 5 year term(numbers 2 from each state)

2013 elections are held for Upper House seats for MP's for 5 years (numbers 3 from each state)

2014 elections for all 50 Lower House MP's for 2 year term.

2014 elections for 2 Upper House MP's for 5 years (numbers 4 from south and north state)

2015 elections for President/vice President for a 5 year term.

2015 elections for 2 Upper House MP's for 5 years (numbers 5 from north and south states)................

..........and this will continue in the order of the above examples given..

Any Questions.??
User avatar
Kikapu
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 13541
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem Solution Proposals

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest