The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


A revised Plan: What would you vote?

Propose and discuss specific solutions to aspects of the Cyprus Problem

If this plan was put to referendum tomorrow, what would you vote?

I am a GC and I would vote Yes
6
29%
I am a GC and I would vote No
6
29%
I am a TC and I would vote Yes
1
5%
I am a TC and I would vote No
8
38%
 
Total votes : 21

Postby Bananiot » Sun Jul 10, 2005 12:21 pm

Statistics, as you know Alexandros, are like a bikini. What it shows is very important but what it hides is vital. I should like to make an attempt to "explain" some of the findings.

My view on this - founded mostly on empirical data - is that leaders in the GC community have a great sway over voters, and voters are far more loyal to their parties than they should be, but when it comes to the Cyprus Problem most people tend to have a mind of their own. For instance, I know from my first survey that there was very little correlation between attitudes to Annan Plan and party allegiance (at least as far as the four large parties are concerned). Furthermore, the correlation between party allegiance and vote at the referendum was also quite weak - a majority of DISY voters still voted No, about a quarter of AKEL voters still voted Yes, about 15% of DIKO and EDEK voters still voted Yes. Political influence in this respect is limited.


I think your reference to the Cyprus problem should be specific, that is, it is not merely the Cyprus problem that mattered, but a specific plan that could have lead to solution. Had you conducted your survey prior to the submission of the Plan, you would have probably found different results with good correlation between party allegiance and personal stance on the Cyprob. Of course, the situation became very messy and confused during the period prior to the referendum and in the emotionally charged atmosphere strange things happened, not only at a personal level but also at a party level. Take the example of AKEL where the party behaved in a peculiar way to say the least. Your next paragraph addresses the above.

On the contrary, I would say that, on the issue of the Cyprus Problem, it is the politicians that tend to fear and obey the public, not the other way round. When AKEL sensed that the public mood was against the plan, it no longer dared to support it fearing an "electoral punishment" by its voters. As an example, many politicians would like to accept compromises on the issue of property / residence rights, based on the "pragmatic thinking" that very few people would choose to return anyway, but they don't dare to proceed along this path because they fear a public backlash.


I am not sure that your analysis is correct. AKEL did nothing for a year and a half to prepare its faithful and indeed the Cypriot people in general for the eventuality of the referendum. AKEL watched the "OXI" bigots organise meetings and rallies and take over the tv stations that became the flagships of the "OXI" campaign. AKEL did nothing to answer the lies spread by the President and his close associates that daily daemonised the plan. Of course, this was not a mistake by AKEL. Its leadership had already agreed to go along with Papadopoulos and Christofias was sporadically showing the carrot to the "YES" Akelites. He knew all along that he could control them quite nicely after the referendum. Two months ago they duly agreed to punish themselves during a CC plenary session! In stalinist parties this is called self criticism. Thus, public mood (members and sympathisers of AKEL) did not turn against the proposed solution overnight but it did so after a carefully orchestrated campaign which was more than obvious in the party mouthpiece "Haravgi". Thus, such an unprecedented deviation from the party line of AKEL may be expected given the fact that AKEL did its utmost to confuse its members, supporters and friends. Regarding the other parties, I feel the referendum acted in a cathartic manner. Hopefully now the party legacy is more genuine and eventually all will find their way into the party they really belong.

The effect of politicians, over public perceptions regarding the Cyprus Problem, only works in the long term - over a period of decades. This is why TCs don't care about the right of return whereas GCs do. It has to do with the rhetoric that each side has been hearing. These attitudes, however, cannot be changed over a period of months by "very convincing politicians" - they are too deeply ingrained now.


Isn't it true that from the late 70's the GC community has been hearing about the only solution that could be achieved to be a bicommunal, bizonal federation? In fact only one marginal party that came to existence a few years ago questioned the kind of solution we were pursuing. One would expect that 30 years of talk for this particular type of solution would have been enough to even create a kind of conditioned reflex for this solution. Yet, everything turned round when a single but very important parameter changed. Accession to the EU just a week after decision day proved the catalyst that easily reversed conventional wisdom. Coupled with the promise that a better solution, a European one, was up for grabs, if we could be patient for just another 7 days, this saw the overturning of years of patient policy building.

Concerning the most recent survey, I would say that on the GC side the results were quite definitive: The GC public knows exactly how they would like to see the Annan Plan changed. A politician may choose to ignore the public's views at his peril. On the TC side, in contrast, perhaps because there has been little talk of "changing the Annan Plan", opinions are far less well defined, and I suspect that much would change once these issues enter the sphere of public debate. For instance, on the provision which "killed" my proposal: No limits to residence but separate voting. Once the proposal starts being discussed on the TC side, many will begin to argue that such a provision would threaten bizonality, and therefore, since the argument would tap into deeply ingrained fears and insecurities, we can expect many people to swing from being in favour to being opposed.


I should like to persist with my original point. Public opinion is very much shaped by the parties. In this case public opinion was shaped by DIKO, AKEL, EDEK, NEO and the splinter group of DISI. Anastasiades took a huge risk and put his political career on line by his brave decision to go against the grain. Yet, this is what makes a real leader. Those that are led by the people are puppets. Real leaders lead and are never lead.
User avatar
Bananiot
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 6397
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 10:51 pm
Location: Nicosia

Postby Alexandros Lordos » Sun Jul 10, 2005 1:27 pm

Bananiot, I think you are being unfairly harsh on the Greek Cypriots.

Let's not forget that the Annan Plan was not just a Bizonal Bicommunal Federation - which BBF Greek Cypriots have a conditioned reflex to tolerate as a necessary compromise - but rather, it was a BBF with all sorts of other features which GCs have a conditioned reflex to reject at all costs:

- Intervention rights by Turkey
- Most Settlers would stay
- Unnnecessarily harsh restrictions to establishing residence in the other constituent state.

And various others as well.

So, if you combine BBF, which is already a hard sell in itself, with all these features, giving you the Annan Plan, then you can see why the Yes campaign had such an impossible task in front of it. Not even the best salesman can sell a product that is as flawed - in the eyes of the consumers at least - as the Annan Plan was. You can't ignore the reality of the plan itself, relegating the No to nothing more than a well orchestrated conspiracy by "fanatical GC politicians".
Alexandros Lordos
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:41 pm

Postby Bananiot » Sun Jul 10, 2005 4:02 pm

I agree with you that the particular plan was not ideal but I would like to ask you, do you sincerely believe that Papadopoulos and his close associates would consider bizonal, bicommunal federation even if the three points you mentioned were improved? These people are strongly against BBF and they have said it on numerous occasions, especially prior to the submission of the Plan, when there was no cost. I have been reading old issues of "Kirykas" newspaper recently and I have not seen one single line written by the President in support of BBF and believe me, he has written plenty of articles. Hence, what is there to prevent me from believing those that criticise the President that he deliberately not negotiated to better the Annan Plans, so that he could easily talk to GC of rejection? His target was not the particular plan but BBF itself.

Let me also remind you that those that opposed BBF in the GC community were so afraid that our community will accept the proposed solution that they made it known that they would ask for a reinforced majority from the Parliament so that a vote of about 75% would be needed to carry the referendum. Also, when a plan is rejected then one needs to dwell on the alternatives. The President promised a better, european so called solution. The opposition talked about partition as the alternative to the A plan. Almost a year and a half later, what is your gut feeling about this?
User avatar
Bananiot
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 6397
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 10:51 pm
Location: Nicosia

Postby Alexandros Lordos » Sun Jul 10, 2005 5:05 pm

Bananiot wrote:I agree with you that the particular plan was not ideal but I would like to ask you, do you sincerely believe that Papadopoulos and his close associates would consider bizonal, bicommunal federation even if the three points you mentioned were improved?


I know for a fact that the president's close associates are very busy at the moment developing detailed proposals, based on the BBF model, and with the Annan Plan as a point of reference. I have spoken with all of them in person over the last few weeks, and from no one did I get the impression that the BBF model is to be rejected.

Even so, I think we should put aside the whole question of what it is that Tassos wants, or doesn't want, and instead focus on what it is that WE want, as the people of Cyprus. If Tassos is indeed as bad as you consider him to be (a view that I personally do not share), then the only way to by-pass him is by creating a strong popular current in favour of a realistic re-unification - this is how the TCs got rid of Denktash. Such a current will only develop when each of us gets to think by himself, and decide what it is that to him matters most. So, coming to you, are YOU willing to accept the Annan Plan as it is, or do you intend to fight for some critical improvements?


Bananiot wrote:Almost a year and a half later, what is your gut feeling about this?


I think the report by Kieren Prendergast has shown the way ahead - "each side must struggle for a "Yes", not just from its own community, but from the other also". This message is now sinking in at a political party level, AKEL and CTP are beginning intensive unofficial negotiations to see if common ground can be found, so, my gut feeling is that we are on the right track.

In fact, I think the referendums last year acted in a cathartic manner. Everyone now acknowledges the need for a solution that the people of both sides can approve of, and a new, more respectful dynamic is gradually developing. In contrast, the process leading up to the Annan Plan was based on deceit and on threats, while popular legitimisation was seen as an obstacle to be overcome rather than as a target to be attained.
Alexandros Lordos
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:41 pm

Postby Viewpoint » Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:08 pm

Have to say Alex you are very optimistic about us being on the right track, what can you see in the south that we cannot see in the north?? There is absoulutely no common ground to restart talks as Kieren Prendergast stated we are still to far apart for there to be any hope of a resumption of talks. We will still be talking about the same subjects well into the foreseable future.
The 3rd of October is the key date for Papadops waiting game and we will squeeze what we want out of you policy via the EU. Nothing will happen in the interim lots of talk no action.
User avatar
Viewpoint
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25214
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Nicosia/Lefkosa

Postby Bananiot » Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:16 pm

Alexandros wrote

I know for a fact that the president's close associates are very busy at the moment developing detailed proposals, based on the BBF model, and with the Annan Plan as a point of reference. I have spoken with all of them in person over the last few weeks, and from no one did I get the impression that the BBF model is to be rejected.


Frankly speaking I do not believe the above and also your effort to add legitimacy to the above by pointing out that you know personally all the associates of the President is rather unfortunate. We shall have to wait and see but Sir kieren's report speaks out loudly of the huge gap that exists and the refusal of Papadopoulos to prioritise his changes which are numerous and stand no chance of being accepted by the other side or indeed by the UN that will eventually decide if there is ground for another round of negotiations. Papadopoulos and the spokesman tried frantically all this week to prove that there is an ongoing initiative but when they were challenged they said that the initiative was on behalf of the President only. Is there anyone in the international scene that will take him seriously when he comes up ith 40 or so substantial changes to the plan? Won't everybody think that there is a man who does not want a solution? Isn't this the best way to kill any hope for a future solution? You may ask me where i found this number of 40; well, I have my inside info too.

Even so, I think we should put aside the whole question of what it is that Tassos wants, or doesn't want, and instead focus on what it is that WE want, as the people of Cyprus. If Tassos is indeed as bad as you consider him to be (a view that I personally do not share), then the only way to by-pass him is by creating a strong popular current in favour of a realistic re-unification - this is how the TCs got rid of Denktash. Such a current will only develop when each of us gets to think by himself, and decide what it is that to him matters most. So, coming to you, are YOU willing to accept the Annan Plan as it is, or do you intend to fight for some critical improvements?


I feel that eventually we will be begging for the plan to be accepted as it is, unless we are satisfied with partition. I think 25% or so of the GC community prefer partition to a BBF solution, correct me if I am wrong. The plan should never be jeopardised by opening chapters that question its philosophy. Minor changes, like those asked by AKEL prior to the referendum may be discussed, but nothing more. Here I am just being pragmatic since the concern of the other side must be taken into consideration. I find the question "do you accept the plan as it is" very disturbing since many people ask it in order to prove a point. I remind you that 24% of the GC community accepted it as it is in the referendum and duly earned the title of traitor by the President. The President who is now prone to making many public blanders but fails to admit them. Have you heard the latest one involving the prominent musician Solon Michaelides whom the President declared to be his teacher at high school despite the fact that he never met him in person?

I think the report by Kieren Prendergast has shown the way ahead - "each side must struggle for a "Yes", not just from its own community, but from the other also". This message is now sinking in at a political party level, AKEL and CTP are beginning intensive unofficial negotiations to see if common ground can be found, so, my gut feeling is that we are on the right track.


So what if these unofficial negotiations prove that there is zero chance for common ground? This is the most likely outcome of these meetings and the culprit for this will be the maximalist asks of the GC community.

In fact, I think the referendums last year acted in a cathartic manner. Everyone now acknowledges the need for a solution that the people of both sides can approve of, and a new, more respectful dynamic is gradually developing. In contrast, the process leading up to the Annan Plan was based on deceit and on threats, while popular legitimisation was seen as an obstacle to be overcome rather than as a target to be attained.


You will need to convince everyone that a new dynamic is developing. I see stalemate everywhere and consolidation of partition. Greece and Turkey are moving their way, the TC's are paving their own path because they need to move ahead and the GC's are gradually led to believe that partition is the next best solution.
User avatar
Bananiot
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 6397
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 10:51 pm
Location: Nicosia

Postby Othellos » Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:44 pm

Alexandros wrote:
........ I know for a fact that the president's close associates are very busy at the moment developing detailed proposals, based on the BBF model, and with the Annan Plan as a point of reference. I have spoken with all of them in person over the last few weeks, and from no one did I get the impression that the BBF model is to be rejected.


I am afraid that I am not that optimistic about all this either. Had Papadopoulos been serious about all these then his proposals that you claim being under construction at present would have been prepared a long time ago and preferably before the referendum. But a whole year has passed since then and nothing is moving at all. We are at a complete stalemate, heading for permanent partition.

But even if there is going to be a new series of talks, then surely we will not be negotiating alone in them. So even if what u say is true about new proposals being under construction as we speak, this does not mean that any such proposals will be accepted by the Turkish side who will also have their own demands. After all, Turkey is in no hurry to solve the problem anymore.

Unfortunately for all of us, the chance was missed when Papadopoulos appeared unwilling and unprepared to negotiate a better (and thus more acceptable) plan for us in Switzerland. So what makes u so sure that he will be able to negotiate a better deal in the future, even if he wants to do so? And yes, how much can one expect out of a President who labels part of the country's people "traitors" just because they disagree with him?

O.
Othellos
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 6:52 pm

Postby Piratis » Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:52 pm

Bananiot, I have one question for you:

Today you argue (and maybe you are right) that we have to choose between Annan plan or partition. Lets assume this is true.

Now fast forward 15-20 years from now and assume that a new "new order" exists in which the balance of power that today favors Turkey is reversed.

What do you think Greece and GCs are going to do?

Personally I think that a bad unfair "solution" is not the solution. It is simply part of the problem. It will not bring peace, and in the long run it will not stop new disasters from happening.

The only solution will be the one that will make all Cypriots equal regardless of race and will make all Cypriots having common interests.
The "solutions" they propose to us will simply continue the vendetta and the conflict between the two communities and will bring even more disasters in the future.

the question I made above can have 2 answers:

1) Do nothing.
But this is highly unlikely. When you have the power, why should you accept to be second category citizen with just 1/4th voting power? Why should you accept even partly the results of the ethnic cleansing that the "others" caused to you?

2) When/if we get the power we will make what we want. For now we should accept what we can get.
This might be OK for some, and this is probably what will happen if we accept the Annan plan, but personally I don't like it. When we sign a deal I want it to be a deal that will create a normal country based on principles of democracy, human rights etc. Not something undemocratic and against human rights that we accepted only because we were forced to accept and we will just be waiting for the right time to change it.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby Alexandros Lordos » Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:02 pm

Viewpoint wrote:Have to say Alex you are very optimistic about us being on the right track, what can you see in the south that we cannot see in the north?? There is absoulutely no common ground to restart talks as Kieren Prendergast stated we are still to far apart for there to be any hope of a resumption of talks.


Yes, the stated positions of the two sides are too far apart at the moment, but for Prendergast - if you've read his report - this is clearly a challenge to gradually work through, not an insurmountable obstacle. This is what he has now asked the two sides to do: "Before negotiations can be resumed, you have to unofficially work with each other in order to bridge some of this gap". That was his message. The very next week, AKEL and CTP start intensive discussions, obviously heeding Prendegast's request. All this, to me, are signs of a new development.
Alexandros Lordos
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:41 pm

Postby Alexandros Lordos » Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:20 pm

Bananiot, I'll repeat my question: Are you content to accept Turkish intervention rights, most settlers to remain, and severe limitations to the right of GCs to relocate in the north? Are you also content to accept that GCs should pay for their own compensation-for-loss-of-use, and that more generally they will receive compensation for their homes in shares rather than cash (having in mind the XAK experience)? Are you happy that the various treaties which Turkey has signed with the "TRNC", to bring about a closer integration of the north with Turkey, will still apply after the settlement? And are you so convinced that all this package of proposals would have led to the re-unification of Cyprus, and not to its partition? Yes, perhaps my question is trying to prove a point, but can you deny this point?

As for the 40 changes which Tassos wants, according to your inside information which I respect fully, have you considered what these 40 items might be? Knowing the mentality of Tassos and his team, I will make a bet that about 30 of them are changes of a technical nature, having to do with the functioning of the central bank, administrative procedure etc. Only about 10, most probably, deal with questions of substance regarding troops, properties, settlers, power sharing. Is it wrong that the GC side has studied the 20,000 pages of the Annan Plan in detail, and that it has discovered 30 or 40 points that, accroding to them, need to be re-examined?
Alexandros Lordos
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem Solution Proposals

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest