Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

Which one do you prefer, under the known circumstances in a united Cyprus?

[Piratis]

One man one vote IS political equality.

If one man from race X has more votes than another man from race Y then this is political inequality.

So the answer to your poll is both because both mean the same thing.

[insan]

One man one vote IS political equality.

Hmm, that's how the majority of Hellenes together with their Hellenic Ruling Elite understand the political equality of two communities. I think they confuse political equality of individuals and two ethnically and retrospectively distinct communities which have deeply divided...

Does anyone agree with Piratis?

[Alexandros Lordos]

Insan,

I hope your poll here convinces you that GCs are not out to get your political equality, after all ...

[insan]

Insan,

I hope your poll here convinces you that GCs are not out to get your political equality, after all ...

But if all GCs and Greeks consider the issue like how Piratis interpreted; means that there's a misunderstanding here... It would be better to ask the question e.g "Are you agree with the political equality that was envisaged in Annan Plan?"

Telling me both are the same then choosing the first one doesn't give me correct data.

Are you agree with Piratis that both are same?

[Alexandros Lordos]

Insan, I think you should indeed make it clearer, something like "Political Equality of the two communities at the Federal Senate" Vs "Proportional Representation of all Cypriots at the Federal Senate". That way, there will be no misunderstandings.

Also, it will be good if you conduct two separate polls, one for GCs and one for TCs. The answers would be revealing ...

[insan]

I agree with you, Alexandros.

[pantelis]

Insan and Alexandre,

As far as I am concerned, the phrase "political equality" is misunderstood.

The most you can get from society is “equality before the law” and the right to vote for some form of “equal” representation.

What does the term "political equality" mean?

In my opinion, it means two different things, when you ask the two parts that make up the political process. Which are these parts? They are not the GCs and the TCs, for sure.

You have the GOVERNMENT (including the party leaders) on the one side and the GOVERNED (the voters), on the other side.

When you have an oppressive political system, (dictatorship, Theocracy), there is no interaction between the two sides. You have "action", only from the “GOVERNMENT”.

In Democratic systems, the Governed get the chance to "chose" with their votes the GOVERNMENT. Does this mean that all voters are politically equal after the election process is over? I don't think so.

For the voters, the soon to be GOVERNED, the key word during the election process, is TRUST. When they cast their votes, they declare which candidate(s) or party they trust them most. Their role is over, immediately after the elections.

For the politicians/candidates after the GOVERNMENT posts, the key word is "POWER", (“Trust” is not of their vocabulary) . Political power, as we know it, gives a lot of advantages to the politicians, but provides no real advantage between different groups of the general public (except than the satisfaction to the fanatics, that their “football team” , won the “Cup”. In a democratic society where all are equal before the laws, where favoritism is not a factor, all citizens should be treated equally, regardless of who is in power.

As I said, the majority of the people vote for the party they “think” they trust the most. In most cases, the people have little or no power to choose the leaders/representatives nominated by the parties. In many cases, the people do have the freedom, or time or brains, to decide who can best represent their interests. The mass media do the thinking for them. Free press and freedom of expression is a very important factor, which also has a price tag. This is done by the party "patrons" and the party "insiders". These patrons and insiders, are the most fanatic supporters of the party, because it is this group which make up the party "Elite" and the ones who have the most to gain from success in the elections. In the US, the party patrons have no loyalty to any particular party, nor they care about the public interest. They support all choices and bet on all “horses” (that is why they don't have more than two per race – to increase their chances for winning with only two very similar political parties).

What happens in Cyprus?

I left Cyprus when I was only 20, so I don't have much first-hand experience. What I think happens, is that the patrons express their greatest support to the elected Governments, after the fact (after the election), thus they get to maintain their "special" privileges and arrangements, without much risk, since there are too many parties to follow.

The more democratic the system is, in a country, the less the negative effect of the government on the freedoms and rights of the common citizen is. If the laws apply equally to all, then they affect everyone the same. The more corrupt the system becomes, the more negative effect it could have on the lives of the many.

There is corruption in all political systems, both within and outside Cyprus, right now. The subject of discussion shouldn't be which of the two communities in Cyprus should have what level of political power. Political power is something that is handled or miss-handled by the politicians and the ELITE, the ones who have the biggest influence on the politicians. We all know that there is no politician without a price tag.
What I would worry about, is surrendering too much power to the politicians in general, not what proportion of the power should the Turkish Cypriot or the Greek Cypriot politicians should have.

I think we are misguided (guess by whom?) and divided in this debate of "political equality". What is the measurement of this "equality"? Is it not "power".
What is the meaning of this power? Is this "power" in the hands the common people? Do we have enough say in the everyday use of this "power"? Should we relax if we see more of this power in the hands of Turkish Cypriot versus to a Greek Cypriot politician? Is one more trustworthy than the other? Should we settle in importing some foreign prince (remember “foreign judges”) and crown him our KING, because we don't trust each other? Or should we concentrate to have laws and a constitution with real “checks and balances” that limit the abuse of political power and protect basic human rights, regardless of the ethnic background or religion of the ones in the government chairs and courts?
We need a political system that is based on plain "moralistic trust".

A body of legislators at the federal level, endorsed and elected by votes from both communities, would create the initial level of "trust", so desperately needed between the two communities, in order to begin to think and live as a single community.

Some food for thought.

Also, this is an interesting study.
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/uslaner/us ... erence.doc

Strategic trust cannot answer why people get involved in their communities. The linkage with moralistic trust is much more straightforward. Strategic trust can only lead to cooperation among people you have gotten to know, so it can only resolve problems of trust among small numbers of people. We need moralistic trust to get to civic engagement and to other benefits of faith in others. Moralistic trust is important for the knowledge-based society: It leads to greater tolerance for groups that have historically faced discrimination. It leads to more tolerant attitudes toward immigrants–and to greater support for open markets. And beyond people’s attitudes, moralistic trust has consequences for public policy: Nations that rank higher on trust have more open economies, higher rates of economic growth, better functioning governments, less corruption, and are more likely to have activist governments. Trusting nations prosper because they are the forefront of globalization. They are the pioneers in the knowledge-based economy.
Trust is generally considered to be part of a larger concept of “social capital.” Social capital has been defined to include trust, norms of reciprocity, and networks of civic engagement (Putnam, 1993, 180). Each of the components of social capital is said to produce cooperation within society. I have argued that trust does indeed lead to greater cooperation. However, membership in voluntary associations (the most widely used measure of networks of civic engagement) do not promote cooperation and economic growth in the same way as trust.

[BigDutch]

One man one vote IS political equality.

Does anyone agree with Piratis?

Yes. One man, one vote is democracy.

Political Equality is a wide phrase and when you refer to communities being equal then "political equality" of the communities doesn't make political equality of each man. If you say political equality before the law then i also agree with that.

I would hope that a "solution" in Cyprus would give the following :

Each man is treated the same, regardless of community.
Each man has the same rights, regardless of community.
Each man has one vote, regardless of community.

[magikthrill]

I would hope that a "solution" in Cyprus would give the following :

Each man is treated the same, regardless of community.
Each man has the same rights, regardless of community.
Each man has one vote, regardless of community.

I think everyone would like to see that Big Dutch...