Page 2 of 4

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 12:12 am
by repulsewarrior
umit07 wrote:Repulsewarrior

You stated:

" the upper house will originate legislation, the lower house will have the power to propose amendments "

As far as I understand it the lower house will not really have any forcing power. They will only act as a body harmonising bills to be validated by the upper house.

Did I understand correctly? Please correct if necessary.

The Government and it's leadership is found in the Upper House. Committees of this house analyse the issues from which legislation is formed as Bills for debate and their consideration for passage. The real power of the Lower House lies in these committees because in each, seats are reserved for their representatives.

This will result in several benefits toward good government. Transparency of course is the first because the communication of these efforts in committee will have a voice whose objective will be to add the constituent's direct input. Secondly, it will allow for a source of civic minded people to refine themselves in preparation for duties in the Upper House as Party members that are qualified to accept its responsibilities. Thirdly, it will allow for regional representation as a group of representatives although Independent can by becoming allies increase their margins of scale in voicing the concerns of the population they represent. Fourthly, imagine a Cyprus sometime in the future where there are concentrations, in some parts of the island ethnicities not Turcophone or Grecophone. The Lower House will provide for them a voice for their special needs regardless of the Political Parties' concern.

I hope that this is more clear.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:12 am
by repulsewarrior
You seem to be trying to make the point that since the late 16th century the communities were harmoniously mixed, but my impression is that longstanding separate villages existed which contained either Greek/Christian or Turkish/Muslim inhabitants. Perhaps there were long periods of peace and harmony, but the distinctive cultural and religious differences persisted. I've heard of exceptions, and many instances of 'best friends' being from the 'other' community, but overall the communities appear to be distinct. Correct?

This is correct, but not really relevant because the dwellers until the advent of the Modern Age were isolated, and predominantly rural. Separate communities were the norm, generally speaking, even within the same village, however, the demands of their lifestyle was improved by their cooperation, and in harmonising their practice as farmers and as artisans. Only when the Greece that we know today was founded was it possible to realistically believe any dream of an enosis was tangible.

I looked for maps indicating the demographics within Cyprus in the 1960s and in 1974. This website: ... ctives.htm
indicates (i) distinctive Greek and Turkish villages in 1960, with scattering of both throughout the island, and (ii) the extent of movement of Turkish Cypriots to enclaves by 1964 (sources within this website not referenced, so not sure how authoritative they are). Can't find map for 1974. I can't understand your proposal that 'the island remain divided as it is', and yet you advocate the (re)introduction of enclaves, for the minority community within either of the two 'zones' in the bizonal arrangement. Surely there is no chance of the Greek Cypriots agreeing to your proposal, mainly I'd have thought, because there is no negotiation on land redistribution. I also worry about the concept of enclaves - to me they imply isolation and exclusion, although, of course, I recognise the need for security which can be enhanced by such an arrangement. But enclaves resist integration surely?

Land distribution has not been a point of discussion, although it is probably the most important issue to the affected. Some redistribution of the land is necessary in any case. Historically it was the desire of all the interlocutors to divide it between them. The line that exists today is eerily similar to several which were proposed before Cyprus' independence. It was TPap himself who said that it was unimaginable to consider the demographics of the island without a Turcophone population which as he described it, were cast across the island like grains of sand cast over its map. Today, there is a need to recognise the Right of Return, for both, as well as due consideration toward the Settlers. There has always been a need to allow for the self representation of people as persons, rather than individuals. There are articles in the Constitution to this effect, for example, in the administration of municipalities, that were very quickly found to be unwieldy. Enclaves, for the most part, are a solution which were used by people under threat, historically. They were a very important part of Turkish Cypriot society and they provided a direct contribution to the founding of these peoples' identity. They have the advantage of allowing for communities, isolated as they are to develop distinctive qualities, and to organise themselves for their own sustainability. Having several enclaves of different sizes in the north as well as the south will allow for the re population of the island, as well as a fairer redistribution of the land without the risk of tearing the fabric of the societies which surround them, and they will not necessarily promote integration, but they will allow for free movement and greater respect between neighbours and communities. Most importantly, I think, for either Nationality, vitality and diversity is added to their considerations within their respective National Assemblies because there will be a number of competing forces which will seek to draw its attention. The sustainability of each as a culture is also promoted because it will be enriched for the same reasons.

To be more clear I hope, a "Zone", for which a National Assembly will have Jurisdiction, will comprise of its "Part" less the enclaves which pocket it, having the enclaves within its counterpart's "Part" as its own.

I think I get your three vote system, the idea being that each voter has a say in the representatives for the other community as well as their own, in additional to a vote towards the Cyprus national government. Sounds reasonable, but is it workable? Is a similar model used elsewhere?

I am no expert, but do the math and extrapolate. You will see that this system of voting will assure that both cultures can remain relevant and useful to the Cypriot population, even if the demographics are completely reversed, which in the long run is a distinct possibility.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:01 am
by umit07
Repulsewarrior I don't think GC's can ever accept an agreement based on the terms you stated, as far as I understand all the politicians are only trying to disolve TC's into the existing structure of the RoC. I think this sort of representation in Gov. would be very good for TC's but as I said GC's would never agree to it. I don't know how frequently you visit cyprus, but do you think such a system is acceptable for GC's?

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 3:47 pm
by kurupetos
Advice: Don't waste your time with CY prob.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 4:49 pm
by repulsewarrior
...yes umit07,I agree with you. And in the practical terms of realpolitik 'they' are right. Turkish Cypriots would hold a significant amount of power in a Unitary State, as a minority. However, there are the lives of over 200,000 people which need to be adressed with a recognition of their Right of Return, Turcophone and Grecophone, from the 60's and the 70's. If Makarios had insisted on ENOSIS in 1959, and agreed with the interlocutors, we would have had then what we have today, this siland divided in two. Frankly, I shudder to think what might have happened if Greece and Turkey had fought their wars directly on this island, rather than by proxy.

Umit07, although it is our opinion that the GC would find this proposal unacceptable, (at this moment), what would the TCs think of it?

More importantly, what is right?

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 4:54 pm
by repulsewarrior
kurupetos wrote:Advice: Don't waste your time with CY prob.

...I would like to know what you think is viable, equitable, and efficient, as a form of Government which will as a result leave us united?

may I ask if you are old enough to remember when this impasse, (dating from 1963) did not exist?

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:36 pm
by umit07

When we go back and look at how the RoC was founded it was on the basis of political equality between TC's and GC's the side to balme for the for this not working are GC's they refused to honor the "Zurich Agreements" that founded the RoC. While GC's were using the excuse that we are all Cypriots, and that is was wrong to discriminate between it's subjects at the same time they were trying to unify the isalnd with Greece. What GC's are doing is using the RoC which I consider "dead" as a tool against us, as long as this goes on TC's will never abandon their TRNC. As I see it you are trying to take emphasize on the practical side of things instead of political, like refugees returning. We are not in 75 anymore, 34 years have past and god knows another 34 years will. Looking at the problem of GC refugees if a 20 years more passes by I think it will be impossible for a great majority to go back, the original owners would all have had passed away. A single property would have many inheritors, buildings on GC property would have reached a stage when getting anything back would be a dream.

In the end they triggered Turkey's response. Iwould like to point out that Turkey could have intervened from 1963 bt instead thet waited 11 years when thing got completely out of hand. I think if Turkey had intervened earlier maybe things wouldn't have escalated to the situation we are in today.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:24 pm
by repulsewarrior
... yes, practical, and just, is my aim, but futuristic as well. (think about it outside the context of our past as adversaries, as "Greeks" and "Turks" exclusively; think about it as an opportunity to create an existence which moves all of us as people above this thinking, as stewards of the island firstly, and the heritance we must nurture of importance to all Mankind)

We cannot deny that if we as Cypriots wish to demonstrate ourselves as an inclusive people which respect Human Rights and who are working for their betterment, that a change must be enacted that serves this need.

As such, this proposal is a reflection of what Bicommunal and Bizonal means in a context that can be emulated by others. The perfection that many "GC"s and "TC"s advocate today does not address our needs as members of Humanity. Rather, it serves a selfish concern for their own needs, which as a result denies any reconcilliation toward the brutality which resulted from this behaviour.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:30 pm
by repulsewarrior
...precisely because it respects the principals of the Constitution (of 1960), is this proposal valid and worth consideration.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:44 pm
by umit07
Well repulsewarrior I hope more GC's start thinking in the same way.

How do you think this reconciliation can be achieved, I for one think that we should all face history first and taste the truth whether bitter or sweet first, than can we move on and understand each others needs.