turkcyp wrote:OK, then. IF we had to choose between federation and equality, I would choose equality.
So the proposal made in this thread is for you "tolerable"?
turkcyp wrote:I think when Makarios and Denktas agreed on BBF in 1976, they both thought that they were taking that BF into a higher level. The problem was that TCs thought that they would just take whatever existed and add bi-zonality on it. On the other hands GCs thought that they would simply turn BF from on to another BF (from bi-communal federation to bi-zonal federation). Otherwise they would not keep on insisting still on return of all refuges which means bi-zonal federation but not a bi-communal one.
I see Annan Plan as a compromise between these two versions of BBF, one envisioned by GCs and one envisioned by TCs.
I think this is a point I have made before, but I will make it again now. Ever since 1977, the GC side's thesis has been that even if all entitled GC refugees return under TC adminstration, and assuming that significant territory is returned under GC adminstration, then TCs would still be the numerical majority in the TCCS.
(200,000 total refugees, 120,000 returning under GC administration, 80,000 returning under TC administration, 140,000 TCs, therefore 65% of TCCS citizens will be TC)So, no, the GC thesis has always been for a bizonal-bicommunal federation, while the Denktash thesis has always been for a confederation of two ethnically pure and sovereign states. Denktash never wanted ANY GC refugees to return under TC administration. Of course, with the current TC leadership, I am sure a different negotiating policy will prevail.
turkcyp wrote:When I desire small government, there are two reasons for it. One is as you have mentioned is the cost. The other and more important for me is to bring level of government and administration closer to the people. This is why I vehemently support decentralization away from federal and state government to local levels. The lower you go the more participation you get from society in managing themselves the more close we get to true democracy (direct democracy.)
Yes, this is why federal systems tend to be more effective than unitary systems, especially in large countries (take USA, Germany, Canada, Australia). However, when it comes to local government, you should also take note of the fact that local government elections tend to be "low-profile contests", receiving much less public attention, and candidates of much lower caliber, than national elections. Thus it is arguable if decentralisation to the level of local government leads to better representation and more direct democracy.
turkcyp wrote:p.s. I really enjoy discussing with you.
Same here