Cyprus-Forum.com

Dear Alex,

What do you think about these initial suffestions I have made in my first post.

a) For Annan plan the changes I want,
- The duties of federal government should be identified in detail and whatever is left behind should be left to states.
- Presidential council should not be chosen by the parliament but by the individual states on state-wide ballots.
- Senators should be reduced from 48 to lower and lower level parliament should be increased from 48 to higher.
- - At the senate level special majority voting should require at least half of each constituent state instead of (2/5). This guarantees (theoretically at least) that at least half of each state agrees to decisions.
- Every state should decide how they select their individual representatives at the national level, (or senate, congress or presidential council)
- Federal contribution to each state should be on the basis for taxes collected from each state, and each state should have the right to impose its own taxes (next to Federal taxes) in its own territory to supplement that income coming from Federal level. ( I think those in GC complaining about inequality in cost sharing should love this)

Take care,

Turkcyp,

turkcyp wrote:- The duties of federal government should be identified in detail and whatever is left behind should be left to states.

I suppose the key phrase here is "in detail', otherwise there is already a clear identification of jurisdictional authority in the Annan Plan. What I would like to see is the implementation of such criteria for the distribution of responsibilities, as would make the TCs living in the South and the GCs living in the north secure in the knowledge that the Federal Government (which includes people of their own ethnicity) is watching over them.

turkcyp wrote:- Presidential council should not be chosen by the parliament but by the individual states on state-wide ballots.

I certainly agree that the Presidential Council should not be chosen by parliament, that's a recipe for disaster as we would end up having elections every few months ...

However, I would strongly disagree if the Presidential Council was elected in separate ballots, ie Turkish Cypriots to vote for the two TC members and GCs to vote for the four GC members. This way, we would end up with a Presidential Council of antagonists and even possibly extremists, and given that each side will also have veto power the government would be permanently deadlocked. In fact, I consider this issue to be so serious, I would almost certainly vote No to a revised plan if an amendment was made through which the members of the Presidential Council would be elected separately.

I believe that the Presidential Council should be elected by all Cypriots, with the whole Council running under a unified ballot, in a similar way as the election of the US President. Each constituent state will have its electors, who will make up the electoral college which elects the Presisential Council. Each constituent state will have electors according to population, but with a lowest limit (25% or 30%) to ensure that the public opinion of both states is taken seriously during campaigning. In this way, Turkish Cypriots will be voting for a unified ballot of GCs and TCs, and similarly Greek Cypriots will be voting for a unified ballot of GCs and TCs ...and this will gradually help us to develop a unified political culture at the federal level, something which I consider of cardinal importance for smooth functioning.

turkcyp wrote:- Senators should be reduced from 48 to lower and lower level parliament should be increased from 48 to higher.

I don't have a problem with this, but I don't see why it is important either. Please enlighten me.

turkcyp wrote:- - At the senate level special majority voting should require at least half of each constituent state instead of (2/5). This guarantees (theoretically at least) that at least half of each state agrees to decisions.

Hmm ... aren't you sufficiently protected from abuses of simple majority rule with 40% special majority quota? Let's not forget that these quotas are extra-ordinary measures to protect you from abuse, rather than regular rights within a Federal framework.

turkcyp wrote:- Every state should decide how they select their individual representatives at the national level, (or senate, congress or presidential council)

Again, I am in favor of a political culture that is unified as far as possible. I want to see elections on the state level happening on the same day all over Cyprus, so that we all swing into and out of election rhythm at the same time ... if you get one state holding statewide elctions in 2008, and the other one in 2010, then co-operation between them will be hampered by the fact that at any one time either the one or the other will be on the run up to elections.

turkcyp wrote:- Federal contribution to each state should be on the basis for taxes collected from each state, and each state should have the right to impose its own taxes (next to Federal taxes) in its own territory to supplement that income coming from Federal level. ( I think those in GC complaining about inequality in cost sharing should love this)

According to the Annan Plan, all direct taxes (income, inheritance etc.) will be collected by the constituent state and all indirect taxes (customs duties, VAT etc.) will be collected by the Federal Government. Are you saying that the amount of VAT returned should be proportional to the amount of VAT collected? I can perhaps tolerate this, it will be popular with Greek Cypriots, though I personally believe it is a bad idea insofar as it would not help to balance the standard of living of the two states. Are you then saying that to make up for any shortage each constituent state should levy its own taxes? Well, it already has that power, I think, since direct taxes are constituent state responsibility. But I think if we end up with this "improvement" because of the stingy attitude of my fellow Greek Cypriots, it will be detrimental to the Cypriot economy, as the TC state may end up having to raise income taxes and corporate taxes to an extent where investment and demand will be squashed.

Personally, I think it is better if the plan is "made economically more fair" only in the relatively painless aspect of running costs of the Federal Government - a way should be found so that each state pays for its own people, otherwise the GCs will feel that insult is added to injury - "not only do the TCs get political equality, but we also pay so that they can have the same number of ambassadors as us." But this fairness principle should not extend to the contribution which the Federal Government makes to the constituent state in the form of VAT, because this will have serious macroeconomic implications.

First of all I want to say that, most of these recommendations reflects my belief about democratic electoral process in general but not the issues specifically relating to Cyprus, with the exception of choosing the council on separate ballots.

Having said that,

Alexandros Lordos wrote:I suppose the key phrase here is "in detail', otherwise there is already a clear identification of jurisdictional authority in the Annan Plan. What I would like to see is the implementation of such criteria for the distribution of responsibilities, as would make the TCs living in the South and the GCs living in the north secure in the knowledge that the Federal Government (which includes people of their own ethnicity) is watching over them.

Yes the key point is “in detail”. Any vague agreement will cause us more headache in the future.

I certainly agree that the Presidential Council should not be chosen by parliament, that's a recipe for disaster as we would end up having elections every few months ... .

No problem here.

However, I would strongly disagree if the Presidential Council was elected in separate ballots, ie Turkish Cypriots to vote for the two TC members and GCs to vote for the four GC members. This way, we would end up with a Presidential Council of antagonists and even possibly extremists, and given that each side will also have veto power the government would be permanently deadlocked. In fact, I consider this issue to be so serious, I would almost certainly vote No to a revised plan if an amendment was made through which the members of the Presidential Council would be elected separately.

I believe that the Presidential Council should be elected by all Cypriots, with the whole Council running under a unified ballot, in a similar way as the election of the US President. Each constituent state will have its electors, who will make up the electoral college which elects the Presisential Council. Each constituent state will have electors according to population, but with a lowest limit (25% or 30%) to ensure that the public opinion of both states is taken seriously during campaigning. In this way, Turkish Cypriots will be voting for a unified ballot of GCs and TCs, and similarly Greek Cypriots will be voting for a unified ballot of GCs and TCs ...and this will gradually help us to develop a unified political culture at the federal level, something which I consider of cardinal importance for smooth functioning.

I totally understand your fear of choosing antagonists and extremists in the council.

But let me be frank with you. I think this is important for me because if we choose TCs and GCs on the same ballot, with a universal vote, then the possibility of TCs real opinions being diluted in the presidential council will be very high. The most extreme left portions of TC society that probably would care about finding a compromise more than representing TC views will have a chance of being elected. For example, in the current politics, a name like Alpay Durduran which does not get more than %2 of TC vote is probably will be chosen, but a person like Dervis Eroglu who always get around %30 will not be elected.

A council like this will not be true representative of TC opinions.

So in order to accommodate your fear and my fear let me suggest some alternatives.

1) The system I have proposed will be in place for a temporary period of time. Lets say 5 years. And will be reevaluated at the end of 5 years to decide whether we are ready to choose the council on a joint ballot. OR

2) The people who will be running for the council will be chosen by each constituent state alone before the election. Think this as primaries in US where Democrats choose who will run for president. Let’ say each state will have to come up with the double of the amount of its probable members in the council. So TC state before the elections will nominate 4 TCs to run for council and GC state will nominate 6 GCs to run for council, and among these 10 candidate all Cypriots will be choosing the 4 GC and 2 TC. OR

3) We can choose them the way you suggest but we can say that they have to get at least %50 vote of confidence of the respective state.

I don't have a problem with this, but I don't see why it is important either. Please enlighten me. .

There is no specific reason for it. I just think it is excessive to have 48 senators for an island of 800k, and at the same time have 48 congressman. I do not know how this two levels of legislative body will function, but assuming that they will function the way they function in USA, then it only make sense to increase the number of congressman to I don’t know say 80 where high number of congressman are necessary for many diffeent comitees, and reduce the number of senators to let’s say 20-24 or 30, to reduce the amount of discussion time anc complication in the legislative process. I mean if we are going to have a senate that is merely an approving body of what lower level congress decides, then we do not need to many peope. But if we are going to have a sneat that will be active in legislative process then the number can be high to fill the differrent commisons.

I guess this is one of the things we have to decide as well. What are the responsibilitis of senate and congress will be. Any suggestion.

Furthermore I am all for increasing the time period which the senators are chosen for. Preferably more than presidents and definitely more than congressman. In USA this is 6 years. This gives senate (at least in theory) some more unbiasedness as they would be less concerned of being able to get elected very soon. In fact this is another suggestion for you. Not just reduce the amount of senators but also increase their term to six years but limit their electability to maximum of two terms (a firm believer of terms limits. Actually this term limits should also be on presidential council as well.).

Hmm ... aren't you sufficiently protected from abuses of simple majority rule with 40% special majority quota? Let's not forget that these quotas are extra-ordinary measures to protect you from abuse, rather than regular rights within a Federal framework. .

Quite frankly I do not see any difference between 2/5 or 1/2 in terms of stopping abuse. The reason 1/2 is suggested because if it is 1/2 than you can easily claim that at least half of the TCs agreed to the law, not just 40%. That is my rational. Other than that I do not think 1/2 provides and extra protection for TCs over 2/5, even it does it is minimal.

It is the same logic, when I am trying to choose president I at least would like him to pass the %50 mark, and if it does not I like there to be a second round with the top contenders.

Again, I am in favor of a political culture that is unified as far as possible. I want to see elections on the state level happening on the same day all over Cyprus, so that we all swing into and out of election rhythm at the same time ... if you get one state holding statewide elctions in 2008, and the other one in 2010, then co-operation between them will be hampered by the fact that at any one time either the one or the other will be on the run up to elections.

I was not talking about the timing. Timing can be exactly the same. I was talking about electoral procedures. Like in USA. Every state has its own election laws, but the election takes place on the same day everywhere.

According to the Annan Plan, all direct taxes (income, inheritance etc.) will be collected by the constituent state and all indirect taxes (customs duties, VAT etc.) will be collected by the Federal Government. Are you saying that the amount of VAT returned should be proportional to the amount of VAT collected? I can perhaps tolerate this, it will be popular with Greek Cypriots, though I personally believe it is a bad idea insofar as it would not help to balance the standard of living of the two states. Are you then saying that to make up for any shortage each constituent state should levy its own taxes? Well, it already has that power, I think, since direct taxes are constituent state responsibility. But I think if we end up with this "improvement" because of the stingy attitude of my fellow Greek Cypriots, it will be detrimental to the Cypriot economy, as the TC state may end up having to raise income taxes and corporate taxes to an extent where investment and demand will be squashed.

Personally, I think it is better if the plan is "made economically more fair" only in the relatively painless aspect of running costs of the Federal Government - a way should be found so that each state pays for its own people, otherwise the GCs will feel that insult is added to injury - "not only do the TCs get political equality, but we also pay so that they can have the same number of ambassadors as us." But this fairness principle should not extend to the contribution which the Federal Government makes to the constituent state in the form of VAT, because this will have serious macroeconomic implications.

I just believe any solution that is not deemed fair will not last too long. And if GCs will end up thinking that they are subsidizing TC state, like Californians think about South Dakota, or West Germans think about East Germany than we will have a nightmare scenario in the future. (and in those two countries USA or Germany there will not be that much resentment because they are all American or German, and do not consider themselves ethnically different. In Cyprus the resentment will get exponential increase)

That is why I suggest that every state should be able to stand on its own feet and not rely on central government that much in terms of economical aid. And eny economical aid central government gives back should be proportional to wither population or more fairly to proportion to how taxes are collected.

Quite frankly I was not aware of how Annan Plan deals with taxation. Now you are telling me central government can collect VAT and custom duties and state can collect income an inheritance tax.

Going from these examples, again I believe in American example. The central government should have only right to collect income tax (both personal and business) , inheritance tax, customs and duties. State should have the right to tax income tax, sales tax (a variation of VAT), property tax.

Take care,

turkcyp wrote: For example, in the current politics, a name like Alpay Durduran which does not get more than %2 of TC vote is probably will be chosen, but a person like Dervis Eroglu who always get around %30 will not be elected.

A council like this will not be true representative of TC opinions.

Actually, if you think about the dynamics of it, we will probably end up with big parties from both sides forming coalitions to contest the election. For instance, you would get AKEL and CTP forming a center-left coalition, and, if they win, we would have Christofias and Talat in the Presidential Council, plus 4 others. Or, you would get DISY and DP forming a center-right coalition, perhaps bringing in some of the smaller TC parties in order to balance CTP's strength, and if they win then we will have Anastasiades and Serdar Denktash in the Presidential Council, plus 4 others. So we would not end up with "fringe politicians" taking power because they happen to be pro-reconciliation ... after the solution, almost all parties will be pro-reconciliation, if not for ideological reasons, then for reasons of survival.

The parties which will be permanently excluded from power will only be those of the extreme right, because they would never be able to form a credible coalition with a party of the other side. If Eroglu's party is extreme right wing, then yes, it will be excluded from the Presidential Council (but not from the senate). My guess is that Eroglu's party will change with the times, and move closer to the centre, in order to be able to put a stake for power ... you see, that's the beauty of the Presidential Council system as it is now in the Annan Plan. It is probably the only noteworthy improvement from what was in the 1960 constitution.

Have a great day,

Alexandros Lordos wrote:Actually, if you think about the dynamics of it, we will probably end up with big parties from both sides forming coalitions to contest the election. For instance, you would get AKEL and CTP forming a center-left coalition, and, if they win, we would have Christofias and Talat in the Presidential Council, plus 4 others. Or, you would get DISY and DP forming a center-right coalition, perhaps bringing in some of the smaller TC parties in order to balance CTP's strength, and if they win then we will have Anastasiades and Serdar Denktash in the Presidential Council, plus 4 others. So we would not end up with "fringe politicians" taking power because they happen to be pro-reconciliation ... after the solution, almost all parties will be pro-reconciliation, if not for ideological reasons, then for reasons of survival.

The parties which will be permanently excluded from power will only be those of the extreme right, because they would never be able to form a credible coalition with a party of the other side. If Eroglu's party is extreme right wing, then yes, it will be excluded from the Presidential Council (but not from the senate). My guess is that Eroglu's party will change with the times, and move closer to the centre, in order to be able to put a stake for power ... you see, that's the beauty of the Presidential Council system as it is now in the Annan Plan. It is probably the only noteworthy improvement from what was in the 1960 constitution.

Have a great day,

Frankly I have never thought about the possibility of parties from both sides coordinating efforts. Now that you have mantioned this is a possible scenarion in the system proposed.

It is possible I would say but also highly unprobable. I do not think that parties from both sides will start cooperating in terms of election process for another 10-15 years in Cyprus.

In the current political climate, DISI would rather have a joint list with AKEL, and CTP would rather have a joint list with DP. It does not matter that their political views in terms of left and right. In the current atmosphere without the reconciliation occuring first, whether we like it or not, the politics in the short run will be on the ethnictity levels. (not liking it but realities are this. )

I agree that this is a short term phonomenon and in the long run what you have suggested is more probable, but we have to get the long run through short run process. That is one reason the first option is offered. IF we see that people cooperating then we can change the whole system easily because if parties can cooperate than there are more benefits to both AKEL and CTP or DISI and DP to team up rather than nationalistic lines.

But in the short run I really do not like the idea of seeing a presidential council full of likes of Papadapoulos from GC side but full of Durdurans on the TC side. This would really irritate a lot of TCs not just because Durduran has never been a major factor in TC politics but because I would feel like I would be sleeping with my ass open at night, if you know what I mean. (may be it is a very rude expression but it explains the TC mentallity very clearly. The reason Denktas got so popularity all these years was because TCs always thinking that GCs are out there to get them. So they believe the only way you can deal with nationalistic GCs is to have nationalistic TCs, kind of TMT vs. EOKA. Now that TCs are getting rid of that mentallity, but GCs still have that mentallity. And I hate to see TCs to turn back to that mentallity. At least we have solved half of teh equation right now.)

Take care,

p.s. I hope you can see that I am being very candid, and frank with my opinions, and expressing them to you like I would express to another TC. And I hope you are being the same. Because I think we should spill all the beans first without worrying about being politically correct, so that we can find a trully lasting solution.

By the way Alex,

You did not comment on the other things (other than presidential council)...

Like term limits, seperate electoral processes (not at a different time), number of senatotr, legislative functions, taxes, etc. etc.

And of course as usual feel free to add any further suggestion. May be this forum will come up with an improved plan. You never know.

We certainly can discuss issues for longer without walking out.

turkcyp wrote:[Frankly I have never thought about the possibility of parties from both sides coordinating efforts. Now that you have mantioned this is a possible scenarion in the system proposed.

It is possible I would say but also highly unprobable.

No no, my friend, you have not understood what exactly the Annan Plan provided on this issue ...

The Presidential Council of six was to be elected out of a joint list, in the following way:

- One group of four GCs and two TCs would represent one candidacy

- Another group of four GCs and two TCs would represent another candidacy

- and so on

So you see, collaboration between major GC and TC parties is not an option, it is compulsory otherwise how would you come up with a joint list which would attract the votes of both communities?

If you get AKEL and DISY collaborating, as you suggest, which two TCs will they put on their ballot? And if CTP and DP form a coalition, which four GCs will they put on their ballot? So you see, intercommunal collaboration is absolutely inevitable ...

I look forward to your response ...

By the way, I am sorry I have not yet responded in the other matters, I am just drowning with work and only have a few minutes at a time in the forum ...

But I will answer when I get the opportunity

Alexandros Lordos wrote:No no, my friend, you have not understood what exactly the Annan Plan provided on this issue ...

The Presidential Council of six was to be elected out of a joint list, in the following way:

- One group of four GCs and two TCs would represent one candidacy

- Another group of four GCs and two TCs would represent another candidacy

- and so on

So you see, collaboration between major GC and TC parties is not an option, it is compulsory otherwise how would you come up with a joint list which would attract the votes of both communities? [/quot]

That is why I like talking with you because you help me learn things I was not aware of. I admit I was not aware of the fact that system will work this way.

BUT..

If you get AKEL and DISY collaborating, as you suggest, which two TCs will they put on their ballot? And if CTP and DP form a coalition, which four GCs will they put on their ballot? So you see, intercommunal collaboration is absolutely inevitable ...

That system of collaboration only works if we choose the pres. council at the senate not from a popular vote like you and I would like to see (like the A. Plan suggested). When we choose the council in senate of course the people that TCs do not want to see as their true represenentative at the council will not be chosen, because senate itself will be chosen only by TC votes. So indirectly it comes down to what I am saying.

Turning back to Durduran example for a second time. Assuming that his votes do not go up in TC state from its current levels, there is no way his party will have a representative at the senate and therefore there is no way he will ever be in the Council. But despite what you think people like Eroglu has a high chance of being in the senate and therefore high chance of being in the council.

(at least choosing the council at the senate will make sure that true representatives of TCs will be at the pres. council, but I do not like this system because senate is choosing the council, not the people and therefore there is no seperation of powers between executive branch and legislative branch that I would like to see)

On the other hand if we start choosing the pres. council with a popular vote and this vote is taken as united as you suggest, what I have suggested will happen no matter what.

DISI, AKEL, and some other nationalistic GC parties will come together and they will take Durduran's party next to themsleves, and be elected. So the scenario that I have said will come true in the short run. No matter what they say, no GC party will want to ever team up with Eroglu although his views would get around %30 of the TC society. Only the nationalist TC parties will get eliminated, but nationalist GC parties will still survive.

And the reason, as I have said, is in the short run all the politics whether we like it or not will be done on the basis of ethnicity rather than political ideology.

I strongly suggest you to view my options. If you do not like (1), how about the second one. I think this one satisfies both the idea of cooperation between parties that you ask for, and it forces the right and true representative parties of the socities, to cooperate. At this method exactky the big parties in both TC and GC state will be forced to cooperate.

By the way, I am sorry I have not yet responded in the other matters, I am just drowning with work and only have a few minutes at a time in the forum ...

But I will answer when I get the opportunity

Take your time, Cyprus prolem is not going anywhere. In TC society we have a saying "Bu mesele, Efkafin su meselesine dondu" meaning this problem is extended as far as eye can see.

Do not worry, we will have this problem next week here to, and still be talking about it, whether we like it or not.

Take care,

Alexandros Lordos wrote:Turkcyp,

I will come back with my response on property rights and implementation guarantees tomorrow ... for now, I just wanted to add my views on the 1960 constitution.

Basically, the only thing I would like to see changed in the 1960 constitution is the president/vice-president system ... which I thought was antagonistic, given that they were elected in separate ballots, and also too vulnerable to deadlocks. I would much prefer it, if it was replaced by a Presidential Council of 6, as in the Annan Plan, elected from a common ballot, because this would give a premium to moderate and co-operative politicians, and also remove the possibility of a one-man veto or a one-man take-over.

Otherwise, the 1960 constitution is fine.

To be honest though, I am - more generally - a bit ambivalent about the viability prospects of a Unitary State ... on the one hand, it sounds appealing that a total mixing of populations would take place, on the other hand, it sounds potentially explosive, especially given that all decisions of the government would affect both communities simultaneously and would therefore require joint consent.

The Federal System, in contrast, allows for some autonomy of each community, and therefore we won't be getting in each other's way so much ...

So Alex,

Do you think it would be appropriate to use 1960 constitution but change the presidential system with something close to Annan Plans and add federallity and bizonality to the system.

We have been discussing the election process of the pres. council in this topic for a while. Once we settle on that we can take that and replace it with presidential system of 1960 constituion.

And also I would propose an alternative bizonality system in my next post.

Take care,