Time for some real debate

AT LAST, thanks to AKEL’s decision to contest next year’s presidential election and Archbishop Chrysostomos throwing his considerable weight around – as if the presidency and the national question require his interventions – the Greek Cypriot community is finally embarking on the debate as to the form of desired solution to the Cyprus problem.

This is a debate that should have preceded the referenda in 2004 but was drowned in a sea of nationalistic rhetoric designed to evade the essential question of whether we, as a community, truly are committed to a solution that is federal, bi-communal and bi-zonal.Interestingly, the president’s apologists attempt to slip away from this uncomfortable (for them) issue by stating repeatedly that what matters is not the name of the solution but rather its content.

As if words do not have meanings and agreements in principle are open to any interpretation we want to place on them. One is reminded of the Abe Lincoln’s political adage that you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

Terms such as federal and bi-zonal have inescapable meanings and if we think we can evade their consequences by treating them as mere labels to other forms of solution, one is either being extremely na?ve or delusional.

The core meaning of federalism is that of a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units. True there are many different federal states, each with its own distinctive features, but all share this fundamental core element where the sovereign powers of government within a given territory is divided among a central authority and two or more constituent political units.

The issue is always not whether power will be divided, but which powers go to the central authority and which powers go to the constituent units.As for bi-zonality, it means that the constituent units will each have its own territorial zone in which each one will exercise the powers assigned to it under the constitution of the federation.

Essentially, in the Cyprus context it means that the two communities have agreed not to discuss a multi cantonal federation in which a constituent unit could have pockets of territory surrounded by the territory of the other constituent unit, and that each zone (namely the smaller Turkish Cypriot zone) would be economically viable.

These are meaningful words agreed to some 30 years ago to describe the form of solution we are working toward. Either we are committed to seek the agreed form of solution or not. If we are, well and good. We can continue to talk to the other community and the international community honestly and in good faith.

If not, we had better tell the other side and the UN, because I suspect neither will have much interest in continuing a dialogue where the sides are talking at cross purposes.Let us be abundantly clear: we cannot call the constitution of a unitary state as being federal or a federal constitution as being unitary.

We cannot call a federal state with constituent units bi-zonal unless each constituent state has its own zone that is not fragmented in pockets or cantons. It means two continuous zones, neither more nor less.These are matters that are absolutely basic and we need to be clear about them before we proceed to the further and even more important discussion of the division of powers.

This is where we haven’t even begun to come to grips with the reality of a federal solution. More than anything else we, again as a community, need to think long and hard about which powers should be vested in the central authority and which ones to the constituent units and possibly which ones should be shared.

It may in fact be in our interest to have most basic powers that relate to the day-to-day lives of the citizens – health, education, domestic security for example – vested in the constituent units rather than the central authority. And if most of the basic powers which will consume most of the revenues of the state are in the hands of the constituent units, then they will also need to be vested with adequate taxation powers.

The point is simply that we need to go beyond hurling superficial epithets and superannuated nationalistic rhetoric at each other and address once and for all what type of a solution we want. If we really don’t want a solution that is federal and bi-zonal we had better let everybody know because the world has bigger problems to deal with than those of a small insular community that can’t get its political act together.

The day when political debate could be stopped by accusing your opponents of being Turks – as if that were the greatest political insult one could hurl – should have long ago been tossed in the dustbin of history.

That sort of political ejaculation does a great disservice to Cyprus and the cause of reconciliation of its people. When it comes from a person who supposedly speaks as the leading Christian cleric on the island, and who should espouse the rhetoric of unity and amity among all the people of Cyprus, regardless of ethnicity, race or religion it becomes a matter of great concern.

One can only hope that clearer lights within the Church and the body politic will find the moral strength to restrain the Archbishop as we move closer to the election.

If the presidential campaign helps the Greek Cypriot community come to grips with the issue of whether we are truly supportive of a federal and bi-zonal solution we will have taken a major step towards the more important stage of the debate that even after 30 years we have put off, namely on the division of powers of the proposed Cyprus federation.