Do you have any questions for the future President?

Much has happened in the political scene in Cyprus since the last posting on the 21st of August. Campaigns were finally launched, candidate websites and blogs were created, statements are constantly made and issues have surfaced. Even one particular call for hara-kiri was debated! Harry Potter was mentioned and the relationship of King Arthur with Lancelot was brought up, albeit failing to call Merlin in the talks, the other perennial wizard of popular culture, aside from newcomer Harry Potter, who could have had a role on this election. Because, this is precisely what we all need right now. A magician well trained in the arts of fortunetelling in order to tell us who is going to be our next president, considering the fact that all three contenders get, more or less, the same percentage points in the various polls conducted and published. The incumbent president leads the polls, but the two other challengers are following right behind, and the difference between the three is diminishing at a constant rate. Therefore, the question for the statisticians is to determine the duration of the exposure to risk, which in this case is called time and has a deadline; the election date.

But leaving math aside, what about the public debate? What about the political discussion that is taking place? So far, is miserable. It all looks to me like a provincial competition for the mayor-ship of some third rated city of an obscure country still striving to discover its identity and place in the world. Do you agree? If you do, what do you do to change all that? Instead of complaining and saying nothing why don't we all request from the candidates to raise the bar on subjects dominating the public debate?

It is understood by communication and campaign experts that the simpler the message is the better for the receiver (i.e. the less processing it requires, thus the less objections will come up) but critical inquiry should be the foundation of the decision making mechanism of any mature person. Why then don't we ask the candidates in their well advertised websites and blogs or through the press to actually offer us well thought out positions and plans of action for the future? Why don't we ask them to tell us their vision for Cyprus and how they will go about and do it? Why, for example, don't we ask them to tell us where we will be in terms of our role inside the European Union, the common foreign and security policies and our participation in the Union international efforts, but we are only focusing our concern on whether the military service for conscripts will last for 18, 14 or 24 months? Why we talk about social policies and we are declaring hand outs for this or the other social group, but we say nothing about personal responsibility? Why we allow each candidate to issue statements comprising of lists of so called intellectuals or professors of one or the other topic that support them, but we fail to ask those "wise men" to actually tell us why they support one or the other? Why don't we ask the candidates to tell us how they will get Mr. Talat to abandon Ankara and the "establishment" in the occupied areas in order to join us in our motherland, but we are satisfied when they debate whether he can do it or not? The question should not be about the "why not" aspect of any issue, but about the "how to" approach.

The reason we are not asking those questions and many more of similar nature, it is because we think that it is not our job to do so. The other reason is, perhaps, our innate or intuitive ability to protect our selves from disappointment. Because we will be sadly surprised and feel empty if we discover that our chosen one, no matter who he or she is, is not who we thought and wanted him to be. It is like acknowledging a mistake we have been doing for many years. And that is a failure we can't accept, because by doing so we run the risk of challenging the entire system of beliefs we have been espousing for all those years we were imbedded into a certain set of ideological parameters. Therefore, we turn away and we see what we want to see.

Or maybe is something much simpler. In the case of us, Cypriots, I think it is. The reason that we will vote the way we have always voted rests primarily on one very simple criterion. We vote who we know better and who can get our job done in time of need. We vote the person we have access to in order to secure our direct personal interests better. This is the reason why we are divided in almost three equal segments of 33 percent of the vote. If we add the votes we get those percentages we see in the polls, give or take a couple of points. Some people call it party loyalty. I call it opportunism and corporatism. I also call it rational choice for any rent seeking person. Whether, at the end, we will get the rent or not is another matter…

Cypriot presidential challengers: Where's the message?

The most important aspect of a political campaign, besides the medium, that is, is the message. So where is the message? Candidatures have been declared, statements where made, proclamations where issued, intentions where stated, but where is the message? Who is professing what, exactly?

While it is usually accepted, in our parts of the world, to allow the summer break to “spill over” into everything we do, the very fact that all candidatures where announced, and all alliances declared before the month of August does not excuse the absence of specificity and clarity that permeates, so far, the political positions of the two major challengers. Therefore, what have we seen so far in terms of messages? The answer is simple: political activism and most specifically, attempts thereof. Apart from the candidature of Mr. Tassos Papadopoulos, the incumbent president, the other two major contenders have done little in terms of clear political messaging, but much in terms of political activism in the form of public commenting. While Mr. Papadopoulos reminded us all of the “Anan debacle,” and more or less, he said he will continue doing what he is doing, the two other major candidates seem to be reluctant to tell us what they will do, but they tell, insdead, what they don’t like Mr. Papadopoulos doing.

Mr. Kasoulides’ bureau frequently issues statements on a variety of diverse topics, which, despite the importance of the issues they address, offer little else but a constant shifting of attention. I think the decision to get his positions out in a piece-meal fashion is damaging his candidature, because it forces the voters to shift their attention constantly from one subject to the other. Moreover, this approach forces him to follow the agenda set by either Mr. Papadopoulos or Mr. Christophias rather than setting his own. He needs to lead and not to react. He should go back to his inaugural statement and expand on it rather than issuing statements that are out one day and forgotten the next.

As for Mr. Christophias, unfortunately he failed to be the disruptive candidate we may have liked him to be. He is certainly up to the task, but he is going to have a hard time explaining how he is going to lead Cyprus into the economic and political core of the European Union when his party is the only one that objected the adoption of the Euro. AKEL’ s position relative to the European Union, along with his support and participation in Mr. Papadopoulos government for four and half years, is the toughest obstacle to clear.

All in all, the sense one gets from the political presence of Mr. Kasoulides and Mr. Christophias is that of two politicians in search for a message. The voters will have little luck making sense of these two candidatures if there is no clear message aside from “me instead of.” This is very important, because elections are hardly won by the process of elimination. And when they do, they usually form very weak and unsustainable governments, even in a presidential system like ours. Therefore, the greater risk the two major challengers run is to identify themselves not as contenders but as mere alternatives; “insteadofs” instead of “me because,” which has to be primarily the case. And since the two challengers and their supporters and potential voters who want to see Mr. Papadopoulos go are unable to form a meaningful partnership, the only alternative is, first and foremost, clear messaging and then public argumentation, persuasion and voter manipulation.

AKEL, DISI, DIKO, EDEK: Who stands to gain and loose from Mr. Christofias candidature?

So, this is it! The Secretary General of AKEL is running for president of the Republic! The tripartite arrangement between AKEL, DIKO and EDEK is over...at least for now. DISI is supporting former minister of foreign Affairs and current Euro MP, Dr. Kasoulides and Mr. Themistocleous, former minister of Agriculture announced his candidature some time ago, but so far there has been no reaction to it, from any major or minor political party.

The question still begs whether he will "disrupt" the political environment; offer something that will attract voters from outside his party and particularly from those groups within the other parties that do not agree with the unequivocal support to the current president, Mr. Papadopoulos. I think he will try to be that candidate, but I am not sure he will succeed. He will play the usual game. AKEL hopes that Mr. Kasoulides candidature will manage to attract those moderate voters within EDEK and DIKO who don't like the Papadopoulos line in foreign and domestic policies, thus causing enough damage to Mr. Papadopoulos candidature, allowing, in turn, Mr. Christofias to pass the first round threshold. Moreover, AKEL plans to attract those left-leaning voters from within DIKO who were not been "taken care off" by Mr. Papadopoulos, and who may like him out of the way so as to broker a new deal with AKEL in the "second Sunday!" In short, AKEL does have a good chance.

I am not sure what was exactly debated within the soviet-style AKEL apparatus, but the decision is a win – win for AKEL. If Mr. Christofias doesn't get to the second round, they still have a chance to support Mr. Papadopoulos in a qui pro quo fashion, even though their leverage to secure returns will diminish from the vary fact that, in this scenario, Mr. Kasoulides will be the other (non) option for AKEL. Especially, if EDEK decides to support Mr. Kasoulides in this case.

The other party that managed to square the circle is EDEK. They will go with Mr. Papadopoulos, and if he gets elected Mr. Omirou will be the new "big Kahuna" in the next administration. If Mr. Papadopoulos fails to get to the second round, EDEK still has the chance to break a deal with AKEL. And their leverage will not be diminished at all since they can swing the other way and support Mr. Kasoulides, and even claim that their support will provide "guaranties" that various ideas in respect to the Cyprus issue will remain...ideas.

Therefore, who looses? Obviously DIKO stands to loose the most, if Mr. Papadopoulos fails to advance to the second round. In such a case, DIKO will find it very hard to break any deal with Mr. Kasoulides, because of the differences between them in the handling of the Cyprus issue, and more importantly, because of the unwillingness of a large segment of DISI to cooperate with DIKO. However, voices and arguments calling for a "revised" DIKO may be presented, and maybe Mr. M. Kyprianou, Mr. Galanos and others may have a chance for a comeback, in this case.

What about EUROKO? The safest and smartest thing for EUROKO to do, is to copy EDEK strategy. They can go with Mr. Papadopoulos for now, and if he doesn't get through, they can switch to Mr. Kasoulides. And it will be even easier for them to do so than EDEK, because there is a good chance Mr. Kasoulides will have the support of another small party, EURODIMOKRATIA of Mr. Prodromou. If that happens, Mr. Kasoulides will have enough credibility to claim that his candidature truly synthesizes among all the Cyprus issue positions, thus making it easier for Mr. Sillouris party to satisfy the ideological concerns of his party. Whether the various personalities in DISI, EUROKO and EURODIMOKRATIA can get along, considering their past relationship, is another matter, and in high power stakes, mostly irrelevant.

In any case, the above scenarios do not attempt to provide any "fortune teller – like" prediction of the outcome of the next presidential election, but do attempt to indicate the risk environment each party is facing, overall. And like any other scenario, they are useful only if they can help those affected taking the steps necessary to cancel out those scenarios that don't suit them.

The "disruptive candidate" and the Cypriot voter

When Mr. George Vassiliou run for president of Cyprus in 1988, almost everyone, irrespective of his/her political or party affiliation, was pleasantly surprised, because this new candidate was not from among the "usual suspects" and he looked different than the rest.

He was called an "economist" and a "marketer" (as opposed to "politician") and he employed different, i.e. contemporary political campaign methods in promoting his candidature. He spoke directly to people in the street (anyone remembers the media-covered Ledra street stroll?), talked about management and organization, set "first 100 days goals" held an international press conference and spoke foreign languages other than English, and during his AKEL-supported campaign he engaged in what experts refer to as "retail politics." He surrounded himself with young, largely competent and ambitious aids, and his wife was as much an aspiring public figure as he was. He even shook hands differently (anyone remembers kapakoti?). In short he was a "disruptive candidate" and much like anything else disruptive, Mr. Vassiliou's campaign comprised of an innovative and efficient implementation of otherwise "straightforward, off – the – shelf" election "technologies." It suffices to say that the term "disruptive technology" was first used by Dr. Clayton M. Christensen in his bestselling business innovation book The Innovator's Dilemma.

But no matter what he did, he ended up winning by a small margin, not because of the innovative – disruptive nature of his candidacy, but because the alignment of the political parties was such at that particular historical juncture as to allow AKEL to elect his candidate. Subsequently, when the alignment of the parties changed five years later (because Mr. Klerides wanted Mr. Kyprianou' support and in return denounced the set of ideas) Mr. Vassiliou lost, again by a small margin.

What does that say about the Cypriot voter? Do Cypriot voters care to vote for a "disruptive" candidate en masse so as to permanently alter the political party calculus that always takes place? Or will the math always do the trick instead?

Can Mr. Christofias potential/ possible candidature be a disruptive one, albeit much different than that of Mr. Vassiliou, of course?

Who gets involved with politics in Cyprus and why?

So far, we have introduced two topics relevant to the overall political environment in Cyprus. The first one was about organized citizens outside formal party structures and the second was about campaign finance. The discussion of both revealed some interesting aspects of both perception and opinion regarding the dynamics of the system. A third topic, directly related to the last two, I would like to bring up for your comment and ideas is the type, nature and quality of the politicians, themselves.

In short, who gets involved with politics in Cyprus and why? When you see these people what is the first thing that comes to your mind? What kinds of characters are they, do you think? Do you look up to them for guidance and leadership? Do you really care about what they say? When was the last time you singled out a politician for his ability to offer innovative suggestions, practical solutions, smart ideas that push society forward?

What matters most to you when you select someone for office? His looks? His ability to put a sentence together? His academic record? His profession? His family name? His party? His position on the Cyprus issue? The number of years he is involved with politics? His social/ political activism? His wealth? All of these? Anything else?

Last but not least, why aren't many women actively present in Cyprus politics? Is it because they don't care enough? Is it because men don't let them? Is it because they have too much in to do already, i.e. work, household, children, husband? Is it because they have better things to do?

I know, probably you wander why all these questions and no short introduction. Well, obviously, what matter most in the selection of one's representative is one's own set of criteria.

The criteria I consider before selecting a representative are, without a particular order: a) Position and actions in respect to the efforts to resolve the Cyprus issue and reunite Cyprus. What kind of a solution does he envisions for Cyprus? How can he lead us to implement it? b) Level of familiarity. Do I know him personally and in what capacity? Have I interacted with this person somehow? Can he be the advocate of my interests if I ever need him to be? c) His ideas and ability to express them. Is what he says innovative and practical? Is he a man of our times? Does he articulate his position well? Does he makes sense or is he talking from both ends? Can his ideas and positions stand the scrutiny of public dialogue? d) His education. Is he truly educated (not necessarily a college graduate since many of those are not educated...just certified for supposedly being trained in something). e) His professional background. Did he ever had a real job, paid bills, understands what everyday life is or was he always "playing" high politics? f) Practical problem solving skills and solutions oriented mentality. Can he offer solutions and ways of applying them? Are these solutions most likely to leave most of us better off or worst? g) International stature. Can he have a presence outside Cyprus? Can he comprehend the complex transnational economic, political and social challenges facing our interdependent societies and can he offer solutions?

Looking forward to reading your comments and what you consider as important in selecting your representatives.

Money, Media and Elections: campaign finance reform in Cyprus.

A while ago, I had the privilege to meet a political campaign professional from Greece, Mr. Dimitris Papangelopoulos, while he was completing a specialized Master's in Washington, DC. We met when he approached me at the embassy while he was writing a reasearch paper on the issue of political campaigning in Cyprus. Due to previous similar studies as well as from past involvement in this process, I was particularly interested in his study and findings. One of his points and observations that caught my attention, both during our discussions and after I read the well-prepared study, was his comments on the absence of transparency in campaign finance. There were no regulations in Cyprus about this.

It was right after the event that I started thinking more seriously about the implications of the lack of regulation, eventhough I knew for years that candidates could receive money from anywhere, and spend as much as they like (i.e. have) in anyway they see fit! Political parties could run companies for profit, invest in private placements, buy stock in the stockmarket and accept donations without being accountable to anyone! Aside from a government subsidy that is transparent in its allocation but not so in its spending, the parliamentary political parties do not receive any other government support.

I also investigated the spending aspect of the subject. One could practically speak of the "commercialization" of election campaigns. Candidates could buy air time, advertisements in print and electronic media, and even covert advertizing in the form of "spontaneus" appearances, interviews, etc. There have been candidates, much like any other product in need for promotion, literally buying their way through a seat in the parliament, a municipality and elsewhere. It seems that someone can almost secure a spot in the "limelight" if she/he has the necessary dough, and is willing to spend it! In turn, "show me the money" becomes a requirement each aspiring politician has to satisfy when approaching the leadership of her/his party in order to become a candidate. In a costly campaign a party may even consider not strongly supporting someone without the resources, no matter how good she/he maybe. Or to put it differently, a party may promote someone who is less competent than someone else because the first one can pay the cover (and even pay for the party as well).

In the past, what used to carry more weight than cash was access to a Mass Medium since there was just one government - run public television and radio broadcasting service in Cyprus and the only other alternative was the printed media, which was – and to some extend still is – highly partisan. But today things have changed. There are Media groups with various mass communication conduits with the public at their disposal such as multiple television and radio channels, magazines, newspapers, websites, production houses, etc. Now, there even media that while disseminating information to the general public, are not staffed by journalists, and cannot be officially called newspapers. There are magazines run by commercial companies, and others that print and distribute newspaper inserts that appear as specialized press, etc. As a result, what matters most now is having the resources to buy the access.

Consequently, campaign costs are now a lot higher, stakes are higher, and therefore who pays "top dollar" has a better chance of a) attracting the attention of the public, b) feeding them the message, and c) getting elected. And with an audience who more and more believes that the degree of public exposure of a candidate is analogous to hers/his credibility (the "I saw it on TV" mentality) electability is less so about positions, issue-command, rhetorical talent and skill, but more so about exposure. In Cyprus, we have seen in the recent past several cases of inadequate candidates who were elected in public office even if they were, for example, clearly unsuitable for the job, otheres who were incapable of putting a sentence together or clearly read their victory speech from a piece of paper in public! We have also seen others eventually pursuing "successful" political careers, just because they were "seen on TV" repeatedly, either as frequent quests in TV shows, radio interviews and through other public exposés. I am not sure whether this is beneficial for the political process as a whole, for the parties themselves, the other politicians and most importantly for the general public, who ends up choosing among the most visible (i.e. the most financially endowed) and not the most competent.

Aside from very specific limitation on political commercials on TV in presidential campaigns, much is still open for the highest beater! And no questions asked! Nobody seems to care about the sources of the funds. Although there were debates on the matter and attempts to introduce legislation, there is still no comprehensive regulation regarding campaign contributions, funding sources, ceilings, diversification, and all those other campaign issues that could, at least, ensure a proper degree of a democratic process. Who pays whom, how and how much for what exactly, is still the subject of anecdotal conversations, rumors and speculation. But despite the academic conversation, democracy suffers the most.

Dear colleagues thank you very much for your very interesting responses on the subject below.

I have a few observations to make before shifting gear and entering a new subject. I can’t help but noticing an underlying, and in some cases flat-out, feeling of pessimism in some of the reactions posted, particularly when discussing the overwhelming role of the political parties in Cyprus in the political process.

There is an almost fatalistic point view in respect to the acceptance of the role of the parties. And I say almost fatalistic because there was a ray of hope in all of these statements. George spoke, among other things, of a mesh of political and economic interests in the case of some parties in Cyprus. Es, referred to the manipulation of citizens for reasons of political expedience and power control rather than anything else. Panos wandered whether there is a need for a greater threat of some kind for things to change. On the other hand, I note Giorgakis call for citizen power and Michalis comment on the active involvement of many "civil society" groups he experiences. Firfiris elaborate reply to Hellenic nationalist concerns strengthens the arguments for the need of greater dialogue.

One last thing about citizen groups, however. These organized interests – like any other lobbying effort – have to go through the existing political parties in order to pursue their interests, but if more and more of these specific issue groups are formed maybe a critical mass of independent civil society organizations can create a political watershed. Also, it would have been interesting to see whether these organized issue-specific interests can entice citizens away from traditional political parties and place them in a large pool of independent voters especially in view of the "leveling effect" that the application of free market economics and democracy has on 19th and 20th Century ideologies. In short, what difference does it make if one votes for the Left or for the Right if such descriptions don't describe reality and don't correspond to one's daily life experiences, challenges and concerns? Will that, consequently, turn us all to the other extreme where an apolitical and in essence barbaric corporatist approach will define the nature of our political participation all the way down to the individual level? Maybe in Cyprus we have done just that a long time ago where the parties and politicians, unfortunately are used by the citizens as mere mediums for access when it comes to very specific individualistic needs.

Political parties and political participation in Cyprus

I would like to kick off the discussion with the issue of political parties and political participation in Cyprus. This will eventually be the cornerstone of a debate to follow on political dynamics in Cyprus in view of the upcoming presidential elections in 2008 and the people and issues that will dominate the scene.

While the general belief is that Cypriots are, by-and-large, "political animals" and follow local politics closely mainly due to the Cyprus issue; political participation and active political involvement is still exercised mainly through the political parties. Although one can argue that it is natural for individuals interested in politics to express and practice their interest through organized groups that share a common ideology and a common set of values and a common agenda, these groups in Cyprus have always been structured as political parties. For example, in Cyprus there is no organization, either in the form of an NGO or a special interest group, that can compete in terms of influence or authority with the political parties. It seems that the political party is the only existing vehicle through which a person or a group of persons can pursue their objectives. This is even more evident with the translation of the various political parties into all kinds of groups and associations within other institutional structures such as trade unions, student unions, environmental groups, sports clubs, special interest groups such as farmers, etc.

In short, political parties in Cyprus are the only "accepted" and "recognized" forms of political organization and participation in public life. All other forms of political organization wishing to express an opinion or promote a particular policy have to do so through the parties, which are the dominant forces in the public discourse. The alternative option for these non-party groups is to become parties themselves in order to "legitimize" their public political presence as "credible" interlocutors in the political process. The process of becoming a party, of course, forces an organized group to branch out in other policy areas and eventually to actively seek to participate in power sharing and "horse trading."

Is this a politically "healthy" characteristic of civic life? Does that help prevent special interests from developing a "life of their own" and subsequently manipulating political outcomes according to their wishes? Is there a subject of public debate or concern strong enough to let people move away from political parties but remain engaged with politics through other forms of organization? Will we ever see groups of people that share a common objective over a specific issue or set of issues existing simultaneously across party lines? Will the Cyprus issue (considering the result of the referendum on the Annan plan) become such an issue and affect the way people approach the parties in the next presidential election? Is there any issue in the Cyprus public debate strong enought to force people to organize across party lines?