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.