This is going to be a long read, so prepare yourself haha.

Two days I was watching a podcast – it was about 2 football fans expressing their opinions about certain football topics. These two football fans are fans of rival teams. Essentially the point of the podcast to lay down a topic, and there are 4 options for the 2 fans: agree, completely agree, disagree, completely disagree. Topics included for example comparing a legend of each club i.e. which one did better, or in a match between the teams whether the referee decisions were fair. What caught my attention is that whenever one guy was saying completely agree on a topic, the other one was saying completely disagree. You would assume that on such topics, for example whether a match was fairly refereed (don’t know if this is the right word lol), the two people would have more or less the same opinion on the topic. Yet, one was seeing white and one was seeing black. So the question that comes up, is, is it truly such a controversial and non-obvious thing to see whether a match was refereed fairly, or do the people just refuse to see the reality in front of them because of … some underlying reasons? Because maybe if they accept the true decision, that would mean the other team is better than them (if you can blame it to the referee, then that explains your loss basically). Things to think about…

So, I have been watching the reddit posts for the 2023 elections lately and I have of course noticed that a lot of people here shit on Christodoulidis, which was kind of weird for me because at first I liked him – he seemed to be ethical and not corrupt and maybe at first I fell for that. Many of the arguments against him that basically he will not bring anything new to the table, and he does not say anything useful than empty words and trying to get crowds from every party. These words actually made me have second thoughts about him and maybe indeed choosing one of the main ones should be the way to go(?) I mean choosing different parties that have strong ‘habits’ for example if you want a strong economy vote for ‘DISY’ (for example). And then I closed reddit and went to watch a movie.

The movie was a war movie. Anyway it does not matter what the movie was, but what matters is it reminded me of Greece and second world war. I dont know why, but it did. I was thinking about all the heroism of 1940 we are taught in school and so on and for some reason I was so hyped that I closed the movie and went to watch a documentary for the Greco Italian war (I am not ELAM btw). At the beginning of the documentary before it talks about the actual war, the documentary make an important note. After, the Italians hit a Greek boat/aircraft carrier ‘Elli’, the Greeks put aside all their differences, and united to fight Italy. You sense that probably there was a sense of togetherness between them there is no division because they know what is best for the country is to set aside all the stupid political differences because the country is at stake. Other people that are like this, are for example the Brits.

Now the natural follow up question: are WE like this? In the face of an adversary, do we unite and set aside all the political differences? I am not gonna touch on this because if I do, 100 people will come and hunt me with corrections. And I am not gonna even mention the TCs because it is even more complicated there.

So the question is: can we come together and face the problem that our country is divided and occupied? Granted, maybe Christodoulidis is maybe not the best, but at least he broadcasts that vibe or togetherness and maybe represents the unification of all the parties. If we keep voting AKEL, DISY, etc. we are never gonna see the problem solved because each of them won’t deviate from their positions. Each party is stakeholder of less than 50% of the population so whatever one party says will never become reality. Only if we sit together and agree and make decisions, we can make progress I think. Of course we have to include the TCs on that table, as they are also stakeholders of this island, but with a much much different agenda – and that is why this problem is so hard to solve. But at least for starters, let’s agree between us (GCs) what we want, and let’s not be like the two football fans in the beginning of this essay, the kind of people that if you show them a blue image, one will say black and the other one white.

Anyway I know this post is going to get a lot of hate probably. I do not care if you hate me or not. Growing up in Cyprus I was very careful of what I was saying because I felt like if I did something unconventional I would be criticized – and no matter how much I love Cyprus that’s one thing I hate about the culture. But maybe that’s who we are: strong (in our heads) personalities, that we are always right, the decisions we make are always perfect, everyone else is stupid and we are smart and in the prisoner’s dilemma game ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9Lo2fgxWHw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9Lo2fgxWHw)) we always defect because we are not trustworthy or have trust in others.

P.S.: the podcast video

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32qNbJzt\_IU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32qNbJzt_IU)

10 comments

  1. The thing is we are at a point where globalisation and multi-culturism is the new future, notions such as coming together as a nation as people is a thing of the past. Old ethno-nationalistic politics, we can nowadays see this in Turks in Russians. I think it is a collectivist backwards thinking that creates a mob mentality and causes grouping. It has no place in an individualistic world that we are heading into.

  2. The difference is that you see Christodoulides as ‘unification of all the parties’, and I see him as representing the worst (in my opinion, as a liberal progressive voter) elements of the various parties:

    – The conservative wing of DHSY (τη λεγόμενη ‘λαική / εθνικιστική’ δεξιά σε αντίθεση με την πιο φιλελεύθερη αστική δεξια) who bends over to the church

    – The anti-solution approach of DIKO and EDEK in the Cyprus problem

    – Hardline immigration policies

    – It is a well known fact that his wife is a hardcore supporter of Mitropolitis Morfou. It’s a good thing he wasn’t president during the pandemic, or he would have had lots of pressure to block the ‘devil vaccines with the microchip from Bill Gates’

    I am not a DHSY supporter but I would definitely vote for Averof before Christodoulides. At least Averof will need to bow to his western masters and maintain fairly progressive liberal social policies (like LGBT rights, abortion rights etc.) mandated by the EU.

  3. Two point for Christodoulides.

    How someone say ‘don’t vote for DYSI/AKEL’ and then say that Christodoulides could still be an option(in this case, even worse, an option to unite all). Christosoulides is a proud member of DISY, an apostate of DISY, apostate that didn’t leave because of corruption or because he disagreed with the politics of DISY, he left because he couldn’t compete against Averof to become the official candidate of the party.

    How can someone think that Christodoulides that actively participated in a Government that is known for its corruption (at least Cyprus is more recognisable now abroad) be regarded as non-corrupt, as clean, as ethical?

    DIPA suggests a broad based government in order to tackle the problems of the country together. Imo that’s against the spirit of democracy. Different opinions, pluralism is essential.

    One party may not have 50% representation (in fact the whole Parliament doesn’t even represent the 50% of Cypriots considering the high abstain rate, the 15% of voters-including myself- that chose a party that isn’t in the Parliament, the number of young Cypriots that didn’t even registered to become voters), but the President will get elected with 50%, the people will give someone rhe right to follow his policies and the Parliament will have to accept that.

    PS: Is firing the guy who wrote your first speech(the speech where you present your dream for future Cyprus) because it included the same phrases from a speech of another politician one of the traits of a candidate that has a real vision of what a new better Cyprus should look like?

    PS2: Are ministers supposed to visit bishops to get advice for Cyprus Foreign & Energy Policy?(question from someone who isn’t an atheist)

  4. I would have answered, but I am writing yet another book, and one of the biggest struggles is creating a future scenario for future Cyprus, where future Cypriots will find a common identity.

    ​

    It really is a really fine line to cross.

  5. 2 main things of your post:

    1) Rallying together as a nation with the meaning you are giving it, is probably a thing of the past. It has been extensively used by Torries in the UK in regards to “Us” vs EU and later to cover their mistakes about Brexit. It just doesn’t work like that anymore because the us vs them usually meant that you get all of your information from the “us” side, which more often than not was subjected to propaganda. Nowadays you have not only people among us who would be part of “them” because of multiculturalism (whatever “them” is), but also ample information coming from all angles. So no, unless it is a serious life-threatening issue, there won’t be any “rallying the nation” because the limits of what constitutes a nation have changed throught the 20th and 21st century.

    2) Christodoulides is for me the worst out of the probable candidates. He resembles someone who *doesn’t really* want a solution (at least not one I agree with), someone who is willing to bring a more conservative approach for social issues(something I am adamantly against), he is -at least in closed circles- ok with ELAM being more prominent in the political landscape of the island and generally someone who is not aligned with anything I do. I know that what I think doesn’t matter for anybody else, but I am pretty certain a lot of left or left-leaning people thing the same. So that’s your answer about why are people not behind a “neutral” candidate.

    All that being said, Christodoulides was first in the poll of this subreddit that happened a couple of days ago and this subreddit is very far away from how our society is structured, as it is predominantly liberal left leaning and our society is more conservative right leaning. If that’s the case, and Christodoulides scores more in this environment (assuming there is no conspiracy theories and paid bots) then it is a pretty good chance he ends up being the favourite.

  6. We’ve been divided for years, even football teams have to be left or right. If one thing can unite us, then it’s war, and no one wants that (I hope). But definitely not Christodoulides. Maybe he has that Makarios, good, pious, once poor boy from Paphos vibe and that’s why many people are falling for it. But as others have said, he is the establishment. Since you seem to want a change of policy when it comes to the Cyprus problem, I don’t think Christodoulides is the person for that. At this point, I think only a true leader can do it and someone willing to take risks and convince the people that those risks are worth it – we’ve had the status quo for so long, nothing can happen without being bold. I don’t get the risk/leader vibe from Christodoulides, more the status quo/personal ambition vibe.

  7. Hey everyone! Thanks for answering and sharing your thoughts. I think it’s good to have a conversation going. I just want to clarify some things:

    1. I am not trying to astroturf. I am just a Cypriot student that wants the best for its country. I am not trying to enforce my ideas to anyone, and I only like to speak the truth and only the truth and if something I am saying is incorrect please downvote me and correct me. I also have a normal account, I just wanted to make it completely anonymous.
    2. Just because I said these things for Christodoulidis does not mean I am a supporter of his or I am going to vote him. Some people said he is probably the union of the least good things about each party. For me he is like a symbolic person: someone that will bring everyone together and discuss our future. AKEL, DISY and ALL the people on the island, especially the TCs, have an interest in solving the problem sooner than later. Perhaps the benefit of a solution that is not ideal for some people will be bigger than the benefit that they would get if no solution occurs.
    3. Someone said that Christodoulidis was caught plagiarizing. I did not notice that and I say again: I am not pro-Christodoulidis, I am just pro someone that can bring us together on this issue.
    4. Someone said that in the individualistic world we live in, it is impossible for us to all come together and agree because everyone has different incentives. I do not agree with that. When you have an active problem you prioritize it, you go solve it and then go on with your life. When you have a leaking pipe in your house you have to go and fix it. Then you go on with your life. Now we have this problem we have to dedicate our resources and fix it as soon as possible, not try to find ways to make profit out of it. If indeed, we are in a situation people in both communities are happy, let’s call it a day and stop calling it a problem. But people in both communities are not happy with the status quo, so things must be done. Everyone is trying to get their unchanged position to be the solution, which leads to a stalemate. But what ultimately that means is that everyone is losing the benefit of the solution which is going to be bigger in the long term.

  8. 1) I also used to respect Christodoulides as F.A. Minister, but as a presidential candidate, he is full of shit imao. His candidacy is a “call to everyone”, which is simple populism. Today he said that his solution to immigration is for Cyprus not to be an attractive destination for those people. In the words of Louis Patsalides i shall answer:

    “Those people are desperate, those kids bear no blame, they don’t make a dangerous journey to come to the Hotel Pournara of Nouris”

    Christodoulides is evolving into (or maybe he always was) a racist right wing politician to appeal to Diko and Edek.

    2) It is true that cyprus is a politically polarized society, but we are nothing compare to Greece or the U.S.. I like how we speak openly and freely about politics everywere, kafenes, trapezia, mpukika etc etc, and although we disagree, we still hold on to a general attidute that at the end of the day, the whole political elit of Cyprus is full of shit, they are to blame, and we don’t need to make those political disagreements personal (like in the U.S.).

    In hard times every community or people comes closer together. We did it during and after the war of 1974, but that’s not always a good thing. Unity cannot be a political goal per se, because then, disagreement or resistance to it becomes a form a treason. Politics do entail antinomies, we need disagreements, debates and in depth discussions about them. Again, this is why Christodoulides attidute of ” call to everyone, unity without “pointless” disagreements” is stupid. It’s so naively stupid that i cannot even call it dangerous (although in other contexts, this attidute would indeed be considered dangerous, remember that fascism also focused on unity as a state virtue).

Leave a Reply