The pre‑election period is entering its final week. No substantive discussion has taken place on any of the major issues concerning society. This phenomenon is not new. Since 2004, when our side rejected the settlement plan proposed by UN Secretary‑General Kofi Annan, the Cyprus issue ceased to occupy parties and citizens. Attention shifted to other issues such as corruption, justice, the rule of law, the cost of living and traffic. However, all these serious problems are discussed on the basis of the dominant ideology of an irrational populist utilitarianism. Its main defining feature is irrationality.
Generalised unhappiness
As a society, we have for years sunk into a period of generalised unhappiness because we lived for a long time by following irrational principles. In order not to turn this into a philosophical essay, I will give one or two examples. During the presidency of Nicos Anastasiades, there were a series of government decisions or other activities that the average citizen could easily perceive as acts of corruption or improper conduct. Most members of the Democratic Rally leadership, with few exceptions, expressed their dissatisfaction privately with those decisions or activities.
The silence of officials
Yet all remained silent. No one came forward publicly to express disagreement. I could cite dozens of similar cases involving other presidents of the Republic and similar behaviour from the leaderships of the parties that supported them. If, as a society, we did not follow irrational principles, if populist utilitarianism did not dominate our thinking, many officials of the Democratic Rally and other parties would have reacted as many Labour Party ministers and MPs in Britain do today. They call on their prime minister to resign over activities that are questionable but far lower on the moral scale than those attributed to our own president.
Rules of coexistence
On the issue of over‑regulation, Cyprus may rank first in Europe. On the issue of rules of social coexistence, we are certainly among the last. There is no prosperous society without rules. Yet the urgent need to change perceptions first collides with prevailing ideologies and then with irrationality.
The 'bad' left‑winger
When, years ago, a figure from the Left was accused in the well‑known Dromolaxia case, I recall a well‑known supporter of DISY shouting his name at a court café and saying, “he’s a left‑winger, what do you expect?” What does this mean? It implies that a left‑winger is someone involved in scandals.
The 'bad' right‑winger
When recently the mayor of Paphos was accused of rape, many social media posts said that “he is not the first right‑winger accused of violence against women.” Such glaring oversimplifications are indicative of the incoherence of the times. Large sections of society assume that left‑wingers are not good people who follow high moral principles, while right‑wingers are generally moral and good. Equally, others believe that right‑wingers are morally inferior people who commit abuse, while left‑wingers do not, as they are inherently ethical.
Good and bad
A significant part of society condemns the atrocities of Israel in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran, but passionately justifies those of Putin in Ukraine. It considers capitalism responsible for humanity’s problems, but only Western capitalism. Capitalism in Russia and China is seen as acceptable. Yet logic shows that the Left‑Right distinction reflects economic disagreement over the production of goods. It does not reflect moral quality. It is not inherently good to be left‑wing, just as it is not inherently good to be right‑wing. The aim of capital in both the US and Russia is maximum profit. Many who express such views loudly have not thought about their meaning. They can be expressed because we have collectively abandoned reason and because they reflect the dominant ideology.
Accountability
As noted earlier, there is an absence of rules of social coexistence. These must be based on the fundamental principle of accountability. This principle, which was the foundation of ancient democracy, is effectively absent from public life. Under normal conditions, anyone exercising power in the name of the people is obliged to account for their actions. This accountability includes explaining actions and commitments, and also justifying silence where they should have spoken. The exercise of power without accountability is authoritarianism.
President as feudal lord
This perspective has encouraged the growth of a semi‑feudal system, where the president, as a feudal lord, is not accountable to citizens, and where MPs and party officials exert informal pressure to serve partisan or personal interests. Institutionalising accountability at all levels of power would weaken party dominance, reduce informal interventions and strengthen legitimacy.
Abstention
Many, due to this lack of accountability and other reasons, including the perception that conditions are worsening, consider abstaining from voting. I remind them that Euripides and Aristophanes lived in the same era and the same city, yet one wrote tragedies and the other comedies. Life is as dark as we choose to see it. Everything depends on how we approach reality. Go to the polls and choose the best candidates. Fortunately, such candidates exist. Not everyone is the same. There is still hope for improvement. If you do not vote, the only certainty is that things will get worse. The choice is yours.
