A serious political debate could have been held, even with sharp exchanges on both sides, over the refusal of the parliamentary majority in Cyprus to approve a six-month extension of Marilena Raouna's appointment as Cyprus' coordinator for European affairs.
AKEL and DISY argued that the need to continue the appointment had not been sufficiently justified and that the role was not directly linked either to the EU presidential trio or, even more so, to negotiations on the new Multiannual Financial Framework. The government has every right to disagree and defend its choice. The parties, likewise, have the right to scrutinise, reject and vote according to their political judgment.
There is, however, a vast distance between that and the launch of a selective and deplorable campaign to discredit the Speaker of the House.
Unfortunately, it was the President of the Republic himself who chose to fuel the targeting of Annita Demetriou when he said he expected a negative vote from AKEL because he considers it an anti-European party, but not from DISY, which he described as pro-European.
In doing so, he did not merely express political criticism. He implied the existence of other motives within his former party and effectively signalled the start of a new attack. He sent a message of political elimination against the Speaker of the House, whom he apparently regards as a political rival for 2028.
Let us be clear once again. Criticism is legitimate. Personal attacks, crude insinuations and the circulation of gossip about the private lives of political opponents are not politics. They are the degradation of public discourse.
Even more troubling is the reappearance of the same individuals and anonymous accounts that were prominent during the toxic atmosphere of the 2022 election campaign.
No one can easily prove who directs them, although revelations at the time made it clear that many were relatives of the President and paid associates, judging by information leaked from the President's own WhatsApp account.
We are certain that the Presidential Palace's response is that it has "no involvement". Even so, political leadership is judged by whether it condemns such behaviour or allows it to function as an informal mechanism for eliminating opponents.
The President had a duty to protect institutional dialogue.
Instead, he chose confrontation.
Unfortunately, he and his team appear to have learned nothing.
