By Anastasia Petrou
The Democratic Rally (DISY) has a serious problem. No, it is not who will win the nomination for the 2028 presidential elections. Nor whether Averof will manage a comeback, whether Harris will vote for him, or whether Annita will manage to get them all into the same photo without the help of artificial intelligence. The problem is far more serious. DISY is in danger of being left ideologically naked. And worse still, its leading figures have not noticed that they are already walking around in their underwear.
The latest display of ideological nudity was prompted by Harris Georgiades, who decided to remind us that DISY has principles, values, a history and long-standing political positions. So long-standing, in fact, that they can change depending on the candidate, the alliances and everyone’s personal preferences.
Harris accuses Averof of having drifted away from DISY’s principles. It is a fascinating accusation, especially coming from the man who chairs the Glafcos Clerides Institute. Glafcos Clerides, as we all know, was not only the founder of DISY. He also had a small political quirk: he believed in solving the Cyprus problem through a bizonal, bicommunal federation. He did not see it as a secondary matter, or as a detail that could be dropped from the party’s programme for the sake of electoral flexibility. It was the flagship of his politics.
Harris, however, seems to have discovered a new version of Cleridism: Cleridism without the federation. Something like souvlaki without the meat, halloumi without the milk, or the Democratic Rally without the Rally. In other words, you can honour Clerides, chair his institute and invoke his political legacy, while leaving out of the package what may well be its most important ingredient.
The Cyprus problem
And since politics abhors a vacuum, where the federation once stood there is room for a lovely partnership with DIKO. Perhaps, depending on circumstances, ELAM could also fit into the wider political picture. Let’s not pretend otherwise: Harris has an ideology which says that this country should be governed by the right, so everyone should stop the nonsense and come together in one big centre-right party.
This is where it gets truly delightful. Clerides devoted much of his political life to seeking a federal solution. Today’s heir to his political tradition may consider it preferable to join forces with political parties that oppose one.
In other words, we honour Clerides, as long as no one asks us to put into practice what he believed. It is a creative approach to history. Eventually, a Makarios-Grivas Institute could be founded to champion enosis, completing Cyprus’s fine tradition of political surrealism.
The mighty Foullis
To be fair, Averof Neofytou has not abandoned the federation, at least not in words. Every so often, he still warns of the dangers of no solution and of the tsunami that could sweep away whatever is left of the prospect of reuniting Cyprus.
Except that, while waiting for the tsunami, he seems to be seeking political salvation on a raft he wants everyone to climb aboard. So he sets ideology aside and starts the clowning around, looking for allies without discrimination.
ELAM, Odysseas Michaelides, Fidias Panayiotou, Charalambidou and anyone else with votes, influence or even a respectable social media following are all welcome.
It does not matter whether they believe in a bizonal federation, a unitary state, the continuation of the status quo or the abolition of all parties through an online referendum. What matters is that everyone gets into the boat with Foullis as captain, and Miliokas’s “Greco Maskara” as the party anthem.
The amusing part of this masquerade is that Foullis sees no particular contradiction between defending a federal solution and seeking alliances with political camps on the opposite shore. In his political geography, the distance between federalists and rejectionists, between friends and foes, can be bridged by a good opinion poll or a meeting at Koulermos’s house in Episkopio. After all, what are ideological differences compared with the need to build a winning alliance?
Small misunderstandings
And so we arrive at a wonderful paradox. Harris accuses Averof of ideological deviation, while drifting away himself from Clerides’ central choice on the Cyprus problem. Averof denounces the abandonment of the policy of a solution, yet reaches out to forces that disagree with precisely that solution. One wants Clerides without the federation. The other wants the federation along with the anti-federalists. If Glafcos Clerides were alive, he would probably need not one but two cigars, and three shots of zivania, just to follow the debate.
At this point, a simple question arises. What exactly does ideology mean in DISY today? Is it commitment to solving the Cyprus problem? Is it a European orientation? Is it a liberal economy? Is it a modern centre-right? Or is ideology whatever is left once personal ambitions are subtracted and the necessary electoral allies are added?
Judging by what we are witnessing, DISY seems to have discovered a new political theory: the ideological buffet. You go up with your plate, pick whatever suits you and leave aside anything that might give you electoral indigestion. Harris takes a little Cleridism, plenty of centre-right, a portion of DIKO, and leaves the federation on the table. Foullis takes the federation, adds a little ELAM, a little Odysseas, a little Fidias and a drop of Charalambidou, then drowns the mixture in a generous helping of electoral expediency. Both, of course, insist they are following the original recipe.
Best of all, their disagreements are presented as something like a battle for the soul of the party. Except that no one adequately explains what exactly that soul consists of.
Back to front
Let’s not waste words. In Cyprus, we have learned to do things back to front. First we find the candidate, then the allies, then we construct the political narrative and, if there is time left over, we look for a little ideology as a garnish. The old principles, the things held sacred, are reverently preserved for anniversary speeches. There they are safe. They bother no one, they do not break alliances and, above all, they do not cost votes.
In this way, Clerides’ political legacy risks becoming a kind of family heirloom. Everyone shows it off to visitors, but no one feels obliged to use it. Glafcos will always be present in the photos, at the conferences, at the anniversaries and in the speeches of praise. In political decisions, however, his presence will depend on the needs of the moment. Perhaps, in the end, the solution is simple:
DISY could hold an annual ideological conference, where the question would not be what the party believes, but what it still believes out of what it believed the year before.
An inventory would be taken.
Federation? Under review.
Centre-right? Depending on the allies.
European orientation? Of course, unless a different approach is needed.
Cleridism? Always, but open to personal interpretation.
At the end, a resolution in favour of unity would be adopted unanimously, and the search for the next internal enemy would begin.
The suit
The problem, of course, is not that politicians change their views. Views can and should evolve. Nor is it that parties seek cooperation with different political camps. That is the essence of politics. The problem begins when ideology is used as a club against an internal rival and as an elastic band when it comes to our own choices.
When we demand absolute consistency from others but reserve for ourselves the right to unlimited exceptions, ideology stops being a compass. It becomes a suit. We wear it on formal occasions, take it off during negotiations and put it back on when we need to accuse an opponent of lacking principles.
In this case, however, it seems the two protagonists forgot to put it back on.
And that is how we arrived at the Democratic Rally’s great ideological exposure.
Which, to be honest, has a certain historical originality. Parties usually split because their members disagree about their principles. Today’s DISY risks splitting because everyone claims the same principles, but no one feels the need to apply them in the same way.
