By Nikos Mesaritis
There are politicians who confine their responsibility to the boundaries of the community they represent. And there are those who, even in difficult historical circumstances, try to look beyond the dividing lines in search of a common future. Mustafa Akinci belongs, in my political judgement, to the second category. His path as a Turkish Cypriot politician and his public stance towards Turkey deserve to be discussed in Greek Cypriot society without prejudice and without the convenience of ready-made national labels.
Akinci was never a politician who hesitated to acknowledge the painful truths of Cypriot history. On 20 July 2015, speaking about the events of 1974, he said that what had been called a “peace operation” was in reality a war. He spoke of the suffering endured by both communities, acknowledging that Greek Cypriots were among the great victims of the 1974 tragedy. The statement carried particular political weight: a Turkish Cypriot leader was not confining himself to the official Turkish narrative but recognising a historical reality that for decades had been a point of denial and confrontation.
It was not the only time he distanced himself from Ankara. In 2019, when Turkey launched a military operation in Syria, Akinci spoke of war, bloodshed and the need for diplomacy and dialogue to prevail. Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s reaction was public and sharp. The Turkish president criticised him, claiming he had overstepped his limits. Rather than retract his position, Akinci defended his right to express a different view. He went further, saying that relations with Turkey must rest on mutual respect and that holding a different opinion cannot be treated as a crime.
That stance matters for Cyprus. One does not need to agree with every political position Akinci has taken to recognise the importance of a Turkish Cypriot leader who defended his political autonomy and spoke of the need for the two communities to live together. His political compass was never simply the representation of one community against the other. It was the search for a settlement that would give all Cypriots a place and a future in the same homeland.
The clearest expression of this outlook is perhaps found in his repeated interventions on energy resources. From 2015 and 2016 he argued that the natural resources of Cyprus belong to all Cypriots and should be a source of cooperation, not conflict. In 2017 he warned that without a settlement and compromise, the gas reserves could become a source of tension. This was not an opportunistic turn of phrase but a consistent political position.
Today, with six natural gas discoveries in the Cypriot EEZ amounting to estimated resources of around 20 trillion cubic feet, his intervention takes on new relevance. Akinci brings back the essential question. Will we use our energy wealth to sharpen rivalries, or will we place it within a policy that can benefit both communities and the wider region? The answer does not lie only in pipelines, agreements and investments. It lies first and foremost in political will.
This is the difference between the politics of coexistence and the politics of nationalism. The first looks for ways to turn shared problems into shared solutions. The second constantly needs an opponent, a threat, a reason to keep people apart. For nationalism, even natural wealth can become a pretext for conflict. For a politics that looks to the future, it can become an incentive for cooperation.
Akinci’s defeat in the 2020 elections and the victory of Ersin Tatar did not erase this different political vision. They did, however, make it less visible in an environment where nationalist positions gained more political ground. And here lies a question that concerns our own society too. How much space do we give to the voices that insist on peace? How often do we publicly stand by those from the other community who dare to challenge nationalism and dependence on Ankara?
We cannot demand that Turkish Cypriots resist nationalist pressure while treating those who do so with indifference or suspicion. Nor can we speak of a solution to the Cyprus problem while allowing the politics of division to present itself as the only safe option. Silence in the face of nationalism, from whichever side it comes, is not neutrality. It helps sustain the climate that stands in the way of understanding.
The message, then, is not only about Akinci. It concerns everyone who believes that Cyprus can have no future through the permanent confrontation of its communities. Anti-nationalist voices, Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot alike, need to be heard clearly, publicly and without fear. They must not leave the public sphere to the spokesmen of intolerance. They must defend peace not as an abstract wish but as a political choice with concrete content.
Akinci reminds us that even in the hardest of circumstances, a politics different from the one dictated by fear is possible. We do not need to idealise him to recognise the significance of that stance. We do, however, need to listen to him. Because the natural wealth of Cyprus can wait to be exploited. The opportunities for peace are not inexhaustible. And our silence must not become the last word of our history.
This article by Nikos Mesaritis was originally published in Greek in Politis on 14 November 2026.
