By Christos Georgiou
The political and social context for next May’s parliamentary elections bears little resemblance to previous cycles. Everyone is operating in a radically different landscape. Cyprus’s political life is being reshaped, unsurprisingly but decisively, by new factors that are likely to make a clear difference. In short, the system is shaken by an unprecedented crisis in how various social forces are represented. This is not only about the strengthening of the far right, a trend that is gradually taking root in Cyprus. It also reflects a deeper crisis of de-politicisation and the simultaneous entry into the arena of new “anti-system” figures and formations. The broad conditions of a visible, pervasive shift are already here. The coming vote could test, even call into question, the quality of democratic procedure within the House itself.
Communication instead of politics
A different image of politics has been reinforced by the established parties’ failure to resist the supposedly “new” and, in practice, their attempt to stroke it and profit from it, hiding their weaknesses while creating conditions for the merely seemingly different to survive as an “alternative.” The election of Nikos Christodoulides to the Presidency was the first strong sign of “change”: a politician who rose without a traditional party backbone, with a vague ideological profile, seeking to impose new rules by investing in the image of a unifier and manager above party lines. Politics turned into communication; substance yielded to style. That victory two and a half years ago opened the way to a new configuration capable of overturning existing assumptions. Without forcing mechanical comparisons, the election of Fidias Panayiotou added another jolt: a newly elected MEP without policy proposals or political track record. The vote for him was not simply apolitical, it was anti-political: an ironic rebuke to the system that nonetheless secured institutional representation.
The Michaelides phenomenon
Another powerful axis of challenge to the “established order” is the rapidly developing phenomenon around former Auditor-General Odysseas Michaelides. With, for now, an unclear programme and no firm ideological positioning, any new effort needs time, his acceptance among voters seems hard to reverse. For part of society, the technocrat Michaelides is a form of resistance to the party establishment, seeking “moral cleansing” more actively than political solutions. By hollowing out politics and turning it into a field of opportunistic approaches, the party establishment has helped anti-system sentiment grow, fertile ground for an emerging populism rooted in the long-standing practices of the major traditional parties.
Normalising the far right
Broad tolerance of far-right elements has embedded a formation with a narrow agenda, anti-migration rhetoric, nationalism, less focus on the institutional crisis, and simplistic answers to complex problems. The centre-right’s tolerance, even as ELAM eats into its base, reveals deep awkwardness in confronting the trend. In Greece, both the President and the Speaker of Parliament refuse meetings with ELAM’s representatives, citing their refusal to legitimise a Golden Dawn alternative. Parties in Cyprus, increasingly prey to ELAM’s electoral appetites, have offered no meaningful response or follow-through on the line set by Greek democratic institutions. The political paralysis is such that they cannot react even on the obvious.
Electoral survival?
The most worrying development is that far-right entrenchment has not been contained but strengthened by the stance of the centre-right. DISY, chiefly for reasons of electoral survival, avoided drawing clear red lines. Through silent acceptance or converging rhetoric, it gradually normalised the far right’s presence. That strategy leads to ideological erosion: chasing right-wing votes with extreme-tinged tactics yields double losses, you forfeit both the centre and moderation. This shift; political, ideological and social, drains DISY’s character and base, risking a similar depletion of its electoral core.
The emerging picture will not pass without consequences. The gamble is not about individual parties or even their continued existence. Consequences are not theoretical: a fragmented House after May, with strong far-right and other “anti-system” actors as parliamentary arbiters, could deliver a serious blow to the functionality of the chamber. The legislature’s capacity to produce policy, advance reforms and conduct serious debate risks being lost in an atmosphere of polarisation, showmanship and micropolitics. Instead of the broadly established parliamentary dialogue, we may face monologues of populism unfamiliar to the House and to Cypriot society.
The months ahead
Against this backdrop, the coming months will assemble an intriguing domestic puzzle that could prove decisive in shaping a new operating framework for party politics. The central question is whether voters will choose accommodation or full disengagement from the current system. There is still time, both for corrective moves and for sober reflection.