Voices
Is the debate on foreclosures turning into a contest over who can offer the most protection, or are these promises nothing more than illusions? The state, government, Central Bank and Parliament, has an obligation to create a proper framework for foreclosures rather than scattered pieces of legislation and yet another freeze of the existing process.
At a time when society is stunned by revelations of underworld protection rackets, videos of torture, threats and rumours of foreign businesses leaving Cyprus due to mafia intimidation, Parliament has now stepped in to offer its own version of protection to borrowers and guarantors on the eve of parliamentary elections.
Does anyone believe investors, institutional or otherwise, will stay in this country for long while watching this unfold. The state must create a stable framework for foreclosures, not ad hoc laws and pre‑election freezes that resemble racketeering.
If the government believes the current legislation does not work, there is now money available to transfer primary residences to the state. That is how time is bought, not through last‑minute laws that look like strong‑arm tactics.
Harsh words, perhaps even unfair ones.
MPs may genuinely have wanted for some time to protect borrowers from unfair foreclosures, high borrowing costs, and to shield guarantors and primary homes. The fact that this coincided with the parliamentary elections may be a convenient coincidence. One of those lucky breaks in life that would be a shame to waste in the name of propriety and political correctness.
But that is not what foreign investors see or hear. What they hear is the metallic tap on their car window while they sit distracted at a traffic light, followed by a voice telling them they must pay.
What they see is someone trying to sell protection and an environment that does not feel safe. And that someone is not a random thug, but the Cypriot Parliament itself, which armed up on the eve of the elections.
And this scene is being set by the systemic parties. Parties that participate in government with ministers and have direct access to the Presidential Palace and the Ministry of Finance. Could they not, if they wished, bring forward proposals in cooperation with the government to expand the protection net for primary residences. At the same time, why does the opposition not wait until it governs to bring its own proposals, instead of trying to solve a genuinely serious social issue from the comfort of the parliamentary benches.
Should the opposition simply sit back until it becomes government in 2028, if that ever happens. Clearly not.
Political parties should have initiated the discussion on protecting borrowers. If they saw that the government and the Central Bank were not following, they should have brought them before Parliament and tabled proposals. They should examine which existing laws are inactive or which have failed to deliver what was expected when they were passed. Insolvency legislation could be the starting point, as very few people have made use of its provisions. Citizens are not protected through magic wands or last‑minute laws before elections.
As for the state, the best thing it can do until it restores proper access to justice for borrowers, and resolves unfair cases involving guarantors trapped in past banking practices, is to take over those loans itself. Through its own mechanisms, the loans can be transferred to the state.
It already manages the loans of the former Co‑operative Bank through KEDIPES, the Equal Burden Sharing Agency and the Housing Finance Corporation. All this should happen before bills reach Parliament and before the government sends them back, if it does.
Everything else is political theatre for the gullible or a warning shot aimed at unsettling foreign investors.