The clash that erupted between DISY, AKEL, and the government, sparked by appointments to parastatal organizations and the role of the Advisory Council.
Following the government’s harsh response—delivered by Government Spokesperson Konstantinos Letympiotis—to DISY and AKEL, the Democratic Alarm is responding once again, calling on the government to stop “populist rhetoric from the podium” and to respond “in an institutional manner befitting a government.”
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
READ ALSO: “Same Position, Remarkable Synchronization”: How the Government Responds to Criticism from DISY and AKEL
The full text of DISY’s statement in response to the government:
Yesterday, from Paralimni, the President of the Republic chose to respond evasively to the public outcry over his mistakes and omissions regarding the recent appointments. He resorted to the well-known joke about DISAKEL, once again underestimating the intelligence of the public. It is the same evasive tactic he uses every time he has no answers. An attempt to shift the discussion from substance to perception, and from accountability to generalities.
The Government itself, on June 28, 2023, in the Council’s Recommendation, stipulated that:
“in the event that the Council of Ministers does not select individuals from the aforementioned list for appointment, this decision must be fully justified.”
SEE ALSO: “The party’s over”: President’s harsh response to DISY and AKEL regarding appointments to parastatal organizations
This is not the opposition’s position. It is the text of the recommendation for the institution that the opposition itself announced as a landmark accountability reform. It is its own commitment to the institution. And today, for 21 of the 95 appointments, that commitment has been violated.
The government is violating its own provision. Because there is no justification.
It doesn’t matter what any other party, such as AKEL, says.
The issue is institutional. And it concerns the government exclusively, not us. The government itself is undermining the institution it created.
We remain exactly where we have been from day one: in favor of transparency, in favor of meritocracy, and in favor of the institutions that the Government itself is obligated to respect. DISY has neither sought appointments nor is it interested in them.
The 6 answers the government owes the citizens
The government owes answers to the citizens based on its own provision in the advisory committee’s recommendation. One response per non-list appointment, including the full name, supporting documentation, and respect for the 1,282 candidates who submitted applications in good faith, trusting in an institutional process:
- For each of the 21 off-list appointments, what is the justification? The Advisory Committee’s recommendation requires a “full” justification. That is, each case must be addressed separately, with the same level of evaluation applied as for the candidates who submitted applications.
- How were these 21 individuals identified? Was there a second, parallel process that was not made public? Were lists submitted by political parties used? Were personal recommendations made to the ministers? Were they sent via message? Are they personal “friends” of the ministers? Citizens have a right to know what process is used to select anyone who did not go through the open platform.
- Which candidates were recommended by the Advisory Committee for these specific positions and were passed over? Do they have qualifications that are objectively inferior to those of the appointees? Do they have political qualifications inferior to those of the appointees? If so, based on what evaluation criteria? If not, why were these individuals not on the list preferred?
- How does this practice align with Article 28 of the Constitution regarding equal treatment? Were the citizens who submitted applications, along with CVs and a documented evaluation process, treated equally compared to those who did not even need to submit an application to be appointed?
- Why did the number of off-list appointments rise from 5 in 2024 (with the explicit public justification of a “smooth transition”) to 21 in 2026, without any public justification? The increase is fourfold. Transparency is nonexistent. How has the institution’s philosophy changed?
- Is the government going to make public the full rationale for each of the 21 appointments, as it is bound to do by its own decisions?
SEE ALSO: DISY Criticizes Christodoulides: His Remarks Are Unacceptable, Offensive, and Divisive
A state is not judged by its announcements, as the government would like, but—unfortunately for the President—by its consistency in fulfilling its commitments.
The answers to these questions do not lend themselves to political grandstanding. They require only official explanatory documents. Meritocracy and accountability are not slogans; they are actions. And the action required here is one and only one: for the Government itself to honor the commitment it made to the public in June 2023 and to answer the six questions we are submitting.
READ ALSO: AKEL Responds to Christodoulides: The Party Isn’t Over; Nikolas Came to the Presidential Palace with His Lists
