The appeal to unity has ended up serving as a gag on any dissent, criticism, or need for explanations. And this silencing does not affect only DISY, but society as a whole and the way the political system functions.
Shortly after the chaos caused by Haris Georgiadis’s letter to DISY President Annita Dimitriou, a letter in which he clarified that he would not participate in the election campaign if Averof Neophytou were ultimately the party’s candidate, the DISY Executive Bureau issued a “directive” prohibiting party officials from taking a stance on the internal party elections. It was a decision that was completely at odds with the party’s liberal profile, which otherwise promotes pluralism. Why, exactly, should a party that holds internal elections to select its candidate, and even boasts that these are a celebration of democracy, should not be plagued by such insecurity? Nor should it be forced to silence party officials who express an opinion on the elections, no matter how painful that opinion may be.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
De facto parent # De jure parent
What will cause real estate prices to fall?
However, it was also an inevitable decision given how far things had gone. And it essentially confirmed just how false the narrative of unity that had been built up all this time really was. A false image that served more as a gag than as a reality. And one that resurfaced as a directive every time there was disagreement among party officials regarding the party’s statements, decisions being made, or the leadership’s actions. It was precisely the narrative chosen by the DISY President to avoid any damage to the party’s image, to avoid making bold admissions, and to avoid having to make difficult decisions during crises.
This first became apparent when the reasons that led to the 2023 defeat were swept under the rug. This sidelined the need for a healthy, democratic dialogue in which party officials could present their arguments calmly. Whether the election result stemmed from a weak candidacy, a toxic campaign, the damage caused by a decade of governance, or the undermining of the DISY candidacy by high-ranking officials. A dialogue that would allow the wounds to heal and prevent the same mistakes from being repeated.
And while this image of unity was being presented, the public wondered exactly what common ground could possibly unite such contradictory statements and actions. Because while it was decided that the “Alarm” ministers would be expelled, at the very same time, they decided to include on the DISY ticket individuals who had played an active role in Nikos Christodoulides’s election campaign. While the party claimed to be in the opposition, it was slyly building an entire campaign for the parliamentary elections without any criticism of the government. Behind the scenes, party officials were discussing the possibility of aligning with the government after the elections. And while the leadership subsequently insisted that DISY would field its own candidate in the presidential election, it failed to clarify exactly which policies would distinguish him from Nicos Christodoulides. A telling example of this confusion is that, while an entire army of officials was assembled to monitor the government’s work and function as a shadow cabinet, its head recently stated that there are no ideological differences with the Christodoulides government.
A single word intended to cover up every shortcoming and sweep every crisis under the rug. Thus, the appeal to unity resurfaced with Anita Dimitriou’s decision to withdraw her candidacy. Presenting herself as an Iphigenia sacrificed for the sake of party unity, she did not explain why, in the name of unity, the party leader had to withdraw from the race so that Neophytou and Pamporidis could remain. And while she claimed it was her own decision, Haris Georgiadis today raises the very serious issue of political blackmail, casting doubt on her statements.
This reference cannot be swept under the rug by a moratorium on statements. And Anita Dimitriou can no longer hide behind a false sense of unity. She must explain what unfolded that led to her withdrawal. At some point, however, she will also have to answer whether outsiders truly wield such influence within the party that they can decide who will govern. Because this whole issue isn’t just about the Democratic Alarm, its leaders, or whether Averof Neophytou and Anita Dimitriou eventually came to an agreement. It concerns society as a whole. It concerns our democratic instincts and, above all, the integrity of our political system.
