The discussion about the 2028 presidential election has begun well before the official announcement of candidates, with early campaign activity already influencing the political agenda. Speaking on the “Alpha Kalimera” program, political analyst Christoforos Christoforou warns that the prolonged campaign period diverts the political debate away from society’s everyday problems and makes it difficult to identify substantive policysolutions.
“It all started very early—far too early—and this is a serious problem that affects not only politics but society as a whole. Because the shift in focus toward a never-ending election campaign prevents people from staying in touch with reality—the problems people face today—and there’s another important aspect regarding the content: What can actually be presented as proposals during an endless election campaign, when we know that in Cyprus, political figures are quite lacking in terms of what they can offer, and we also observe that there is a wide gap between rhetoric and proposalsthat could lead to a real solution to the various problems faced by the people of Cyprus.”
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
When asked to comment on the fact that there is currently no official candidate, he states that even the person who will be elected as the party’s candidate will not know until February 2028 whether they will remain in that position.
“If we look back a bit at history, the candidate who served the longest as a candidate for President of the Republic was Spyros Kyprianou, who had announced his candidacy in July 1996, and in 1998—the year of the presidential election—his party supported Giorgos Iakovou, who had been endorsed by AKEL. His candidacy lasted about two years.”
Regarding the Democratic Rally and the public statements of support for one candidate or the other, he states that this is inevitable and wonders to what extent they can actually influence the outcome.
“There are high-ranking officials who have taken a stance, but even though we may have an indication,regarding the influence they have on the rank-and-file based on the votes they received in previous elections, this cannot with certainty lead to the conclusion that they influence enough voters to make them follow the positions they have taken in favor of one candidate or another. At the same time, however, it creates—at least outwardly—the image of a party that has, to some extent, created a chaotic situation.”
“As a party, in recent years it seems to lack leadership figures who can steer the party in a certain direction,” says Mr. Christoforou.
“It has weaknesses. We are no longer in an era where there was a single leader. There used to be key figures who lent the party a certain level of prestige and were able to steer things in the right direction. Of course, there’s a difference when it comes to the officials themselves, but also to the leader. There was once Glafkos Clerides, who—not necessarily on his own but with the team he had by his side—was able to steer the course. Anita Dimitriou enjoys popularity and acceptance not only within the party but also more broadly; however, she does not yet possess the leadership qualities needed to control and steer the course of events.”
“This leaves the field open for party officials to each speak their own minds and ultimately create the impression or raise the question: what the Democratic Alarm actually wants, where it’s headed, what its ideology is, and what its goals are,” he continues.
He also raises the question of what the leaders are seeking to achieve with their statements.
“There have been very serious problems within the Democratic Alarm in the past as well. Let’s not forget, for example, that exactly 20 years ago, in the 2006 elections, we had three parties that had emerged from a split. However, there was a period during which the leadership at the time managed to hold the party together. The problem, of course, is that since then—for at least the last fifteen years—the party’s focus has been on coming in first. Coming in first in the elections has prevented the party from developing a distinct identity and from having a policy, a policy framework.”
He considers it problematic that certain policy frameworks that had been adopted were subsequently forgotten.
