If blackmail did indeed take place—and that “if” is essential here—then the problem does not concern a single party. It concerns the quality of a political establishment that seeks to govern us
Within a few days, the Democratic Alarm went from having three contenders for the presidential nomination to two. Averof Neophytou was the first to make a move, leaving open whether he would seek the nomination through the party or run as an independent. Party President Anita Dimitriou followed suit almost immediately, and shortly thereafter, George Pamporidis. After consultations at Pindarou, Ms. Dimitriou appeared flanked by the two men and announced that she was withdrawing for the sake of unity. She insists that the decision was entirely her own, made without conditions and without pressure. In public discourse, however, rumors have circulated about behind-the-scenes maneuvering, deals, and even blackmail.
What could have led to this about-face? There aren’t many plausible explanations. The first is that the prospect of an independent run—which would split the party just as it did in 2023—carried more weight than any poll. The second is that the president assessed the dynamics among party members and was not satisfied with what she saw. The third is that her candidacy was defensive from the outset and that she herself prefers to retain the party leadership and the presidency of the Parliament, with her sights set beyond 2028. The fourth is that figures within her faction made it clear to her that, in the event of a split, she would be held responsible.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
Nikolas on “25 Minutes”: “Anita’s withdrawal changes the situation”
DIKO: What’s next after Anita?
But let’s focus on the essence of the matter. If blackmail did indeed take place—and that “if” is essential here—then the problem isn’t about a single party. It concerns the quality of a political establishment that seeks to govern us. And even if there was no blackmail, the fact that society considers it entirely possible speaks volumes. Because public opinion watches all this as if in a trance. It discusses who won and who lost, who “made the sacrifice” and who “played hardball.” Almost no one asks where and how the decisions are made that will determine who will govern the country. The abnormal has become the norm, and the norm no longer shocks anyone.
When politics takes place in taverns and behind closed doors, with backroom deals and the involvement of figures who hold no institutional role, what kind of leadership can we expect? How independent will a president be who owes his position to such power balances? And who will have the final say when the time comes for difficult decisions?
There is something else as well. These are the people who will sit across from experienced negotiators in Brussels and at the Cyprus negotiation table. There are no tavern gatherings there, nor any intermediaries who have our trust. If they can’t manage an internal party process without whispers and backroom deals, they’ll be devoured for breakfast—or perhaps just as a snack.
So the question isn’t just who will get the nomination. It’s whether we’ll continue to watch all this unfold as if nothing is going on.
Nicholas Kyriakou is a lawyer.
