We are witnessing the triumphant rise of the individual agenda as the dominant feature of political life
There used to be political parties in Cyprus. They were formed in response to historical circumstances, had charismatic leaders, and represented the ideological trends of the time. AKEL, the oldest of the parties, was the voice of communist ideology; EDEK represented socialist-social democratic ideology, DISY embodied the “nationalist camp” with a clear right-wing, pro-Western orientation, and DIKO established the concept of the “Center,” which allowed it the flexibility to shift between the right and the left as needed. This was during the post-Makarios period, when the country’s political life was just beginning to take its first steps. Despite the strong personalities who led these parties (Ezekias Papaioannou, Glafkos Clerides, Vassos Lyssarides, and Spyros Kyprianou), the concept of the party as a collective organization existed in the consciousness of their members as well as more broadly in society. Moreover, their political choices from time to time were made on the basis of certain operating rules that created the impression, at the very least, that there was broader participation and legitimacy.
Of course, as a political situation that was essentially in its infancy, there were many instances of arbitrary decisions, the removal of members and officials who disagreed, and even external influence. However, the concept of the party existed, and those who became involved in this process—primarily during the postwar period—felt this sense of identification and expressed it through fanaticism, mass rallies, and passionate election campaigns.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
How likely is an “engagement” between ELAM and Christodoulides?
And now we come to the present. Not to romanticize the past, but to see where the country’s political life stands in this realm that everyone is accustomed to calling “the building block of democracy”: the political parties. It’s obvious that we’re no longer talking about collective entities that gave the impression of being movements. Rather, we are talking about the coexistence of personal ambitions and interests among those who are now “professionals” in politics.
Thus, Nikos Christodoulides disregarded the procedures of the party to which he belongs in order to serve his own ambition. DIKO has inevitably become trapped in the very methods it devised, and today its top officials have already decided, ahead of the party itself, who their candidate will be in the upcoming presidential election. Averof Neophytou legitimizes Christodoulides’ anti-party behavior through the atmosphere he creates. Anita Dimitriou appears to be using the party as a vehicle for her own ambitions. DISY officials are shuttling back and forth between Pindarou Street and the Presidential Palace, while, in the past, others did not hesitate to collaborate behind the scenes with the “hated enemy,” AKEL. Let’s not even mention EDEK, which personal agendas and interests have managed to tear apart.
If there is one party that maintains—at least in terms of image—the concept of collectivity, it is AKEL. Although even here, the recent parliamentary elections brought to light conflicts and candidates undermining one another.
We are witnessing the end of political parties and the triumphant rise of the individual agenda as the dominant feature of political life.
That is why fewer and fewer citizens now identify as members of Synagermikos, AKEL, DIKO, or EDEK…
