Nikolas Papadopoulos, Makis Keravnos, and Nikos Christodoulidis must draw their lines so that the political crisis does not spill over into the economy in the most irresponsible way
There are many arenas for political games, but the economy is one of the most costly. Especially at a time when markets are particularly sensitive to fiscal deviations and political risk, any signal of uncertainty can have a real cost for the state. Nikolas Papadopoulos, Makis Keravnos, and Nikos Christodoulidis must be aware of this and draw their lines so that the political crisis does not spill over into the economy in the most irresponsible way possible.
The last thing anyone would expect is political opposition within the government camp on issues related to economic policy. Especially following the positive assessments of the Cypriot economy by DBRS and S&P, and at a time when pension reform and the drafting of the budget lie ahead. Would it be fiscally responsible for the country to proceed with major infrastructure projects without first completing the necessary feasibility studies and calculating their actual costs? Should the government proceed with payments, pay raises, and compensation without taking the fiscal cost into account, but also the fact that we are facing major debt repayments and a period of increased borrowing costs for eurozone countries?
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
This is essentially what DIKO President Nikolas Papadopoulos is calling for when he characterizes the Finance Minister’s failure to honor government commitments as “political insubordination,” rather than viewing it as a briefing to the President of the Republic on the state’s actual capabilities? That is, the state’s capabilities regarding the viability of the Crete-Cyprus electricity interconnection project (GSI), as well as regarding compensation for livestock farmers, depositors who suffered haircuts, and securities holders, and wage increases for hourly workers.
In other words, he chooses to overlook the fact that a cabinet reshuffle took place only recently and that Maki Keravnos’s continued tenure at the Ministry of Finance constitutes, politically speaking, indirect support and tacit endorsement by President Christodoulides of the economic policy being pursued. If there is such strong disagreement with this policy, then the question is not why the Minister of Finance remains in office, but why the Democratic Party remains in the government. And, since it chooses to remain, the political disagreement should be expressed in Parliament, during the debate and vote on the budget, with specific proposals and, where it deems necessary, with corresponding proposals for spending cuts.
Otherwise—that is, if DIKO wants to be part of the government while simultaneously challenging the fundamental choices of its economic policy—then a political contradiction arises that is difficult to justify. The economy, however, cannot be a arena for internal party or government maneuvering. Political disagreements are legitimate and inevitable. But when they turn into public conflict without a clear assumption of political responsibility and without an alternative fiscal proposal, then they truly amount to “the absurdities of politics.”
