When it comes to public money, there’s one simple question: Why? Why this position? Why this expenditure? Why this choice?
This column is not concerned with the political ethics of Nikos Tornaritis’s appointment, nor with the internal affairs of the Democratic Alarm. After all, let them sort those out among themselves.
What interests this column is the mindset that is being conveyed—the perception of power and public funds. And above all, the impression that the state can create positions, make appointments, and incur expenses without always feeling the need to explain to society why.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
Not, of course, that Nikos Tornaritis and his trips to Asia and Africa will bankrupt the Republic of Cyprus. That’s not the issue.
“Unpaid,” says the government. And indeed, Nikos Tornaritis will not receive a salary for his role. But what about the trips to Asia and Africa? The plane tickets, the hotels, transportation, and per diem expenses? Who will pay for them, and how much will they cost the taxpayer?
Because “working for free” answers only part of the question. It does not address the total cost of the mission. And when it comes to public money, cost is no small matter.
The issue, then, isn’t whether Tornaritis’s trips will bankrupt us. The issue is the message.
A message reminiscent of “there is money” and “we spent it all together.”
These two phrases may have been uttered in Greece and associated with the period leading up to the economic collapse. But, if we’re honest, their logic was not unfamiliar to us in Cyprus either. A mindset that is deeply rooted, cross-party, and timeless.
In Tornaritis’s case, this logic takes the form of a position as the President’s special envoy for Asia and Africa. On the government payroll, it takes another form: pay scales, terms of service, and job positions that often diverge from private-sector market conditions. And in infrastructure projects, it takes on even greater proportions.
I’m not saying that all of these are the same thing. Far from it. They have one thing in common: it’s the taxpayer’s money.
And when it’s taxpayers’ money, the first question can’t just be how much is available. It must also be why we’re going to spend it.
The difference, however, between today and the period before the default isn’t that we’ve learned our lesson. It’s that even today, a large segment of society is still living with the consequences of the default.
We’re not just talking about depositors who took a haircut and those who lost their investments in bonds and stocks. We’re talking about workers in the private and public sectors who saw their wages cut or remain stagnant for years. People who became unemployed and needed years to get back on their feet.
And even more so for retirees. For people who today cannot afford to wait for a better job market or a better time to make up for what they’ve lost. For a large segment of the population that continues to live on meager pensions, even as the cost of living rises.
For these people, the debate over public funds is not theoretical. It is very concrete. And it becomes even more concrete when, at the same time, they are once again facing price hikes and inflation.
That is why Tornaritis’s appointment is an unnecessary political provocation. Not because the cost of his trips will change the picture of public finances. But because it creates the impression that the mindset of “we’ll find a way to pay for it” hasn’t gone away.
And that is the problem. Cyprus paid dearly for the notion that “there is money.” And not everyone paid the price equally. Some lost their savings, others their jobs, others their income, and still others years of their lives.
So there’s no need to keep reinventing the wheel. When it comes to public money, there’s one simple question: Why? Why this position? Why this expenditure? Why this choice?
And if the answer isn’t convincing enough for the taxpayer, then perhaps the problem isn’t the money. It might be the mindset.
