If there’s one thing that’s become clear from everything that’s been unfolding in recent days, it’s that we find ourselves in a constantly changing political landscape. The resilience of political parties is not merely being tested. Questions are now being raised as to whether some of them have run their course, as we knew them.
And this discrediting of political parties, as well as of collective and statutory decisions, no longer stems solely from the citizens but from the actions of the key players on the political stage. Driven primarily by their own personal survival and dominance, they are essentially undermining the very essence and functioning of political parties.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
It began with the President of the Republic, who, since his election, has essentially been attempting to drive a wedge between nearly all the parties. He has been creating his own inner circles and recruiting people who will support him regardless of collective decisions. DIKO is one of the parties that appears to have suffered the consequences of this division. We are observing the party leadership—the vice presidents, who are also ministers in the Christodoulides government—attempting to preempt the party’s official decision with their statements. And while they should be expressing their views within the party’s collective bodies, they are now openly presenting Nikos Christodoulides as the only option.
Nikolas Papadopoulos has to manage a party he does not control and, at the same time, a president with whom his relationship is at its worst. It is well known that the DIKO president was looking for alternatives for 2028. Not because there is a clear disagreement over policy positions with President Christodoulides, but because of the way he behaves toward both him and the party.
It is therefore evident that politics is played out without rules and often outside institutional frameworks. This was cemented by the Democratic Alarm and the events that unfolded. There was a very real possibility that the party’s former president would run outside of internal party procedures, as he felt his candidacy was being undermined by the current leadership. And now we have reached the point where DISY President Annita Dimitriou has suddenly withdrawn her candidacy, citing the need for party unity.
Clearly, for Annita Dimitriou and her decision, the prospect of a serious defeat—should the party go into the election deeply divided—played a role. Her withdrawal buys her time and allows her to hope that, on the one hand, she will retain the party presidency unchallenged and, on the other hand, that she can look forward to 2033. However, the narrative that her withdrawal was motivated by a desire for unity certainly doesn’t convince anyone. It is paradoxical in and of itself to suggest that the candidacy of a party’s president, rather than uniting the party, would lead to its split. However, the main concern regarding how the party will fare in the presidential election is whether this decision was made as a result of indirect political blackmail. In other words, if she were to run, then Averof Neophytou would be excluded from the process. And if that is the case, then the problem within DISY—and more broadly across the political landscape—is much greater.
