The President of the Republic certainly has the constitutional right to appoint the individuals of his choosing to key positions. This applies whether it is the Cabinet or the boards of directors of quasi-governmental organizations.
But society has the same right: to judge whether these choices live up to the expectations the President himself raised during the election campaign. Whether these appointments are based on merit or are ultimately the result of partisan balancing acts and compromises.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
IVF in Cyprus: The New Landscape in Assisted Reproduction
And here, unfortunately, there is a clear inconsistency.
It began with the Cabinet. Before the election, the President pledged to form a government that would exclude party officials. Today, however, the Cabinet bears a strong partisan stamp.
The same pattern appears to be repeating itself in appointments to quasi-governmental organizations. For weeks, we heard about Nikola Papadopoulos’s demands to strengthen the DIKO party’s presence in quasi-governmental organizations. And ultimately, a glance at the appointments is enough to see that the positions are, to a large extent, filled by party officials.
At this point, then, a reasonable question arises.
What, after all, is the role of the Advisory Council? Is it truly an institution that influences decisions? Is it merely advisory? Or has it ended up being purely symbolic, serving a pre-election pledge that was later scrapped?
After all, the Chairman of the Advisory Council has already disclaimed any responsibility regarding the conflict-of-interest case involving a member of the CYTA Board of Directors. But if he denies responsibility, then what exactly does this body do?
By what exact criteria were these specific individuals selected? How can the public be sure that, among the applications submitted, the most suitable candidates were indeed chosen? And, above all, who can now dispel the impression that has taken hold among a significant portion of society that the Advisory Council functioned more as a public relations gimmick than as a substantive evaluation mechanism?
That is why the Chair of the Advisory Council—who also serves as Ethics Advisor—must provide clear answers. Is it part of an institution with substantive content, or is it merely a fig leaf for a facade of meritocracy? The Advisory Council must now either provide clear answers or be dissolved.
