The entry of ALMA and Direct Democracy into Parliament, as well as the notable presence of Volt, show that the Cypriot party system is not static
The two previous articles focused on the identity dilemmas of parties with a long, or at least one parliamentary presence in the Cypriot party system, whether they are positioned in the broader center-right spectrum, or within the center-left. The case of new political formations is de facto different, since the issues they face are different in nature, and also more pressing, a situation exacerbated by the fact that they themselves usually refuse to position themselves on the left–right ideological spectrum, viewing such a classification as a disadvantage.
The older parties have already established a presence and an identity, even if the modern era is bringing back dilemmas and challenges. What they are usually called upon to do—mainly due to changes in the broader circumstances in which they operate—is to redefine, modernize, or clarify aspects of an already established historical identity. Of course, sometimes this redefinition can be so extensive that it essentially amounts to something entirely new, but that is a different matter. In contrast, newer political parties are called upon to create from the ground up a political identity that is distinct, coherent, and enduring. This has always been difficult, and in the modern era it has become even more so. It’s easier said than done.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
The literature and electoral history, both in Cyprus and internationally, have shown that it is much more difficult for new political parties to position themselves along a recognizable social dividing line, that is, to express a distinct, stable, and genuine social current that is not already represented by another political party. In other words, something that will establish them on the political map in terms of sustainability and longevity. Disillusionment with the political system, denunciations of corruption, the need for institutional renewal, the desire for a different political style, and strong personal leadership can explain an initial electoral success. However, they are not enough to establish an identity and ensure the party’s longevity. Nor is it enough to simply list positions in the form of a handbook or general statements on a range of issues—typically of an administrative nature—as referenced by those parties that went to the trouble of provide even that much (since some do not even have that).
In the recent parliamentary elections in Cyprus, two of the three main newly formed political parties, ALMA and Direct Democracy of Cyprus, succeeded in entering the House of Representatives, while Volt Cyprus failed to clear the electoral threshold. The emergence and relatively strong showing of all three new parties confirm that there is voter demand for new political voices beyond the traditional party structures. However, the distance from this point to proving their longevity and viability is quite long, and the path is arduous. The existence of a specific and coherent political identity is an important step in this direction.
ALMA and the Transition from Protest to Political Identity
ALMA, is a prime example of social dynamics that emerged around issues of distrust in political institutions and politicians, as well as the personality of the party’s founder and leader. ALMA entered Parliament with a clear initial political capital centered on its founder and its core political “product”: references to transparency, meritocracy, the effectiveness of the state, and the defense of the public interest against clientelist practices and organized dependencies. A rhetorical approach of a horizontal nature that is not directed at any specific social audience, but at “the people” more broadly.
This initial strategy was politically recognizable and electorally profitable, and it largely explains the party’s initial momentum and its relative electoral success. I use the term “relative” because initial indicators and polls, as well as the party’s own goals and projections, pointed to significantly higher results. In any case, ALMA managed to give a voice to citizens who believe that the country’s main problems are the quality of its institutions, impunity, lack of transparency, and the state’s inability to function consistently.
The question is whether this theme (the fight against corruption) is sufficient on its own to build a coherent and comprehensive political narrative and identity. Whether it can serve as the prism, the lens, and the thread that runs through all the individual elements, from which a coherent political framework of positions will gradually take shape. Usually, this is not enough because it does not constitute a distinct element of political identity with staying power, or—in business management terms—something that will provide a stable and lasting competitive advantage. It is an issue that any newcomer can easily invoke—and possibly more persuasively as ALMA becomes integrated into the political system. And then that competitive advantage will be lost. The same applies to older political parties that view this as a political advantage for themselves as well. Let’s consider that the Greens also used the issue of corruption as a rallying cry in the previous election campaign, but in that particular context, they lost the “battle” in this particular arena to a newly formed movement that was more convincing to the electorate on this issue.
As the initial momentum—but especially the final result—showed, the anti-establishment sentiment, the capitalizing on anti-corruption efforts, and the criticism of the old political system can generate initial momentum, but they do not constitute a comprehensive political identity. The emphasis on accusatory rhetoric, led to the exhaustion of this momentum when the political debate shifted from individuals and scandals to (difficult) policy choices.
Direct Democracy and the Issue of Political Representation
Fidias Panagiotou’s Direct Democracy of Cyprus (AD) is perhaps the most unusual new case. A party that conducted its entire pre-election campaign by avoiding positioning itself on the ideological left-right spectrum (whether this is actually possible is another discussion altogether) and which refrained from presenting positions on nearly all political issues at stake. This is indicative of the heterogeneity of both the party’s target audience and its key leaders. AD was built on the promise of a different relationship between citizens and politics, with the key elements being greater participation, the use of digital tools, direct consultation, and bridging the gap between voters and their elected representatives.
The party’s very name refers to its decision-making process as the key element that sets it apart, rather than its positions or its social roots (that is, whom it represents politically). Direct democracy, however, as a tool, does not answer political questions, but rather tells us methodologically how a decision will be made. It is, in other words, a method of participation and decision-making legitimacy that can yield positions and decisions that are incompatible and contradictory with one another, because the majority often shifts direction without coherence or logic, especially in times of cognitive confusion such as the one we are currently experiencing.
This is where the fundamental challenge for Direct Democracy lies. Can it evolve into a party that combines digital participation with a clear political platform? Or will it remain a political entity whose identity is limited to the process through which decisions are made? And that process has not been implemented even once since the election, even though important political decisions were made (e.g., the presidency of the Parliament), which in practice nullifies even the procedural aspect of the endeavor.
Even if political issues requiring collective decision-making were subjected to the rigors of the intra-party process, it is at least debatable whether this constitutes a substantive element of a distinct political identity. In my opinion, no, because methodology is not an element of political identity, but rather what the word implies: a method for reaching a decision.
The continuity and longevity of a political endeavor require something very different. It requires the formulation of positions that reflect a coherent political identity, with all that this entails. Something that, at least at this moment, does not seem possible within AD. At the same time, the party’s political profile remains closely tied to Fidias Panagiotou himself, and this is not due to his positions or his political self-definition. His personal recognition, his direct communication with the public, and his presence on social media have been decisive factors in the party’s success—though they tell us nothing about the party’s political identity (or perhaps they do). Transforming this popularity into a stable party organization, with internal procedures, collective political discourse, and a clear programmatic direction is a very difficult undertaking, based on the data we have before us regarding AD.
Volt and the Limits of the European Framework
Volt is a different case. Unlike the other two newly formed groups, it is not based on a dominant figure of a leader, but on a form of collective leadership that strives for a bicommunal composition and appeal. It seeks to express a European and reformist political identity, which is aimed primarily at younger, more urban, and pro-European audiences. The party’s core principles are therefore the EU, bicommunalism, a solution to the Cyprus problem, and rationalism. Although Volt is the only one of the three newly formed parties attempting to establish a political identity, the three key elements of its platform make it difficult to establish a distinct identity for the party, each for different reasons.
The EU, as a general political reference point, is no longer sufficient on its own to provide strong differentiation. I am very deliberately referring to the EU and not to Europe, because the concept of Europe is much broader and richer in heritage and substance than the EU. In any case, and in contrast to the 1980s and 1990s, when Cyprus’s European path constituted a clearer political dividing line, today all parties take a positive stance toward the EU, even if they perceive the EU, its role, and its functioning differently. Merely invoking the EU does not address major political and social issues in a way that distinguishes the party from other pro-EU political parties, such as DISY.
Similarly, rationality in public discourse may constitute a political virtue and set a party apart in terms of its style. It does not, however, constitute a political identity in and of itself. It does not answer the question of which social forces a party seeks to represent, which interests it believes should be protected, and which political course it favors when conflicts of interest arise. A rationalist can be a student, a major business executive, a self-employed person, a salaried employee, a precariously employed worker, and so on. People with diametrically opposed social statuses and interests. A rationalist can be someone on the right or on the left, but with completely different political goals. And to draw on my own professional field, academia, all of us colleagues (usually) publish rational texts with different conclusions, but also different starting points.
Rationalism is a method of approaching politics and a way of analyzing problems, but it is also found in other parties. And of course, as specific events during the pre-election period showed, it is not always applied. Sometimes beliefs take precedence. Furthermore, rationalism is sometimes interpreted as a condescending approach along the lines of “I know better than you what’s best for you,” depending on how it is expressed and used.
The effort to differentiate itself through age and by specifically targeting young people can give a party initial momentum and recognition. Young people, however, do not constitute a homogeneous social group with fixed political preferences, shared social experiences, or a unified ideological orientation. It includes young workers, students, the unemployed, those in precarious employment, new parents, and people with very different economic, educational, and social backgrounds. As a result, age alone can hardly serve as the enduring and stable social backbone of a political party.
The Cyprus issue. Volt appears to be aimed, to a significant extent, at an audience that strongly seeks a solution to the Cyprus issue, sometimes even giving the impression—albeit without stipulating conditions regarding its content—that this is the case. It is possible that this (the Cyprus issue) may also be the party’s primary unifying factor, since the party’s stance toward individuals or issues often appears to is dictated by its stance on the Cyprus issue. This approach, however, has its limits, as was evident in the recent parliamentary elections. The desire for a solution to the Cyprus problem is not enough to build a distinct party identity. Many people with a strong desire for a solution are members of several other parties because they are evidently satisfied with those parties’ positions on the issue.
Identity as a Prerequisite for Longevity
The emergence of new parties is a natural phenomenon in a political system where trust in traditional parties has eroded and where many citizens are seeking new ways and forms of political representation. The entry of ALMA and Direct Democracy into Parliament, as well as the notable presence of Volt, demonstrate that the Cypriot party system is not static. However, there is a significant difference between initial electoral success and establishing and consolidating a foothold.
Political identity remains a key issue for all political parties, both old and new. Without a clear answer to what a party represents, which social forces it seeks to represent, and which policy choices distinguish it from its competitors, electoral success may remain a matter of chance. This does not, of course, mean that the existence of a political identity guarantees electoral success or necessarily ensures a party’s political survival on its own; but its absence makes survival much more difficult.
