This is how we can regain our credibility

Praise for the candidates who supported the proposal to combat corruption

On many occasions recently, I have heard politicians say that we must regain our credibility to find an exodus from the impasse we find ourselves in. The problem I had was that, while I fully agreed on the need to regain our credibility, no one was saying how we could achieve this goal. The result of this evasiveness was to undermine further our credibility. Clearly, problems of this kind are not addressed by declarations of intent nor by hollow statements.

This pessimistic climate of misery and frustration was dispelled by an unexpected joint statement undertaken by seven presidential candidates; two of them supported by the largest political parties in Cyprus and five independent candidates. I quote this very important statement verbatim:

Common declaration by the following candidates for president, Averof Neophytou, Andreas Mavroyiannis, Achilleas Demetriades, Georghios Colocassides, Constantinos Christofides, Marios Eliades and Christodoulos Protopapas.

Given that:  1. We consider the goal of combatting corruption and collusion in Cyprus as being of the utmost national importance;  2. we have evaluated the proposal of Nobel Prize-winning economist Christoforos Pissarides and of two distinguished, experienced and independent certified public accountants, Christos P Panayiotides and Nicos G Syrimis that is set out on the internet at https://www.pothen-esches-cyprus.com, as being complete, correct and appropriately documented;  3. we are persons who believe in resolving problems (rather than in talking about them), we commit ourselves that, if elected, we will promote on a priority basis, the implementation of the Pissarides, Panayiotides, Syrimis proposal, covering periods commencing on January 1, 2023.

Our country urgently needs an independent and reliable system of “where have the funds come from?”, which will annually establish and quantify all the sources of income of the Politically Exposed Persons (such as the president, ministers, members of parliament and other senior state officials) in Cyprus. Whoever rejects transparency has no place on the political stage of Cyprus. We call upon all the candidates for the presidency to adopt, forthwith and without asterisks or other qualifying remarks, our position on the issue of “where have the funds come from?”. Cyprus deserves a better future.

Signed on 4 October 2022, by Averof Neophytou, Andreas Mavroyiannis, Achilleas Demetriades, Georghios Colocassides, Constantinos Christofides, Marios Eliades, Christodoulos Protopapas.

The significance of this commitment is multidimensional:

Firstly, it highlights the fact that the vast majority of the candidates, who claim the presidential nomination in the forthcoming presidential elections, mean business when they talk about the fight against corruption and collusion, because their statement is free of footnotes and it supports a specific proposal that is listed, in detail, on the internet. This is a proposal that has been vigorously undermined since it was published some two years ago, by the people who have an interest in maintaining the ineffectiveness of a system of capital statements that was first introduced in Cyprus in 2004. Also important is that the implementation date of the new system is not deferred to the distant future but is set on January 1, 2003.

Secondly, it underlines that, when the necessary political will is there and the national interest is placed above party and personal interests, achieving convergences is an easy goal that can be attained very quickly.

In contrast, when the views of those involved are diametrically opposed – as is the case with the proponents of the reunification of Cyprus and those flirting with the idea of the partition into two independent states – bridging such positions is impossible and any attempt in this direction is futile and, at best, it leads to paralysis. In the case of diametrically opposed views, adopting a minimum common denominator indeed leads to paralysis. Under these circumstances, it is infinitely better to separate “the lambs from the goats”, as the Greek saying goes, and encourage each side to present, in an honest and forthright manner, its arguments in favour of the position it advocates. This allows people to judge and decide in a responsible manner on whose side they will stand. The problem we are talking about is directly linked to our future survival on the land of our ancestors. It follows that there is no room for amorality in addressing the issue.

Thirdly, it underlines the importance of detailing the choices made by each candidate for the presidential office. The era of seeking a solution “with the right content” is a thing of the past; it was a form of sheer contempt of the electorate.  Evasiveness and “changing the subject” are the favourite methods of fortune hunters, whose only goal is to defend the “multicollective” nature of their candidacy. But another – not so elegant – phrase that expresses the same sentiment as “electioneering diversity” is “voting mockery”.  One way of defending ourselves against these threats is to demand a detailed analysis of the goals each presidential candidate has set for himself and how he intends attain these goals. This is the honest path that has been chosen by the presidential candidates who have adopted the very specific and detailed proposal of Pissarides-Panayiotides-Syrimis on the “where have the funds come from?”. For this choice, these candidates are worth our praise.

Fourthly, our reluctance to define our goals clearly in relation to the key problems that afflict our country, and the tendency of our political leaders to resort to evasive statements that are susceptible to a range of interpretations have been identified by both our foreign friends and our enemies as undermining our credibility and our trustworthiness. This makes it difficult for our friends to help us and it arms the hand of our enemies. This behaviour implies a lack of political courage. In the specific case of “pothen esches?”, the seven presidential candidates have proved that they have the ability to dare and take decisions. And for that, they are, likewise, worthy of praise.

Christos Panayiotides is a regular columnist for the Sunday Mail and Alithia