The Turkish Cypriot people have spoken clearly and lawfully. To deny that verdict is to deny democracy itself

By Professor Kerim Munir

There will never be another war in Cyprus. That is not a dream or a rhetorical flourish but a statement of civic reality – made clear on October 19, when the Turkish Cypriot community voted decisively for a lawful, inclusive and peaceful future under a renewed bizonal, bicommunal federation (BBF 2.0).

No matter what arithmetic is used on the electoral register, the message is unmistakable. Even amid debates over voter eligibility and citizenship, the vast majority of verified Turkish Cypriot voters reaffirmed their commitment to a negotiated federal Cyprus. According to every electoral analysis metric, the almost two-to-one margin of victory by Tufan Erhurman (62.76 per cent) over Ersin Tatar (35.81 per cent) represents a strong endorsement for coexistence – not for separation, annexation, or subservience.

Into this moment of clarity came the voice of the leader of Turkey’s Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), who argued that because “only 63 per cent” of voters participated, the election was inconclusive and that Turkey should instead annex northern Cyprus. (In fact, the final turnout was 64.87 per cent. For comparison, voter participation in the Republic of Cyprus presidential election of February 5 and 12, 2023 was 72.04 per cent in the first round and 72.45 per cent in the second.) Such reasoning would be comical if it were not so perilous. Devlet Bahceli – now 77 and heading a party that commands 10 per cent of the Turkish electorate – has led MHP since 1997, when he succeeded the Nicosia-born Alparslan Turkes.

Once regarded as a soft-spoken economist and reform-minded nationalist, Bahceli risked replacing reason with sentiment. His claim that democracy can be nullified by turnout arithmetic might be dismissed as emotion, but his accompanying suggestion to absorb northern Cyprus as a “province of Turkey” cannot. That proposal is incompatible with international law, the UN Charter, and the freely expressed will of the Turkish Cypriot electorate. Even if every abstention favoured Tatar, his defeat would still have been decisive. Such annexation would gain no recognition from any state or institution and would only isolate Turkey diplomatically.

“The strongest is never strong enough to be always the master, unless he transforms strength into right and obedience into duty,” said Jean-Jacques Rousseau inThe Social Contract.

The Turkish Cypriot people have spoken clearly and lawfully. To deny that verdict is to deny democracy itself.

A cautious welcome from the south

The Greek Cypriot press has also extensively covered Erhurman’s convincing victory with uncharacteristic visibility and restrained optimism. Indeed, Phileleftheros, Politis, Haravgi, and Alithia described the result as a “turning point” that could reopen negotiations under UN auspices. President Nikos Christodoulides swiftly congratulated Erhürman, reaffirming his “political will” to resume substantive talks from where they ended at Crans-Montana, within the framework of UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Yet even as he welcomed the moment, Christodoulides reiterated that the “red lines” of the Greek Cypriot side remain intact. Party leaders followed in kind: Annita Demetriou (Disy) noted that Turkish Cypriots had “turned their backs on the two-state solution.” At the same time, Stefanos Stefanou (Akel) hailed the vote as “a decision for federation and reunification”. Even Dipa framed the outcome as a rejection of partition.

Yet beneath these messages lies a quiet inconsistency. While acknowledging their democratic courage, much of the commentary sought to recast their voice as a vindication of Greek Cypriot narratives rather than an autonomous act of self-determination by the Turkish Cypriots. Christodoulides’ invocation of red linesmay reassure EU capitals, yet it sends mixed signals to the island’s north – appearing conciliatory abroad while limiting flexibility at home. Such inelasticity evokes the warning of the French philosopher Alain: “Nothing is more dangerous than an idea when it is the only one you have.”

As in the Annan Plan referendum two decades earlier, the Turkish Cypriot vote again challenges both communities to move beyond rhetorical diplomacy toward authentic engagement. In this context, the companion commentary published by the Cyprus Mail on October 26, 2025, “What do the Greek Cypriots do now?”, poses an equally pressing question. It observes that, while the Turkish Cypriot electorate has clearly reset the island’s trajectory, the Republic of Cyprus leadership lacks a comparable mandate to negotiate a federation. The piece notes divisions among Greek Cypriot parties and even within the church over federalism, raising doubts about how the south will respond now that the north has spoken. Unless that political fragmentation yields to a coherent strategy, the opportunity for real progress could slip away again.

A federal future, not a frozen past

If the Greek Cypriot leadership truly seeks a BBF 2.0 solution, it must pursue dialogue through direct and respectful negotiation with the leadership freely chosen by the Turkish Cypriots. Just as the island must reject annexationist rhetoric, it must also renounce maximalism. Dreams of a pre-1974 status quo, with its rhetoric of historical entitlement, have no place in modern European Cyprus. Reconciliation begins with humility, not mythology. The October 19 election, therefore, should mark the beginning of a new social contract for Cyprus. It demonstrates that the Turkish Cypriot community no longer seeks protection through force but recognition through partnership. The UN, the EU, Greece, Turkey and the UK must now engage actively with leaders of de jure legitimacy.

As reflected in the Cyprus Mail article of October 23, “Erhurman’s election ‘a vote against those who oppressed Cypriot people’,” there is now a visible light at the end of the tunnel. The outcome signals not only a rejection of authoritarian interference but a renewed yearning for dignity, legality and coexistence. Yet this light will once again fade unless it is matched by equal resolve across both communities. The ball is now squarely in the court of both the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot civil societies alike. Without mutual movement and trust-building – what I have called a modern BBF 2.0 – this opportunity risks dissolving into another lost moment. The alternative would be grimly familiar: Enosis by proxy through the EU, and Taksim by default through ever-deepening dependence on Turkey – what I would characterise as an unholy alliance of opposites that led to the Cyprus problem in the first place. The current moment, therefore, is not merely political – it is historical. If the will to act is again deferred, Cyprus will drift toward de facto, irreversible partition, and the narrow window for reconciliation will close for good.

I hope Cyprus will choose dialogue over division. October 19 has opened the door – both communities must now walk through it together.

There will never again be a war in Cyprus – because the people have already chosen peace.
This conviction underpins my earlier reflections in these pages: The Time for Courage Is Now (August 18), Cyprus: Amnesia, Precipices, and the Path Beyond Rhetoric (September 18), and Can the Current Politicians Resolve the Cyprus Problem? (October12). I did not anticipate the overwhelming scale of the October 19 result or the renewed public support for BBF 2.0, it affirms. Perhaps what once seemed hopelessly prophetic and naïve on my part now seems possible.

A thoughtful former classmate from The English School, Nicosia (I recall one of the top students in my year, among my Greek Cypriot friends, who I greatly admired), recently kindly reminded me that the ordinary people of the villages were, to a great extent, getting along fine, but the leaders were driven by opposing agendas, who allowed division to take root.That lesson remains urgent. Let us not relapse into old narratives of grievance, but move forward with the sophistication, compromise and humility that this last chance for peace demands.

The ball is now in the court of civil society – to speak with conscience and courage, to build a new vision for Cyprus beyond division, to embody the wisdom of Nelson Mandela: “Our most urgent work is to transform this world so that our differences make us richer, not divide us.”

By Professor Kerim M. Munir, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, and a graduate of The English School, Nicosia. This piece is offered as a personal reflection and civic appeal, seeking to advance public discussion at a critical moment.