With parliamentary elections less than two months away, the scare stories about the composition of the new House are becoming more frequent, especially as opinion polls suggest there could be up to nine parties with seats. Would this really be a problem?

If we were living in a parliamentary democracy, it may have been, as it would have prevented any party securing a majority that would have allowed it to govern effectively. There is no such issue in a presidential system in which parliament has no executive power because its constitutional role is to review and approve laws as well as the state budget. They can apply pressure on the government by refusing to approve the budget as happened once during the Anastasiades presidency, but this is not a frequent occurrence.

Yet the nightmare scenarios have become a key feature of the debate about the elections. On Wednesday Phileleftheros, under the alarmist headline, “Majorities with terror scenarios in parliament – the change of the electoral map heralds the disruption of the political scene,” carried an article which said, “the fluid political scene is cultivating a setting of chaos for the period after the parliamentary elections.” The reason? “It is a setting that can bring upheavals and lack of communication, which would not create the conditions for convergences and understanding with the aim of ensuring the smooth functioning of the state.” The article also warned that the composition of the new parliament could disrupt the political scene.

Why would there be such a danger? No pro-government party ever had the majority in the House, but this did not prevent the smooth functioning of the state. Disy had no majority in the second term of Nicos Anastasiades and neither did Akel for most of Demetris Christofias’ presidency, but there were no upheavals and disruption in parliament, nor was the political system destabilised as seems to be the fear now. President Nikos Christodoulides is supported by three small parties which do not even have a third of the seats in Parliament and there has been no instability even if there were seven parties in the House.

This alarmism is probably encouraged by the presidential palace which has had an easy ride in the House during Christodoulides three years in office. Disy, although theoretically an opposition party, has very often acted like a pro-government party, providing the government with the votes it needed to get its bills approved. If more parties stridently opposed to the government like Odysseas Michaelides’ Alma, Volt and Fidias Panayiotou’s Direct Democracy enter the House, the government could face more difficulties passing its bills; Akel will also be in opposition.

The other fear of the political establishment is that Panayiotou’s Direct Democracy with its band of non-politicians will enter parliament and, as one TV journalist put it, turn “politics into a circus and ridicule the political system.” Prim and proper journalists have been on a mission to belittle and disparage Panayiotou, dismissing him as an ignorant, attention-seeking kid, who lowers the level of politics. They ignore the fact that this ignorant kid, without clear political positions and without the backing of a party was elected to the European Parliament and, according to opinion polls, will also enter parliament in May, leading his fledgling party.

This is how democracy works. Anyone can stand for election, without securing the approval of the media, the presidential palace and organised groups. And if the electorate backs such candidates, nobody can stop them. They will certainly not be stopped with scare stories about destabilising the political system, causing disruption and threatening the smooth functioning of the state. On Thursday, even Disy embraced this scaremongering, accusing Akel, Alma and Volt of wanting to destabilise our political system and cause chaos.

A strong democracy can withstand any disruption, even the election of an apolitical kid. A more politically diverse parliament that constantly holds the executive to account and shakes up our conservative and complacent political system would be a good thing for the country and not a “terror scenario.” A shake-up of the system is what we need if our society is move forward.