 |
| Author |
Message |
Kifeas
Warnings : 6
Ministerial
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2733
Location: Location: Pafos-Cyprus, since 1974 ethnic cleansing. Originally, Lapithos, northern occupied Cyprus.
|
|
| Lewis Gerolemou wrote: |
| Well it looks as if some of us can agree on how partition come about. Kifeas are you saying that our "punishment" for what happened in the 1960s is losing 18% of Cyprus. In that case what should be Turkey's "punishment" for what happened between 1570 and 1878, perhaps the Greek Cypriots can be given a slice of Constantinople/Istanbul |
I am saying what??? Where did you find the above? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Lewis Gerolemou
Senior Villager
Joined: 30 Apr 2006
Posts: 107
Location: UK
|
|
| Kifeas, I interpreted your previous post as saying that Turkey took an extra 18% to "punish" (or as you say "fucked") the Greek Cypriots for what they did to the Turkish Cypriots and I pose the question (tongue in cheek) about an appropriate "punishment" for Turkey's deeds 1570-1878 |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
| He he he he…. Why is it so difficult for you to realize that the reason I made these maps and pretended favoring partition is simply because I know by fact they never want to accept partition if the land basis is on a 82:18 split. |
You know many things 'by fact' Kifeas but that does not mean they are facts outside of your head.
If we are to discuss agreed partition as solution then certainly the 1960 proportions re population and land ownership are important starting points bu they are not he only considerations. If the Turkish Cypriot community is to have a separate state (not something I personally favour) then it has a right to a viable state. If that requires some form of agreement of territory ceded to it greater than those directly related to population size / ownership in 1960, then that is a requirement of partition as a solution and both sides must agree the price of this , in terms of territory lost and compensation for such lost territory.
Of course such an approach to finding a solution in Cyprus based on partition has NEVER been acceptable to any Greek Cypriot leadership , not before 60 and not since. Kifeas talks about it now only because the failed policies and attempts of successive Greek Cypriot leaderships to take effective control of all of cyprus by the Greek Cypriot community alone lead to the Greek Cypriot community loosing more than it had in 1960 in terms of population / land ownership.
| Kifeas wrote: |
So that I prove that the reason they want partition is because they grabbed way more in the expense of the Greek Cypriots, and they just want to capitalize on this fact and fuck the Greek Cypriots. That if instead of 36% that they usurped in 1974, they had only grabbed 18%, they would have never been talking about partition in the first place, and that all the lame excuses they invented afterwards to support their “cause,” would have never made their appearance. |
Yes Kifeas you prove that the Cyprus problem was caused by and is maintain because Turkish Cypriot are greedy thieves and Greek Cypriot their innocent victims. Of course this is your 'facts' of why Cyprus is in the mess it is in today. The realities of the Greek Cypriot leaderships pursuit of enosis over independence, their attempts to force this on the Turkish Cypriot community against their will, their use of organised and planned violence against the Turkish Cypriot community in the pursuit of enosis, their refusal to consider any way forward short of enosis of all of cyprus, their refusal to accept sharing political power with the Turkish Cypriot community because it blocked enosis - none of these things have anything to do with why Cyprus is partitioned today and remains so. It is all because Turkish Cypriot are greedy thieves.
| Kifeas wrote: |
Didn’t you read Curiasse’s comments and Viewpoint’s and Erol’s reactions? He basically said to us: “we are Turks and we fuck you back then, and you must now accept it as a closed deal because we have the neo-ottoman state’s army on our side, and you should stop complaining and sign your capitulation!” |
I made no comment at all to Curiass's post. Read the thread. I first welcomed you back to the forum and then commented on your behaviour - which was as so many times before willfully in breach of the forums rules and contemptous of the forum and it's members.
| Kifeas wrote: |
This is what I want the Greek Cypriots to realize, and stop trying to have rational conversations with people having such attitudes. |
You come here , throw insults at posters, treat the forum and its rules and members with contempt , advance as fact your thesis that Cyprus is divided today and remains so simply because Turkish Cypriot are greedy thieves and Greek Cypriot their innocent victims and then talk about having 'rational conversations' ?
Again what I really suspect you want is that Greek Cypriot stop having any rational conversations with Turkish Cypriot here or anywhere else, for doing so makes it harder for you to maintain the falsehoods that wish Greek Cypriot to believe - like the Cyprus problem is caused and maintain because Turkish Cypriot are greedy thieves and Greek Cypriot their innocent victims. |
|
| Back to top |
|
stavrizatz
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 925
Location: Australia / Lefkosia
|
|
Imo the fairest solution is self determination and what the majority of Cypriots want.
Some people want partition, some want reunification, some want union with Greece, some want a federal solution and so on.
A referendum should be developed internally and not let the other countries decide our future keeping up with our past history where the future of the country was decided by foreigners over the heads of the people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
brother
Warnings : 3
Site Admin
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 8920
Location: London/Cyprus
|
|
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Imo the fairest solution is self determination and what the majority of Cypriots want.
Some people want partition, some want reunification, some want union with Greece, some want a federal solution and so on.
A referendum should be developed internally and not let the other countries decide our future keeping up with our past history where the future of the country was decided by foreigners over the heads of the people. |
That is the best comment i have read in this whole thread, well done i also support your idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Evagoras
Senior Villager
Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 118
|
|
| brother wrote: |
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Imo the fairest solution is self determination and what the majority of Cypriots want.
Some people want partition, some want reunification, some want union with Greece, some want a federal solution and so on.
A referendum should be developed internally and not let the other countries decide our future keeping up with our past history where the future of the country was decided by foreigners over the heads of the people. |
That is the best comment i have read in this whole thread, well done i also support your idea. |
well my friend tell that to erolz |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| Evagoras wrote: |
| brother wrote: |
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Imo the fairest solution is self determination and what the majority of Cypriots want.
Some people want partition, some want reunification, some want union with Greece, some want a federal solution and so on.
A referendum should be developed internally and not let the other countries decide our future keeping up with our past history where the future of the country was decided by foreigners over the heads of the people. |
That is the best comment i have read in this whole thread, well done i also support your idea. |
well my friend tell that to erolz |
My position remains the same.
If these different desires are spread equally among all cypriots regardless of ethnic background then I have no problem with a simple unitary vote. However if the basis for how people vote is differentiated primarily by ethnic group then (thus showing that they affect the ethnic groups differently) then a simple unitary vote is not sufficient or imho compatible with the concept of 'self determination' but instead represents to me the oppression of one ethnic groups will by the other.
So for example on the issue of enosis , where clearly support for it was totally from one ethinc group and against in the other and the effects of it were totally different for the two groups , then to me a simple unitary vote is not sufficient. In short such issues are not issues of 'indivduals' per se but actually of communities and thus rather than one person one vote, one community one vote is to me appropriate necessary and compatible with democracy (the meaning and intent of it). On non ethnic issues such as the age of consent or enfranchisement where differences of opinion are spread pretty much equally in all ethnic groups and the effects would be the same on all ethnic groups then one person one vote is sufficient.
Now it may be that over time we will come to realise that today (or tomorrow) there are actually no issues left in the former category and can move with confidence towards a unitary state at all levels. However given the history where the Greek Cypriot leadership DID make so much concerted effort to impose a purely Greek Cypriot (in fact greek) will on the Turkish Cypriot community against their will (and the way they did it) and given that even today Greek Cypriot are telling me I am not a 'real' Cypriot but in fact an ottoman invader and insisting that if enough Greek Cypriot want enosis then it does not matter what I or my community want in their own homeland nor does it matter how adversely that may affect me or my community and not theirs - then given these things for me the way forward is not straight to a unitary state , but moving towards that goal first via some degree of political equality of the communities.
In the past I have summarised my view as being - on issues that affects individuals equally regardless of their ethnic group one person one vote is suitable. On issues that affect one community differently to the other then one community one vote is suitable. To me this basis is a fair and necessary and democratic stage we must first go through on to reach the end goal of a true unitary cypriot state and people where it does not matter in theory or practice if you are Greek Cypriot or Turkish Cypriot or any other kind of Cypriot.
I would have to add however that it is hard to see a way forward when I am told that actually all of the above is just lies and excuses and propaganda and that I have no real reason to fear domination of the Turkish Cypriot community by the Greek Cypriot one in a unitary state and that the only real reason why the above is my position is because I am a greed thieving Turk that wants to accrue and maintain personal benefit at the expense of poor innocent Greek Cypriot victims - which is what some here consistently maintain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
stavrizatz
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 925
Location: Australia / Lefkosia
|
|
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| So for example on the issue of enosis , where clearly support for it was totally from one ethinc group and against in the other and the effects of it were totally different for the two groups , then to me a simple unitary vote is not sufficient. In short such issues are not issues of 'indivduals' per se but actually of communities and thus rather than one person one vote, one community one vote is to me appropriate necessary and compatible with democracy (the meaning and intent of it). On non ethnic issues such as the age of consent or enfranchisement where differences of opinion are spread pretty much equally in all ethnic groups and the effects would be the same on all ethnic groups then one person one vote is sufficient. |
Why in Cyprus there are only two communities what about the will of other communities, well as you previously said there are not big enough but similarly I can say the Turkish Cypriot community is not big enough compare to the Greek Cypriot one therefore in Cyprus there is only one community!!!
When referring to communities within a state is like you ethnically break down the country in ethnic groups and that division is what causes problems. Especially the fact that the two main communities in Cyprus have opposing desires, self-determination is never possible for the reason that it will always be a draw 1-1 and there will never be progress.
From what I understand your argument is that in the pre 1960 period the Greek Cypriot desire for Enosis was not a clear case of self-determination as the Greek Cypriot community was imposing to the Turkish Cypriot community, something that it was not acceptable by them. On the other hand what did the Turkish Cypriots desire, they wanted partition. Partition required similarly imposing something that the Greek Cypriot community didn’t want and the way that Turkish Cypriots achieved partition shows that the Turkish Cypriot community had little respect on what the Greek Cypriots wanted. So if both communities had little respect for what the other community wanted then what was the suggestion when there were two antagonistic and opposing desires by the two communities?
Erolz, you continuously insist that enosis was imposing to the Turkish Cypriots something they didn’t want. Apart from change in administration from the British to the Greeks, what exactly was imposed to the Turkish Cypriots that your community was so strongly against? Imo the only reason Turkish Cypriots opposed enosis is only because of national pride that Cyprus is Turkish.
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| However given the history where the Greek Cypriot leadership DID make so much concerted effort to impose a purely Greek Cypriot (in fact greek) will on the Turkish Cypriot community against their will (and the way they did it) … then it does not matter what I or my community want in their own homeland nor does it matter how adversely that may affect me or my community and not theirs |
So you have trust issues, as the Greek Cypriot community was in the past imposing the Greek will on Turkish Cypriot and for this reason you cannot see it work in the future. What about Turkey, not even Turkish Cypriots but Turkey imposes their will on a foreign country?! They forced so many people to leave their lands in order for them to rule the country. So your point here is that we should never trust each other and always make decisions about the future of our country as separate communities!
Erolz, that is the big problem in Cyprus, we don’t have the mentality or we are not open to the possibility of being one. We also see the country as two communities but we ignore the essence that we are all equal. It is not totally our mistake, but also our official bodies that cultivate that culture of separatism.
No your are not a greed thieving Turk that wants to accrue and maintain personal benefit at the expense of poor innocent Greek Cypriot victims, but I think you have to overcome your personal phobias of not trusting Greeks and always think that “all Greeks want to do is to dominate over the Turkish Cypriots”. Evidently in the South Greeks are not dominating over smaller communities such as the Armenians, Maronites and the Latins and well as the enormous 75000 British community who by 2015 could be more in number than the Turkish Cypriots!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
stavrizatz
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 925
Location: Australia / Lefkosia
|
|
Thanks brother for supporting my idea and also thanks to you and Erolz who as senior members of the forum opened my mind and helped me see and understand the prespective of my Turkish Cypriot compatriots better.
I also before achieving self-determination there is a necessity of education and an agreed version of History. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| stavrizatz wrote: |
| Why in Cyprus there are only two communities what about the will of other communities, well as you previously said there are not big enough but similarly I can say the Turkish Cypriot community is not big enough compare to the Greek Cypriot one therefore in Cyprus there is only one community!!! |
I do not say there is only two communities in Cyprus. I am aware of the maronite and latin communities and their valid claim to being cypriots. I think that even given that they are around 1% in population terms the same things should apply to them that I wish for the Turkish Cypriot community. Namely that if the bigger communities seek to impose communal wishes on them that prejudice them as communities relative to the bigger ones, they should have a right to veto such things.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
When referring to communities within a state is like you ethnically break down the country in ethnic groups and that division is what causes problems. Especially the fact that the two main communities in Cyprus have opposing desires, self-determination is never possible for the reason that it will always be a draw 1-1 and there will never be progress. |
Firstly it is imho madnees to claim that my talking about communites in cvyprus is the cause of the problem. Such tak is a symptom of the problem, the cause is that the two communites DID seek purely communal futures with littel or no regard for the other. That is what caused division.
Progress does not require that one group (the larger) can always impose it's will on the other. If this was the case there would never have been and could never be any progress within the EU, to give one example. If the two communites want different things and they do not have a system that just allows the imposition of ones will over the toher every time, then ina sane they would both make some compromises to allow for mutual progress. Unfortunately such sanity has never been part of the Cyprus landscape.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
From what I understand your argument is that in the pre 1960 period the Greek Cypriot desire for Enosis was not a clear case of self-determination as the Greek Cypriot community was imposing to the Turkish Cypriot community, something that it was not acceptable by them. |
It represented self determination of Greek Cypriot only and not only their right to determine their own future but a right to determine the future of Turkish Cypriot as well, whihc meant Turkish Cypriot as a community had no right or ability to determine thier futures on such fundamental questions as if their country would exits as a state at all, what nationality they would be , who would rule them etc etc.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
On the other hand what did the Turkish Cypriots desire, they wanted partition. Partition required similarly imposing something that the Greek Cypriot community didn’t want and the way that Turkish Cypriots achieved partition shows that the Turkish Cypriot community had little respect on what the Greek Cypriots wanted. So if both communities had little respect for what the other community wanted then what was the suggestion when there were two antagonistic and opposing desires by the two communities? |
It is my firm belief that for the vast majority of Turkish Cypriot the desire for partition was a reaction to the demands of enosis of the Greek Cypriot community. It was not a case of Turkish Cypriot wanting a partitioned Cyprus if Cyprus was to be an independant state with the Turkish Cypriot as a community having an effective say in state. It was case of being offered only one option - namely to have their country handed over to Greece, them made Greek citizens, their state to never have independance of any sort and all with them have mo sya in such matters. Given such a choice they chose to support partition instead of this future. In a sane Cyprus what would and should have happened is for both communites to have found a consenus involivng compromise form both to create a better future for both. This sanity never exited in cyprus and that is the problem. We should have learnt from these mistakes but apparently we have not.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Erolz, you continuously insist that enosis was imposing to the Turkish Cypriots something they didn’t want. Apart from change in administration from the British to the Greeks, what exactly was imposed to the Turkish Cypriots that your community was so strongly against? Imo the only reason Turkish Cypriots opposed enosis is only because of national pride that Cyprus is Turkish. |
Really this should be self evident but i'll try and explain. Under British rule Cyprus did not have indpendance but it still had the prospect and expectation of it. Under enosis Cyprus would simply cease to exists as a state at all. So resitance to enosis by Turkish Cypriot could be seen as a national pride in being Cypriot not Turkish. Under british rule Turkish Cypriot were not oppressed and were not considered an 'ancient enemy of Britishness'. Under Greek rule there can be little realistic doubt that the Turkish Cypriot community would have suffered relative to the Greek Cypriot one. In short Turkish Cypriot wanted to be Cypriots and given the propsect of being forced to be Greeks against their will and have their homeland handed over to Greece and for it to never be indpendant, they preferd to be Turkish. This to me seems pretty inevitable. I know you have told me you would not care if Cyprus was part of Turkey and rules by Turkey as long as everyones rights were respected , but in this I believe you are in a tiny minority. Most Greek Cypriot would not want Cyprus to be part of Turkey and ruled by Turkey even if their rights were 100% secure and most Turkish Cypriot did not want the reverse.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
So you have trust issues, as the Greek Cypriot community was in the past imposing the Greek will on Turkish Cypriot and for this reason you cannot see it work in the future. |
Yes I have trust issues. If a dog bites me I am wary of dogs. Is that so unusal?
| stavrizatz wrote: |
What about Turkey, not even Turkish Cypriots but Turkey imposes their will on a foreign country?! They forced so many people to leave their lands in order for them to rule the country. So your point here is that we should never trust each other and always make decisions about the future of our country as separate communities! |
No my point is not that we should never trust each other at all ? My point is that the Turkish Cypriot community has valid historical reasons to fear a unitary state , where there is nothing to stop a numerical larger Greek Cypriot community seeking to impose purely Greek Cypriot desires on them against their will and that will prejudice the Turkish Cypriot community realtive to the Greek Cypriot one inposing such things. This is the reality and for me the only thing to do is to find a way forward that deals with this. Simply saying I should not worry about such, given the history is not a realitic approach imho.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Erolz, that is the big problem in Cyprus, we don’t have the mentality or we are not open to the possibility of being one. We also see the country as two communities but we ignore the essence that we are all equal. It is not totally our mistake, but also our official bodies that cultivate that culture of separatism. |
So why do you fear giving a degree of political equality to the Turkish Cypriot community in a unitary state? If in fact all my fears are unfounded and that really we are all just one Cypriot people and want a common future , then such political equality of the communites should be easy to give. I suggest your reluctance to grant such things is based as much on your fear of us as a community as mine in reverse.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
No your are not a greed thieving Turk that wants to accrue and maintain personal benefit at the expense of poor innocent Greek Cypriot victims, but I think you have to overcome your personal phobias of not trusting Greeks and always think that “all Greeks want to do is to dominate over the Turkish Cypriots”. Evidently in the South Greeks are not dominating over smaller communities such as the Armenians, Maronites and the Latins and well as the enormous 75000 British community who by 2015 could be more in number than the Turkish Cypriots!!! |
Certainly I have to get over my fears, as you do yours. I am not saying that all Greek Cypriot want to do is dominate over Turkish Cypriot in Cyprus. I am saying historically they DID try to do that (and look where it lead us). Maybe they would not in a unitary state today - but maybe is not good enough. You have to show some appreciation for this and not just tell me - hey you worrying about nothing , just trust us, we might have tried to impose unacceptable things on you before but we wont now. WHat you have to do is show that you will not try to impose such things on us again by giving us a RIGHT to bock them if you do. If you really never intend yo do such then such a right is easy to give. Unless of cpourse you do not trust us to not blackmail you with such a right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
stavrizatz
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 925
Location: Australia / Lefkosia
|
|
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| Firstly it is imho madnees to claim that my talking about communites in cyprus is the cause of the problem. Such tak is a symptom of the problem, the cause is that the two communites DID seek purely communal futures with littel or no regard for the other. That is what caused division. |
Exactly the two communities were seeking purely communal futures with little or no regard for the other but who encouraged that division? The division was also infuenced by the claims of Turkey on Cyprus, the invasion of Greece in Tureky after WW1 and the British 'divide and rule' strategy. So how was it possible to find common will under those circumstances?
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| It is my firm belief that for the vast majority of Turkish Cypriot the desire for partition was a reaction to the demands of enosis of the Greek Cypriot community. It was not a case of Turkish Cypriot wanting a partitioned Cyprus if Cyprus was to be an independant state with the Turkish Cypriot as a community having an effective say in state. It was case of being offered only one option - namely to have their country handed over to Greece, them made Greek citizens, their state to never have independance of any sort and all with them have mo sya in such matters. Given such a choice they chose to support partition instead of this future. In a sane Cyprus what would and should have happened is for both communites to have found a consenus involivng compromise form both to create a better future for both. This sanity never exited in cyprus and that is the problem. We should have learnt from these mistakes but apparently we have not. |
That seems like a typical copy paste of the Turkish Cypriot rhetoric, that partition came as a result a Greek Cypriot desire for enosis. Before partition Turkish Cypriots also claimed enosis but with Turkey instead.
Why both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots wanted union with their respective motherlands rather than indepence?
Simply because the idea of a Cypriot nation was an invention of the British.
Greek Cypriots wanted enosis with Greece based on the argument that Cyprus historically belonged to Greece and the majority of the residents are Greek. On the other hand Turkish Cypriots wanted union with Turkey arguing that Cyprus had never belonged to Greece, historically its people were not Greek, and geographically Cyprus is an extension of Anatolia.
Well here is where the right of self-determination comes to resolve this problem. It is the right of the people in an area to decide the future direction of the region. If Cyprus was united with Greece due to its majority Greek population then it was not imposing to the Turkish Cypriots something that they did not desire but a democratic resolvement of the issue. If the public desire was partition then partition would off been imo the fairest solution.
Similarly today under different circumstances people might have different desires. Only with a referendum we will be able to find how many Cypriots want partition, re-unification, or any other plan.
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| Certainly I have to get over my fears, as you do yours. |
I don't have any fears for a federal solution or anything (I wouldn't support it) but if the Anan plan was to go ahead I wouldn't have any fears to live in Cyprus under that system. I am happy with whatever the majority wants but at the same time I have my own opinion and my own beliefs. And the reason that democracy works is because it keeps the majority satisfied and also because it is the most efficient system of making decisions and that is why I am pro-democracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| stavrizatz wrote: |
That seems like a typical copy paste of the Turkish Cypriot rhetoric, that partition came as a result a Greek Cypriot desire for enosis. Before partition Turkish Cypriots also claimed enosis but with Turkey instead.
Why both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots wanted union with their respective motherlands rather than indepence?
Simply because the idea of a Cypriot nation was an invention of the British.
Greek Cypriots wanted enosis with Greece based on the argument that Cyprus historically belonged to Greece and the majority of the residents are Greek. On the other hand Turkish Cypriots wanted union with Turkey arguing that Cyprus had never belonged to Greece, historically its people were not Greek, and geographically Cyprus is an extension of Anatolia. |
The modern Greek state was founded on an ideological basis of the mengali ideal - to expand and incorporate all areas with majority greek speaking populations into a greater greece. No modern nation state has expanded as much as Greece has since its formation. If you define expansionist as being a state that has expanded then Greece is the most expansionist modern state bar none. The megali idea of a greater hellenic empire was implanted in Cyprus via the education which under british rule was controlled by athens (yet still brits are blamed for no universities!) and the greek orothodx church. In my (humble) view what is propaganda is this idea that the Turkish Cypriot community or even Turkey was as set on partition and nothing but partition in Cyprus in the same way and degree that Greek Cypriot and Greece (then) was set on enosis and nothing but enosis.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Well here is where the right of self-determination comes to resolve this problem. It is the right of the people in an area to decide the future direction of the region. If Cyprus was united with Greece due to its majority Greek population then it was not imposing to the Turkish Cypriots something that they did not desire but a democratic resolvement of the issue. If the public desire was partition then partition would off been imo the fairest solution. |
Well I do not know how many times I can try and explain my view on this. I do not believe that the meaning of democracy is 'majority rules' and nothing else. For me that is a means of democracy not its intent and it is NOT the only means of achieving the intent of democracy. For me the intent of democracy - what it seeks to provide is a way that people can have a real input into the decisions that rule their lives. Majority rules is one way of trying to achieve that. However there are countless examples of democratic systems that are not just 'majority rules'. In fact in very very few democratic systems is that the case. So to me this insistence that in cyprus unless we have 'majority rules' we can not have democracy is just a convenient way of saying in Cyprus Greek Cypriot get to decide the future of all cypriots - and is not about democracy at all but about justifying Greek Cypriot not having to consider the wishes of Turkish Cypriot in Cyprus.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
And the reason that democracy works is because it keeps the majority satisfied and also because it is the most efficient system of making decisions and that is why I am pro-democracy. |
I am pro democracy if democracy means people have a real and effective input into the decisions that affect their lives. I am anti democracy if it means that Greek Cypriot pursuing purely Greek Cypriot agendas and wishes have a right to impose that on Turkish Cypriot against their will - even when such decisions affect Turkish Cypriot in a different way to the Greek Cypriot that are imposing such things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| stavrizatz wrote: |
It is the right of the people in an area to decide the future direction of the region. If Cyprus was united with Greece due to its majority Greek population then it was not imposing to the Turkish Cypriots something that they did not desire but a democratic resolvement of the issue. If the public desire was partition then partition would off been imo the fairest solution.
I am happy with whatever the majority wants but at the same time I have my own opinion and my own beliefs. And the reason that democracy works is because it keeps the majority satisfied and also because it is the most efficient system of making decisions and that is why I am pro-democracy. |
OK I really feel that I am failing to explain my position to you properly here so I am gonna try another approach in the hope it makes that position clearer to you, even if you do not share it. So please bear with me in this 'thought experiment'.
Let's forget Cyprus for the moment. Lets talk about the UN. Let's think about reforming the UN in light of what you say above about imposition of will or not, democracy , how it must work and the benefits of it working that way.
So we reform the UN so that voting power within the UN corresponds to the population sizes of the various states, for that is how democracy works - the majority is satisfied and it's the most efficient way of making decisions. So we democratise the UN and asia made up of China India Indonesia and rest of Asia comprising 60% of the worlds population pass a UN resolution requiring '1st world nations' comprising of North America EU Japan and Australia / NZ (about 20% of the worlds population) to pay 40% of their GDP annually to less developed nations as a tax for these developed nations historic exploitation or world resources and their historic contribution to global warming and other global environmental damage. You can also imagine that remaining 20% (made up roughly of Africa and south America) also support this Asian resolution.
Now you may personally say , yes I would support that as a more democratic UN than the one we have today and I would not feel that as an EU citizen I not have any effective say in the matter because most of the worlds population want this resolution passed. But surely (hopefully) you can understand why many in the 20% of populations that are affected adversely by such a 'democratic' UN resolution would feel that it was neither right or fair or democratic ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
stavrizatz
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 925
Location: Australia / Lefkosia
|
|
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| The modern Greek state was founded on an ideological basis of the mengali ideal - to expand and incorporate all areas with majority greek speaking populations into a greater greece. No modern nation state has expanded as much as Greece has since its formation. If you define expansionist as being a state that has expanded then Greece is the most expansionist modern state bar none. |
exactly, so why do you tell me then that partition was the reaction of enosis when enosis was there before the British but partition came early-mid 20th century  
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| Well I do not know how many times I can try and explain my view on this. I do not believe that the meaning of democracy is 'majority rules' and nothing else. |
Sorry for going around in circles on that but I cannot understand your view as you are the one who has send an article on self-determination and that articles explains clearly the limitations of self-determination under and when countries can seek that right. Look section 1.3 depth of the application of the right of self-determination and 4.2 Self-Determination has limitations to protect other rights.
So I am not saying majority rules and nothing else, and I don't think I ever said that.
The fact that the human right of self-determination is strictly prohibited to Cyprus according to the 1960 constitution is one examle where external forces are deciding our future. This right is not about Greek dominating Turks, that is just the excuse that some find to avoid a unitary state and demand separate and equal power only at community level but not individual.
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| In fact in very very few democratic systems is that the case. So to me this insistence that in cyprus unless we have 'majority rules' we can not have democracy is just a convenient way of saying in Cyprus Greek Cypriot get to decide the future of all cypriots - and is not about democracy at all but about justifying Greek Cypriot not having to consider the wishes of Turkish Cypriot in Cyprus. |
That is totally an interpretation that suits your opinion, that Greeks are only interested in power and domination over Turkish Cypriots.
Real democracy means people have an effective input in the decisions that determine their future and the fundamental purpose of democracy is to protect the interest of society as a whole.
I'll give two example to clarify this.
1. there are 10 people and they want to go out for the night, 6 want to go to the movies, 4 want to go to a pub.
2. They go to the movies someone has to pay for the tickets. The 6 people say the other 4 should pay, where the 4 people say the to 6 should pay.
well the first example is where democracy resolves a problem that they had in deciding, the second example is not exactly democracy is one group domiating another.
My idea of democracy is the first example. I am not supporting any idea where Greek Cypriots will dominate Turkish Cypriots. And I repeat the Cypriot people and only them should have an effective say in the future of the island. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| The modern Greek state was founded on an ideological basis of the mengali ideal - to expand and incorporate all areas with majority greek speaking populations into a greater greece. No modern nation state has expanded as much as Greece has since its formation. If you define expansionist as being a state that has expanded then Greece is the most expansionist modern state bar none. |
exactly, so why do you tell me then that partition was the reaction of enosis when enosis was there before the British but partition came early-mid 20th century |
???
For calls for taksim to have been a reaction to calls for enosis , taksim must have occured after calls for enosis. If calls for taksim predated those for enosis then clearly taksim could not possibly have been a reaction to enosis.
In any case you are largely missing my point - which is that equating the desire and pursuit and reason for those for enosis within the Greek Cypriot community with that taksim within Turkish Cypriot community is extremely misleading imo.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
So I am not saying majority rules and nothing else, and I don't think I ever said that. |
Well it sounds that way to me. When you say to me
| Quote: |
| If Cyprus was united with Greece due to its majority Greek population then it was not imposing to the Turkish Cypriots something that they did not desire but a democratic resolvement of the issue. |
It certainly sounds like democracy means and requires 'majority rule and nothing else'.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
The fact that the human right of self-determination is strictly prohibited to Cyprus according to the 1960 constitution is one examle where external forces are deciding our future. |
I am sorry but I do not agree that the 60's constitution prohibited self determination to Cyprus. It did place some limits on the extent of self determination in certain defined areas, but that is not imo the same as you claim that it specifically prohibited (any) self determination of Cypriots.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
This right is not about Greek dominating Turks, that is just the excuse that some find to avoid a unitary state and demand separate and equal power only at community level but not individual. |
Again this follows from the (imo) faleshood above that the 60's constitution prohibited self determination of Cypriots. It limited it in certain areas but other than these Cypriots had self determination. The idea that self determination is unlimitable and binary ( you either have it totally without any limits or you do not have it at all) is just (imo) a misconception.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| In fact in very very few democratic systems is that the case. So to me this insistence that in cyprus unless we have 'majority rules' we can not have democracy is just a convenient way of saying in Cyprus Greek Cypriot get to decide the future of all cypriots - and is not about democracy at all but about justifying Greek Cypriot not having to consider the wishes of Turkish Cypriot in Cyprus. |
That is totally an interpretation that suits your opinion, that Greeks are only interested in power and domination over Turkish Cypriots. |
No not at all. It is about weather it would be possible for Greek Cypriot to impose things on Turkish Cypriot against their will , not about if they would or would not. If there is no desire for Greek Cypriot to impose a purely Greek Cypriot will on Turkish Cypriot in a unitary cyprus then what is the problem with having actual protections to ensure they can not do this?
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Real democracy means people have an effective input in the decisions that determine their future and the fundamental purpose of democracy is to protect the interest of society as a whole.
I'll give two example to clarify this.
1. there are 10 people and they want to go out for the night, 6 want to go to the movies, 4 want to go to a pub.
2. They go to the movies someone has to pay for the tickets. The 6 people say the other 4 should pay, where the 4 people say the to 6 should pay.
well the first example is where democracy resolves a problem that they had in deciding, the second example is not exactly democracy is one group domiating another.
My idea of democracy is the first example. I am not supporting any idea where Greek Cypriots will dominate Turkish Cypriots. And I repeat the Cypriot people and only them should have an effective say in the future of the island. |
Your idea is the first example but you want a system that would give the 6 a right to force the 4 to pay for all of them if they so chose to do so. If this is not what you want then you have to explain to me what protections the 4 would have to ensure the 6 can not force them to pay for all 10, for so far I have not seen anything that suggests any such protections. All I have seen is claims that I falsely worry that the 6 may be able to do this , for some ulterior motive of my own.
Also for me your 1st example of democracy working is not how I see things, when the type of movie people want to see is principally defined by some unchanging physical attribute of the two groups. For example lets imagine the 4 are all women and want to see a romantic movie and the 6 are all male and want to see an action movie. If this is the unchanging scenario, then your idea of a working democratic solution to what movie gets seen is actually that the men always decide and the women never get to see what they want - just because there are more men than women in this group. For me this is not working democracy at all. For me in such a scenario as this a much fairer democratic system would be the men choose a movie one time and then women the next or they agree a compromise and find a movie that has some romance but not all romance and some action but not all action. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
 
 
Link Partners
3212 Attacks blocked
|
Register 
Log in 
Album 
Home