www.talkcyprus.org

[pg]

With regards to the last few days of discussion of cross-voting I have put together a proposal that I find clear and simple, here it is:

There is a single Parliament, which consists of an equal amount of MPs from the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities. To make the numbers easier to present here I am using 100 Greek Cypriot MPs and 100 Turkish Cypriot MPs - possibly half of each would be enough.

There is simultaneous voting in both communities. Each citizen places one for the Greek Cypriot MPs and another for the Turkish Cypriot MPs. Most likely the vote should be for a party list, in each community.
The votes from Greek Cypriot citizens are given 82% weight when counting votes for the Greek Cypriot MPs, while the Turkish Cypriot votes are given the weight 18%. The other way around for Turkish Cypriot MP.

Here is an example of how the voting can decide MPs:

____ __ G.C __ T.C ____MPs
DISY __ 35% __ 30% ___34
DIKO __ 20% ___ 1% ___17
EDEK __ 10% ___ 1% ___8
AKEL __ 35% __ 68% ___41
Total _ 100% _ 100% __100

UBP_ ___ 5% __ 33% ___28
DP__ __ 10% __ 15% ___14
CTP_ __ 30% __ 37% ___36
TKP_ __ 55% __ 15% ___22
Total _ 100% _ 100% __100

In order to enter the Parliament a party must receive >5% of the votes in its own community. This is needed in order to have the parties run in the right community.

Based on the result of the election a party leader will be given the task to form a government. Call him (or her) Prime Minister, or possible President of the Council of Ministers. He must present his government to the Par lament and win a vote of confidence. In order to pass the government must receive >50% of the votes in the Par lament and >33% of each communities MP votes.

Based on the example above, possible governments could be:
a) EDEK+AKEL+CTP+TKP ( support from more Turkish Cypriot than Greek Cypriot MPs)
b) DISY+AKEL+DP+TKP
c) DISY+DP+CTP+TKP
d) DIKO+AKEL+CTP

There is no veto rights.

Apart from the vote of confidence, no other voting requires a certain amount of votes from each community MPs.

Most likely there is no need for an additional Head of State. If the Prime Minister resigns, the function of Head of State will be held by the Speaker of the Parliament. The outgoing Speaker of the Parliament will suggest the party leader to form a government.
The Speaker, and vice-Speaker, of Parliament runs on a vote together and are voted in by simple majority. They have no addition executive functions - apart from nominating Prime Minister.

In this thread the constitutional system above is the main proposal. However, see below for context.

I see this system coupled with free right of settlement, which means no formal bi-zonality. Still, I see many functions handled by strong municipalities (larger than those today). Most likely voting in municipalities should be one man one vote - I am not sure.
There should also be very strong incentives for legal owners of properties to sell, or lease, these to current users. In short, I do not foresee large population transfers. Possibly properties in the areas foreseen in the Annan Plan to be handed back, and Karpasia, to be returned.

Concluding, I believe this system will strongly promote political forces that wants the communities to work together for a win-win situation - which was the main weakness of the 1960 constitution.
Naturally, no laws that discriminate anyone on ethnic grounds will be in the constitution.

[cypezokyli]

i believe that, cross voting is already a big step for the Turkish Cypriots pg. taking away the veto, is imo sth that will not be accepted.

[pg]

cypezokyli wrote: i believe that, cross voting is already a big step for the Turkish Cypriots pg. taking away the veto, is imo sth that will not be accepted.

Still, this proposal really implements "political equality" of the two communities. Each community appoints 100 MPs each, and each MP has equal weight in the Parliament.
The only reason to have the veto is if the Greek Cypriot community has more MPs than the Turkish Cypriot community...

Also, note that the government will always be a coalition of Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot political parties. (It is even possible that in the government coalition the Turkish Cypriot parties will be in majority.) The same political majority will support the Government in the Parliament. This means that if the government would try to implement something that goes against one community (Turkish Cypriot or Greek Cypriot) then it would loose the support of its coalition partner and fall.

In addition, there will of course be constitutional laws that protects ethnic rights.

With this in mind I see no need for veto rights.

[pg]

Also note that this way of counting popular votes will promote parties that strive for cooperation and punish those that promote separation.

For example, it is very likely that AKEL will campaign together with CTP and try to convince their own Greek Cypriot voters to put their "Turkish Cypriot vote" on CTP - probably promoting a common political program that they want to implement if they gain enough support in the Parliament.

[repulsewarrior]

This is based on a static demographic of the population. I will have to think about it, but this really bothers me. Otherwise it is interesting.

[pg]

(I thought this was really good proposal - even so good that I am not even sure from who it will receive criticism... Hopefully the fact it is so quiet here means everyone agrees with it... Or perhaps it just cannot compete with the new feet forum...) :?

[repulsewarrior]

The spirit of the proposal is well placed. You will find others which are interesting as well. However, getting, to the step where we already agree, that inclusivity is the best solution, has bogged on the injustice that the interlocutors have flung on each other since before the inception of a modern idea, a free and independant state for the self governance of these people, Cypriots.

Eric, who is the clearest opponent to a unified country of Cyprus, has not given us any details as to how his ideal, can come about. Others, of equal conviction, imagine that the state will return to its original aim, which is to promote its Greek identity and to represent the Turkish minority. Those of us that remain struggle with a plan that could make us even better.

[cypezokyli]

pg wrote: (I thought this was really good proposal - even so good that I am not even sure from who it will receive criticism... Hopefully the fact it is so quiet here means everyone agrees with it... Or perhaps it just cannot compete with the new feet forum...) :?

we are here for arguing pg, not so much excited about proposed solutions :wink:

[repulsewarrior]

Don't be disappointed, keep plugging, I do.

[turkcyp]

If there is going to be one chamber, meaning no senate just parliament, then i do not want it to be 50/50. Because the next day we wake up after the agreement we will be hearing voices among the Greek Cypriots saying why does 20% get to choose 50%, which when you think about it actually they are right. Don't you remember what a big fuss it was when 20% choose 30%, and imagine what will happen if they choose 50%.

So if there is going to be one chamber then it has to be according to population statistics. I do not want my community to sign an agreement with false hopes and live in utopia that it will work....

So if you want to find a way of preventing Greek Cypriots toppling Turkish Cypriots, you have to find it within these norms. Anything else will be unrealistic and will result in a constitutional deadlock again.

My two cents on the matter,

[pg]

turkcyp wrote: If there is going to be one chamber, meaning no senate just parliament, then i do not want it to be 50/50. Because the next day we wake up after the agreement we will be hearing voices among the Greek Cypriots saying why does 20% get to choose 50%, which when you think about it actually they are right. Don't you remember what a big fuss it was when 20% choose 30%, and imagine what will happen if they choose 50%.

So if there is going to be one chamber then it has to be according to population statistics. I do not want my community to sign an agreement with false hopes and live in utopia that it will work....

So if you want to find a way of preventing Greek Cypriots toppling Turkish Cypriots, you have to find it within these norms. Anything else will be unrealistic and will result in a constitutional deadlock again.

My two cents on the matter,

So I take it that from a Turkish Cypriot perspective this proposal seems too good to be true. That is not bad.
Naturally it would not be implemented unless it was voted through a referendum, so I do not consider it to be revised after 'going live'.

Let's see if there are any Greek Cypriots that can come up with a complaint...

[pg]

Due to the lack of input I will keep arguing with my self here... :(

The main complaint I would foresee from the Greek Cypriot community is, as turkcyp said, the fact that 18% of the population will appoint 50% of the MPs. Possibly you may say that it should be 101+99 MPs, or 110+90, for each community. However, I would claim that it is better to acknowledge 'political equality' 100% and bargain elsewhere.

Any other construction, where the Greek Cypriot community due to its numerical majority is given more MPs, will instead require some sort of 'veto right' to secure the 'political equality' - as all previously suggested constitutional arrangements.
A design where the numerical majority appoints a government that may be strapped down by veto rights may easily become dysfunctional - especially if the political leaders are appointed without 'weight' for those who actually wants to cooperate with the other community for a better future together.

In addition, this proposal makes it easier for the voter to predict what the outcome of his vote will be. Earlier suggestions (two houses, different voting rights for different issues, veto rights, several presidents) will make it very difficult for a voter to predict what policies his vote will result in.

Based on the above I would personally agree to the above solution.

[pg]

Another main difference to earlier proposals is that there is no separate Head of State. This is very useful since we do not need to decide if the Head of State should be Greek Cypriot or Turkish Cypriot, or both...

I will claim that we do not need any (additional) Head of State apart from the Prime Minister (or President of the Council of Ministers, if we prefer that title).

The most stable democracies of Europe is working without a political Head of State - I am talking about all of the Monarchies. These have a King as a Head of State, but without any real political power what so ever. I believe several of them are not even allowed to express a political opinion.
I believe the Head of State is really just a transitions from the time when the King was the state - when he no longer was the state we wanted someone else to hold a similar post. Based on the European experiences of the most stables democracies, the Scandinavian, Holland, etc, I would like to claim that there is no need for a politically appointed Head of State.

And again, in Cyprus it is easier not having to appoint one.

[cypezokyli]

imo , two chambers are important in order to give the impression that in the one we have majority system , and in the other bicommunal system.

as turkcyp said we are likelly to hear voices complaining.

i believe, that if the impression of a majority system , with two chambers, will help for peace then we should do it.

imo , the system - any system will quarantee the Turkish Cypriot communal rights and we should digest that , and as a concequence a second chamber just to appear nice to Greek Cypriots is just a waste of money....

[Dhavlos]

I think i agree with pg here...

I say 50% political power to the communities in the lower chamber with no vetos...much simpler!

And also, the head of state, i beleive should have no political power, like in italy or greece...they should have a symbolic role only.