www.talkcyprus.org

[cypezokyli]

the reason i am bringing this up, is as i posted in another thread, the historical example of bosnia. we had huge discussions on how far the european high commisioner is justified , as an undemocratic means to achieve the end (democracy) .

in short the history of the high commisioner is as follows.
in the first elections after dayton , the serbs croats and bosniacs chose (naturally) nationalist parties , which lead to absolut no-coopearation on the state level. this brought the state close to collapse . so what do the europeans decide to do ? take everyone in bonn , and force them to accept the high commisioner.
from 1997 , the high commisioner was the one who was practically taking all important decisions. not only that , but he also severely discriminated against nationalist parties , media etc. in practise he was a (benevolent? ) dictator.
after 5-6 years all sides started voting for more moderates , and as long as they can alone decide the high commisioners role is reduced.

obviously , the europeans chose a functioning state from a democratic state (in the short run)
also it seems that they chose peace over democracy (again in the short run)

viewing the results today (funktioning state , peace , no-democracy) the question arises , was this action acceptable ?
which brings also the question : would it have been better if the european commissioner was not present ? what are the chances that the three sides would have cooperated alone with no foreign intervention ?




it seems that it is on this rationalle that the three judges were also present in the AP.

once again to remember what the supreme court was supposed to do in our case :

Quote: Article 6

The Supreme Court
1. The Supreme Court shall uphold the Constitution and ensure its full respect.

2. It shall comprise an equal number of judges from each constituent state, and three non-Cypriot judges until otherwise provided by law.

3. The Supreme Court shall, inter alia, resolve disputes between the constituent states or between one or both of them and the federal government, and resolve on an interim basis deadlocks within federal institutions if this is indispensable to the proper functioning of the federal government



Quote:
Section D: The Judiciary Article 36 The Supreme Court of Cyprus
1. The Supreme Court of Cyprus shall count an equal number of judges from each constituent state among its members. The Presidential Council shall appoint the judges, for a non-renewable term of nine years, in accordance with criteria and procedures stipulated in a special majority law which shall also fix the number of judges.

2. The Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes between the constituent states, between one or both constituent states and the federal government and between organs of the federal government.

3. The Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of any federal or constituent state law under this Constitution or any question that may arise from the precedence of Constitutional laws. Upon request of constituent state courts or other federal or constituent state authorities it may do so in the form of a binding opinion.

4. The Supreme Court shall be the appeals court in all other disputes on matters which involve the interpretation or an alleged violation of the Foundation Agreement, this Constitution, federal laws (including federal administrative decisions), or treaties binding upon the United Cyprus Republic.22

5. The Supreme Court shall have primary jurisdiction over violations of federal law where provided by federal legislation.

6. If a deadlock arises in one of the federal institutions preventing the taking of a decision without which the federal government or its institutions could not properly function, or the absence of which would result in a substantial default on the obligations of the United Cyprus Republic as a member of the European Union, the Supreme Court may, upon application of a member of the Presidential Council, the President or Vice-President of either Chamber of Parliament, or the Attorney-General or the Deputy Attorney-General, take an ad interim decision on the matter, to remain in force until such time as a decision on the matter is taken by the institution in question. In so acting, the Supreme Court shall exercise appropriate restraint. The Law on the Central Bank may exempt the Central Bank from this provision.

7. The Supreme Court of Cyprus shall sit as a Constitutional Court or as a Court of Primary Federal Jurisdiction. Judges shall be appointed to serve either on the Constitutional Court or the Court of Primary Federal Jurisdiction. The law shall regulate the number of judges serving in each court, the attribution of competence to each court, the division of the two courts into chambers, and any right of appeal within either court or from the Court of Primary Federal Jurisdiction to the Constitutional Court.


8. The Supreme Court shall strive to reach its decisions by consensus and issue joint judgments of the Court. However, all decisions of the Supreme Court may be taken by simple majority as specified by law.


it appears that under certain conditions the power given to there people , is huge. this system appears to have

advantages :
1. it prevents the colapse of the state (which obviously can lead to peace problems)
2. it forces , the parties to strike a solution through bargaining in order to avoid having the judges taking decisions

disadvantages :
1. obviously undemocratic (even though democracy is given a chance)
2. how is it possible to guarantee the impartiality of the judges ?
3. a judge , has ofcource the ability to take decisions when it comes to law , but he doesnot necessarily pocess the economic knowledge to determine the budget (for example )



do you people agree with the above , and if you disagree , what do you propose as a functionable mechanism of solving deadlocks ?

what do you choose, between democracy and functionable state ?

[Dhavlos]

well, is democracy the best system?! after all, i think it was Churchill who said, that democracy is not good, but it is all we have...or something.

personally, i think that cyprus couldnot deal with proper democracy for the first few years of unification, simply becausei think that people would vote along nationalist lines...sot ohave someone above this, like in bosnia for the first few years, who would 'guide' the people to democracy, then it would work.

peace can work without democracy, but democracy cannot work without peace!