Every week in the past, the President of the Republic in his speech on the Day of Participatory-Deliberative Democracy entitled “Corruption, the principle impediment to youth political exercise”, mentioned the next: “Undoubtedly, and anybody who doesn’t see that is actually blind, we dwell in a time intense and largely justified questioning of the establishments, which I primarily take into account stems, amongst others, from the space that residents really feel from the decision-making course of”. Nikos Christodoulidis makes a very baseless case. Residents elect representatives to determine on their behalf, with the assumption that these representatives will protect establishments and democracy. They consider that those that signify them, whether or not they’re President, MP, mayor, or municipal councilor, determine for the well-intentioned curiosity of the nation and the residents. The questioning of establishments by residents has a single supply. The dearth of belief in these appointed by the President of the Republic within the establishments. Everybody is aware of the standards that prevail in Cyprus and concern these appointments. Due to this fact, it’s the lack of meritocracy, entanglement and corruption that pushed the Cypriot residents into questioning and never the direct or non-participation of the residents in choices.
It’s the unreliability of a consultant in his decisions that shakes the folks's confidence in establishments. The entire world is aware of concerning the “golden” passports and why the Prosecutor Normal and the Assistant Prosecutor Normal had been appointed by Anastasiades to those positions. The entire world is aware of why Nikos Christodoulidis, regardless of his black ebook of the most effective, lastly ended up appointing these nominated by the events that elected him. The entire world is aware of what the advisers employed by the President had been earlier than they turned advisers and why they had been appointed by the President. So the President would do effectively to cease pondering that his viewers is kindergarteners.
To additional reinforce the above, I’ll consult with the ebook by two political scientists who educate at Harvard College, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt. The title of this text is, in actual fact, influenced by the title of their ebook “How Democracies Die”. On this ebook they state that in trendy democracies what occurs is that their very own governments condemn democracy to demise. Previously, democracy was in danger due to a coup or a civil battle. These days, democracy is condemned to demise by its personal governments. And particularly, from the best way a President manages the establishments that shield democracy. In trendy democracies there are so-called “arbitrators”. “Arbiters” are, for instance, the judiciary, impartial authorities, tax authorities, public administration. The objective of those “arbiters” is to hold out their duties, that are nothing greater than to reveal and block any abuses of the manager department. The “referees” should due to this fact work uninfluenced. That’s the reason the leaders of the international locations should shield them and assist the work of those “arbitrators”, as a result of that’s how they shield democracy. If, however, a authorities controls the “referees”, it successfully has the ability to show in opposition to anybody who dares to doc authorities malfeasance and corruption.
A very good instance within the ebook that cites how democracy dies in a state is that this, and I quote it verbatim: “This management of 'arbiters' is finished by firing or transferring authorities officers unfriendly to the brand new authorities or neutral and changing them with 'our personal folks'”.
This occurred in our republic on September 18. And the one who was supposed to guard her, did nothing. All he did was to know the date that the Supreme Constitutional Courtroom would determine prematurely, and to rearrange to be absent from an occasion in Athens concerning the twenty fifth anniversary of the demise of Giannos Kranidiotis. I’m wondering what relationship Nikos Christodoulidis himself has with Giannos Kranidiotis. That you just inform me is an article in itself! What does such a President must do with the values ​​that Yannos represented and served? The speech of former Prime Minister Mr. Simitis on the occasion solutions the above query, making reference to all that Giannos Kranidiotis was, and who’s actually NOT and won’t be Nikos Christodoulidis and neither his predecessor, Nikos Anastasiadis.
Democracy in Cyprus is slowly dying. What are we going to do about it?
