“HARAVGI” NEWSPAPER INTERVIEW WITH ANDROS KYPRIANOY, GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE C.C. OF AKEL
Sunday 3rd March 2013
An intense election campaign came to an end last week without the successful result for AKEL and the candidate it backed. What can you draw from this long election campaign over quite a few months?
AK: I consider as the most important the way in which so many party rank and file volunteers responded to the needs of the pre-election campaign, in particular the cadres of the youth and women’s organisation, but also the Party cadres in general. The way in which they worked between the First and Second round was very moving. We knew from the beginning that it would be a very difficult election battle. Furthermore, we had set out specific goals. I believe that we could have achieved the “miracle” of electing Stavros Malas had certain political figures and parties been consistent with what they were declaring during the pre-election period. That is to say, that they would not have liked to see the election of Mr. Anastasiades to the Presidency of the Republic. Another negative aspect that I have noted, not only during the election campaign but also during the previous years, is the constant destructive way the opposition waged the whole campaign. I am totally in favour of criticism exerted by the opposition. Apart from criticism being an obligation, it is also a necessity so that a given government can proceed to make corrective measures in the policy it implements. In the case of the Demetris Christofias administration, the criticism that was exercised was completely destructive that left no room for discussion on political issues and regarding problems the country faced.
Besides all this, I regret to point out that a section of the international community was also enlisted in this pre-election effort. Listening to what was stated during the pre-election period concerning the money-laundering issue, the problems of the Cyprus economy, about what the government must accept with regards the Memorandum etc, and listening to what is said today after the elections we conclude that they tried to create an artificial climate against the Cyprus economy and the Cypriot government so that this climate would be used to the benefit of Mr. Anastasiades. Moreover, it is not the first time that foreign forces have attempted to intervene and blackmail us. The same thing occurred in 2004 concerning the Annan Plan; the same was repeated today in this provocative way.
The collective bodies of AKEL will make their assessments of the result, which is why I won’t ask you to predetermine anything. During this entire period however you were many times called upon to reply to the position, or to the assertion, that it was the party leadership’s choice that the concrete battle would be lost. Today, with the 42.5% of the vote Stavros Malas attained what to do you reply to these assertions?
AK: Permit me to comment on something I hear often, that is to say that Stavros Malas was the choice of Andros Kyprianou or that he was chosen by Demetris Christofias. In no way whatsoever do these assertions correspond reflect reality. The party internal procedures were followed as they were every time we take decisions on election battles. Discussions were held in the collective bodies of the Party. I recall that the Political Bureau unanimously proposed to the Central Committee the candidacy of Stavros Malas. Subsequently, the C.C. discussed the proposal. It is a fact that in the C.C. there were different views, but no other proposal was submitted. The Congress in the presence of roughly 1,400 delegates took the decision to support the candidacy of Stavros Malas by around 95%. Consequently, it was a collective decision which we assessed could have been a successful choice. Subsequent developments have proved the correctness of our position.
Stavros Malas waged the election battle with determination, vigour and ethos. I consider that he stood up worthily to the two other major Presidential candidates, when confronting Nicos Anastasiades and Georgios Lillikas who both had a great deal of experience in political affairs.
At the same time, given that Stavros Malas was not a party but an independent candidacy, it created the preconditions to gain support from the broader spectrum of the centre ground. This is what the Second round results proved. I would like to thank from the bottom of my heart the voters of the political spectrum of the centre who voted for Stavros Malas in the Second round the candidacy. Had political parties and figures taken a different position in the second round, today Stavros Malas would have been President of the Republic. Consequently, I consider that that the assertion that the Malas candidacy was a choice doomed to fail conceals other motives. This assertion is anything but the case. On the contrary, we wanted to elect him to the Presidency of the Republic and supported him with all our strength to defend Cyprus and our people.
The situation was from the outset difficult for AKEL because during the last 5 years it was in power and therefore, it was on the one hand easy to be apportioned the blame for any problems and on the other difficult for successes and positives of its work to be acknowledged. Evaluating the presidential election result, to what degree do you consider that this position affected the voters?
AK: This certainly was the case to a very large extent. We do not have any illusions, nor are we naïve. We know that outlooks formed in society are not shaped in a day or five months. They are shaped in the course of time. I must admit that we had to combat enormous objective, but also subjective difficulties which the opposition and a section of the mass media were fermenting and provoking. The unprecedented economic crisis affected to a great degree the Government’s efforts to tackle the problems. At the same time, it created others which were very difficult to address.
In the first three years, perhaps more, the government had produced a significant and multifaceted work which will be properly evaluated in the course of time. As an example I shall refer only to the confirmation of the existence of natural gas in the Cyprus Exclusive Economic Zone, possibly of oil too, as well as to the successful exercise of the Cyprus Presidency of the EU, the Educational Reform and the reform of the Local Self-government. Regardless of the fact that for the sake of expediencies the House of Representatives has still not approved this reform this in itself does not downgrade the significance it has. One can refer to the promotion and upgrading of a public transport system, even with the problems that exist; to the safeguarding of the sustainability of the Social Insurance Fund, before we entered the economic crisis and faced its impact; to the increase in pensions and in the minimum wage, the change in the way Local Plans are shaped. All of these examples form the picture which I consider confirms that a very significant work has been produced by the Demetris Christofias government.
Of course you accept that possible mistakes were also committed, that there were also shortcomings…
AK: In saying all this, I do not argue that mistakes were not made, that there weren’t any weaknesses and shortcomings. However, a very significant work has been produced. The economic crisis broke out. The government was forced to take measures and AKEL backed measures, which under normal conditions it would never have even accepted to discuss. The fact that as a result of the economic crisis there were dismissals, a large number of unemployed, reductions in wages and pensions and others, that the accident at the naval base of Mari occurred – and this was exploited by a section of political parties and the mass media – created a negative environment in which we were called upon to wage the election struggle. Together of course with the intense efforts of the DHSY party and other forces to convey the message that the Christofias government has not done anything at all.
Despite all this, we managed to combat and confront this given situation and gain a result which has caused a surprise and admiration on a European level. Let me refer, as an example, to the letter sent to AKEL by Tini Cox, President of the Group of the Left in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, in which he characterises the election result as “astonishing” and has extended an invitation to AKEL to visit Holland to draw lessons from our own experience.
The way the opposition acted all these years was unprecedented in the political life of Cyprus. I believe that it must go down as a woeful chapter in the history of Cypriot political life. It is inconceivable that opposition is conducted in a way that disregards the interests of the people for the sake of petty-party expediencies and considerations.
You are transmitting the message that AKEL will not operate with revenge as an opposition…
AK: AKEL will not operate in this way. We have our own views and positions. We shall project them in a political, constructive and well-documented way. Where we consider that the government is supporting or promoting policies which go against the people’s interests we will exercise severe criticism.
Both during the First and the Second Sunday of the elections you talked about the messages the voters of AKEL transmitted to the party. What are these messages and do you pledge that you shall study all of these messages and not hide any problems that may exist under the carpet?
AK: As a Party we do have problems, problems in the party mechanism, both full-time cadres and among the volunteer mechanism. We have already begun a procedure to discuss these problems. However, as you very correctly have pointed out since we have initiated a procedure for internal discussion on all these issues, it would not be correct for me to refer to them right now. The appeal I address to all comrades is that in a critical and self-critical manner they should feely state their views, but at the same time responsibly – something that is important for a Party of the character of AKEL – so that by drawing conclusions and composing from the views that will be expressed as a whole we create such given conditions that will enable us to use in the best possible way the fact that we are in opposition. Our goal is to build a much more powerful AKEL in the years ahead, on the one hand an AKEL that will stand as a bulwark of resistance to any machinations against people’s interests, but also for the Party to construct the perspectives at some stage to return to power.
During, but also after, the elections certain circles and forces put the blame for the election of Anastasiades on the Presidency of the Republic on AKEL. Will our paths meet these forces again or have all bridges between us been burnt?
AK: The logic that says that “you are to blame for the election of Nicos because you voted for Stavros Malas” is very peculiar. That’s to say, those who announced to the people their decision “don’t vote” aren’t to blame…I wonder if there is any logical thinking person who could understand this approach. Namely that AKEL is responsible for Anastasiades´ election which AKEL fought in both rounds against. Yes, we shall attempt to cooperate once again in the future with the political parties, movements and organisations we had cooperated with in the past too. I wont hide the fact that very soon we shall hold talks with political parties, movements and organisations we had cooperated with to see how we formulate the framework for cooperation in today’s given conditions.
However haven’t you too, but also the people of the Left, been disappointed by the stand taken by forces politically adjacent to the party, especially with regards the position they adopted in the second round of the election? Emotions have no place in politics one could say, but isn’t this the feeling of the people of AKEL?
AK: In political struggle, there are many disappointments, but they can’t prevail or determine how one operates politically. In political struggle you must operate using the mind and by always taking into account how best the interests of the people are served. If AKEL chooses to be isolated, it will not be able to defend the interests of the Cypriot people and Cyprus in the most effective way. Cooperation/alliances are always part of the strategy we have followed and I consider that they must continue to represent AKEL´s political line. I would like to recall that in this election battle we had opted for the policy of cooperation. We attempted to forge cooperation with the Democratic Party DHKO and we had accepted that the candidate would come from the spectrum of DHKO. Furthermore, we had also concluded an initial agreement. If this cooperation was not made possible in the end, this is exclusively the fault of DHKO, the leadership of DHKO and not the fault of AKEL. We must seek cooperation and there is an additional reason for this. We are confronting the Troika and a discussion on the Memorandum is underway that has not been concluded. The pressures exerted on the Christofias government to accept additional provisions were tremendous. I have no doubt at all that similar attempts will also be made now. Therefore, the broadest possible rallying of all those forces that oppose such policies is needed in order to resist such approaches in order to repel the anti-peoples machinations against Cyprus.
What relationship will AKEL have from now onwards with the candidate it supported in the presidential elections? What will be the foundation of your cooperation, if there will be, with Stavros Malas?
AK: We have already had contact and shall meet this week with Mr. Malas. Stavros has expressed his desire to return to his previous occupation and of course he will remain politically active. I shall meet him and exchange views and opinions about how he could contribute in the best possible way.
From 1st March a new government has assumed office. I would like initially to hear your comments on the government formation. Does it correspond to the pledges and pre-election proclamations of Nicos Anastasiades or is there already a backing down on pre-election pledges?
AK: I could say quite a lot. I shall restrict myself to just a few things. We shall support the government in every positive action it takes to the benefit of Cyprus and our people. We shall exercise severe criticism in a well-documented and serious way on the issues that we disagree with. We shall give a period of grace.
However, I would like to refer to some issues that I consider as very important. First of all because they highlight the governments inconsistency and contradictions and secondly because issues relating to conduct have arisen which cannot be ignored, particularly when they concern people who hold public posts. During the pre-election campaign they attempted to give lessons on conduct, behaviour, credibility and openness/transparency.
One issue that has come to the fore is that of the participation of women in the Ministerial Council. The participation of women in the previous government’s Ministerial Council was 35%. This government has not appointed a single woman in government. Let us not also forget the derogatory manner Mr. Anastasiades expressed himself about women during the pre-election campaign. In addition, the parties participating in the government have also established the quota system, a method we disagree with, supposedly for promoting women to decision-making centres. After all of these declarations, there is not a single woman participating in the Cabinet. We, who do not implement such practices had a percentage of 35% participation of women in the government with noteworthy results.
I would like to highlight the inconsistency and contradictions of the statements made before and after the election. During the pre-election period Mr. Anastasiades said that he would not appoint so-called “party-subservient people” in his government. We do not agree with this approach, but this is what he announced. What did he do subsequently? We see prominent leading cadres of parties in their majority appointed to the Ministerial Council.
Matters relating to conduct also are a big issue. A man has been appointed as Minster of Labour who faces accusations that as an employer he has violated collective agreements. Procedures as far as I know have been initiated in the Ministry he is heading. Will his subordinates examine in an objective manner any accusations levelled against the Minister?
Furthermore, Mr. Hasikos – an owner of a radio station and television channel – has been appointed as the Minister of Interior. As Minister of Interior he is at this moment of time supervising the Cyprus Radio television Authority. Despite the fact that it is an independent authority he is the relevant Minister of such a service that will check and control his own radio station and television channel and the stations and channels of his competitors. I am not raising personal issues. We are talking about institutional issues. I consider that issues of conduct and morality are raised. Mr. Anastasiades should have been careful about these issues. I reiterate that we shall judge every Minister by the way he will exercise his duties and responsibilities.
