Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Normalisation of Cyprus’ Partition Among Greek Cypriots: Political Economy and Political Culture in a Divided Society 1st ed. Edition Gregoris Ioannou full chapter instant download
The Normalisation of Cyprus’ Partition Among Greek Cypriots: Political Economy and Political Culture in a Divided Society 1st ed. Edition Gregoris Ioannou full chapter instant download
The Normalisation of Cyprus’ Partition Among Greek Cypriots: Political Economy and Political Culture in a Divided Society 1st ed. Edition Gregoris Ioannou full chapter instant download
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-political-economy-of-
automotive-industrialization-in-east-asia-1st-edition-richard-f-
doner/
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-rise-of-empires-the-political-
economy-of-innovation-1st-ed-edition-sangaralingam-ramesh/
https://ebookmass.com/product/nato-at-70-a-political-economy-
perspective-1st-ed-edition-keith-hartley/
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-african-
political-economy-1st-ed-edition-samuel-ojo-oloruntoba/
The refugee woman : partition of Bengal, gender,and the
political Paulomi Chakraborty
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-refugee-woman-partition-of-
bengal-genderand-the-political-paulomi-chakraborty/
https://ebookmass.com/product/political-economy-of-
capitalisms-1st-edition-robert-boyer/
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-political-economy-of-
colonialism-and-nation-building-in-nigeria-1st-ed-2022-edition-
samuel-ojo-oloruntoba/
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-political-economy-of-normative-
trade-power-europe-1st-ed-edition-arlo-poletti/
https://ebookmass.com/product/political-economy-of-development-
in-turkey-1838-present-emre-ozcelik/
The Normalisation of
Cyprus’ Partition Among
Greek Cypriots
Political Economy and Political Culture
in a Divided Society
Gregoris Ioannou
The Normalisation of Cyprus’ Partition
Among Greek Cypriots
Gregoris Ioannou
The Normalisation
of Cyprus’ Partition
Among Greek
Cypriots
Political Economy and Political Culture
in a Divided Society
Gregoris Ioannou
School of Law
University of Glasgow
Glasgow, UK
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the
publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect
to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
To Ilektra
Acknowledgements
Many people have contributed in various ways, direct and indirect, to the
writing of this book. I would like to thank all those with whom I have
conversed in the last 20 years in the context of the peace movement. From
my academic colleagues I would like to thank in particular Andreas
Panayiotou, Theodoros Rakopoulos, Giorgos Charalambous, Antonis
Hadjikyriacou, Olga Demetriou, Danae Karydaki, Athena Skoulariki,
Sertac Sonan, Umut Bozkurt, Christos Mais, Pafsanias Karathanasis,
Alexis Heraklides, Serephim Seferiades, Nicos Trimikliniotis, Serkan Karas
and Niyazi Kızılyürek.
I would like to thank Konstantinos Tzikas for translating the original
Greek edition into English, allowing me to focus on the refining rather
than the re-writing of the text and thus making the editing, updating and
expanding of the manuscript an easier task. I would like to also thank the
University of Glasgow for supporting me in this.
As a book written not only from the perspective of social science, but
also from the perspective of peace activism, it is inspired from and speaks
to all those who believed and who continue to believe, acted and act for
peace in, and reunification of, Cyprus, as envisioned by the late Costis
Achniotis.
Finally, I want to thank Evgenia Nikiforou, my partner in life, and wish
our daughter Ilektra gets to experience a Cyprus that is better than the
one our generation experienced.
vii
Contents
ix
x Contents
References201
Index217
CHAPTER 1
‘If they choose to protect the rights of the Turkish Cypriots in a separate, inde-
pendent entity, then they should be restricted to what is attributable to the exclu-
sive economic zone of that unlawful entity. Therefore, they have no reason to
question the sovereign rights of the Republic of Cyprus.’ (Nicos Anastasiades,
2/1/2018, quoted in:
Alphanewslive. (2018) ‘Anastasiades’ statement provokes reactions’
[Αντιδράσεις προκαλεί η δήλωση Αναστασιάδη για την ΑΟΖ] (3/1/2018)
Alphanewslive https://www.alphanews.live/politics/antidraseis-prokalei-e-
delose-anastasiade-gia-ten-aoz)
The aim of the book is to record the basic dynamics that have shaped
the Cyprus problem since 1974, especially since the 1990s, a crucial time
in the building of partition. It does not adopt a historical logic, although
it approaches the subject matter historically and builds a more or less
chronological narrative of developments. The perspective and logic of the
text lies within the field of political sociology and approaches the Cyprus
issue in the light of power relations in society, focusing on the interaction
between the political elite and society, the political system and civil society.
I define normalisation as a societal process whereby people become accus-
tomed to prevailing conditions, accept them and treat them as the normal
state of affairs. Whereby they rationalise and naturalise that which is irra-
tional, arbitrary and abnormal and become accustomed to operating
within its political bounds. Although this is a historically determined pro-
cess, and of a structural character, it is neither solid nor inexorable. It is
enmeshed in contradictions and it is inherently fluid and potentially unsta-
ble. There are numerous cracks in what appears as a totalising system that
can and should be opened further. However, in order to identify where
the cracks are and how they can be made bigger one needs to examine the
whole wall on which they are situated.
The book focuses on the ideological field and analyses the political
dynamics, especially the recent ones, in relation to society and their depic-
tion in the public sphere. It also focuses on the Greek Cypriot community
without ignoring the parallel international developments, but also on the
dynamics within the Turkish Cypriot community insofar as they have
influenced or contributed to the process of partition. It was originally
published in Greek in 2019 by Psifides and subsequently translated and
published in Turkish in early 2020 by Baranga under the title Denktaş in
the south: the normalisation of partition in the Greek Cypriot side. This
English edition is an updated and expanded one, re-worked at some points
and enriched with some additional theoretical and empirical insights. The
Covid-19 pandemic, which overshows everything at this moment, has
served as an excuse and as a context for political developments in divided
Cyprus, rendering the book yet more topical and its argument yet stron-
ger. As of mid-March 2020, all the crossings between the northern and
the southern part of Cyprus have been forbidden and not only there has
been no cooperation between the two sides in dealing with the threat
posed by Covid-19 but the Republic of Cyprus restricted its reporting of
incidences and deaths only to those occurring in the south, as if the north-
ern territory is a separate country. More importantly it remains uncertain
4 G. IOANNOU
as to when and how the checkpoints will open again allowing movement
across the dividing line after this ‘temporary suspension’.
This book does not aspire to present a comprehensive and extensive
analysis of all the factors that have shaped the socio-political development
of the Greek Cypriot community in recent decades in relation to the
Cyprus issue. Nor can it account in detail for all the aspects of the develop-
ment of complex issues such as nationalism, peace talks, inter-communal
relations and the international environment. It has a much more limited
analytical agenda and much more specific questions to ask. However, it
does have the ambitious aim of articulating a general overview of how
partition has been normalised during the last decades. Or, to turn it on its
head, how partition was not disputed and not eroded sufficiently at a time
when it was geopolitically, politically and economically vulnerable both as
a balance and as a framework. This book aims to honestly raise the ques-
tion and discuss publicly and openly a kind of hidden but common secret.
The analysis of the normalisation of partition in the Greek Cypriot side
also has a political weight, that of reversing a firmly founded ideological
structure—but for this reason it also brings a sense of liberation to the
extent that it succeeds in this endeavour.
The book is divided into nine chapters dealing with various themes
focusing on periods, nodal points and fields that shaped the conditions of
normalisation of partition. It also includes a postscript after the conclusion
that is sort of autonomous from the rest of the book, in the sense that it
reverses the analytic frame by approaching the Cyprus conflict from the
outside as opposed to from the inside as the rest of the book does. After
this introduction, the second chapter sets the historical context and exam-
ines the creation of partition, introducing also conceptual issues in relation
to the political system, the political balance of forces and the dynamics of
identities and ideologies at a societal level. It essentially narrates the basic
developments of the 25-year-long period 1950–1975 that led to the sepa-
ration of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. The third chapter discusses
sociologically the separation, as it was almost completely imposed between
1975 and 2003, and its consequences at the level of collective conscious-
ness between the two communities. Having outlined the key issues that
have historically constituted the Cyprus problem, the next chapters deal-
ing with the latest developments deepen the analysis and discuss the
parameters of the failure to be resolved.
The fourth chapter focuses on the opening of the barricades and the
big social potential that it created in 2003, but also how that failed to
1 INTRODUCTION: HISTORY, NEED AND CHOICES 5
assume a direct political form resulting in its erosion and in the leading
back to the margins of those logics and forces that persistently articulated
an anti-partitionist political stance. It also discusses the importance of the
existence of open checkpoints and crossings from 2003 to 2020 and their
impact on inter-communal relations. The referendum on the Annan Plan
is the central theme of Chap. 5, serving as a pillar on which the basic argu-
ment of the book is laid: that the consolidation of the partition was neither
automatic nor de facto, nor did it happen behind the back of the Greek
Cypriot community. It was not the resounding ‘No’ to Annan Plan which
sealed the partition. More important was the repulsion by many of the
consequences of the loud ‘No’ and hence their inability to work out alter-
native practices and other scenarios in the years to come. But the demysti-
fication that came with the referendum process meant the end of the fog
and the end of innocence for all.
The sixth chapter discusses the last battle between federation and parti-
tion in the 2007–2017 decade at the political level and how, despite the
apparent victory of the federalist forces, it was ultimately the forces of
partition that really prevailed defining the game. It reviews the internal
dynamics in the two communities, the international changes and the
developments in the negotiations until the collapse of the last round of
talks in 2017, distinguishing between the formal and substantive attitude
of the various actors, the form and content of the actions at the political
and societal level. Subsequently, the seventh chapter focuses on the role
played and not played by education and the media both historically and at
crucial moments in the development of the Cyprus issue, thus opening up
the discussion on the structures and institutions of the Republic of Cyprus
of emergent necessity and their impact on collective memory, social per-
ceptions and public opinion. The central theoretical concept here is the
idiosyncratic, deep state that has historically been shaped and reproduced
preserving certain dominant, ideological and political frames that impact
on present political time.
Finally, the eighth chapter opens up the analytical perspective and dis-
cusses in more theoretical terms the argument and, more specifically, the
political balances and political stakes as shaped by recent internal and
international developments. It deals with the class and political equilibria
within the Greek Cypriot society, briefly describes the left-wing approaches
and discusses the various lines, positions and plans of the Greek Cypriot
bourgeoisie and their association with the popular and worker strata. The
goal here is to explain the shifts, the legitimisation of policies and the
6 G. IOANNOU
Ending this introduction, I reiterate that history does not end and
everything can change. The future of the country will ultimately depend
upon its people and their action or inaction—people make their own his-
tory—as Marx’s famous saying goes. But it will happen in conditions
‘given by the past’. These conditions from the past are what this book
records, realistically and without any wishful thinking that may blur the
analysis. With the burning desire at the same time, however, to overthrow
the consolidation of the partition that is illustrated in the book. Because it
is my belief that the ‘any partition’ policy which the dominant section of
Greek Cypriot leadership is working upon and which is accepted and/or
desired by a strong portion of the Greek Cypriot community will be nei-
ther velvet nor advantageous nor will it solve the problem which will con-
tinue to haunt us, even if in the coming years some regulation is imposed
on its external aspects.
CHAPTER 2
1
Kitromilides, P. (1977) ‘From coexistence to confrontation: the dynamics of ethnic con-
flict in Cyprus’, in Attalides, M. (ed.), Cyprus Reviewed. Nicosia: Zavallis Press, pp. 35–70.
2 FROM NATIONALISM TO PARTITION 1950–1975 11
Muslims alike, began to adopt the Greek and Turkish identity respectively,
with pretensions to their neighbouring nation states.2
The rising Cypriot bourgeoisie was predominantly Christian, bearing in
mind that the Christian population dominated the marketplace during the
Ottoman period. Of course, there were also cases of Muslim businessmen
who usually also had greater access to public administration.3 The irredentist
concept of Greek nationalism that was imported in Cyprus by the Greek
state and the Greek communities of the broader region, such as the Greek
community of Egypt, had successfully taken root in the middle and upper
classes already by the early twentieth century through the education sys-
tem.4 This development was tolerated and indirectly supported by the
British Authorities, being perceived as a way of counterbalancing the exist-
ing Ottoman sovereignty of the island.5 However, after World War I, the
British no longer felt this need. At the same time, Greek nationalism was
disseminated among the rural classes and became an instrument in the
hands of the Greek Cypriot bourgeoisie and the Church.6 Simultaneously,
the traditional Muslim officials who still adhered to the Ottoman order of
things began losing ground before the emerging doctrine of Kemalist
Turkism that prevailed within the Turkish Cypriot community.7
2
Loizos, P. (2004) [1975] The Greek Gift: Politics in a Cypriot Village. Manheim:
Bibliopolis.
3
Nevzat A. (2005) Nationalism Amongst the Turks of Cyprus: The First Wave. PhD thesis.
Oulu: University of Oulu.
4
Bryant R. (2004) Imagining the Modern: The Cultures of Nationalism in Cyprus. London:
I.B. Tauris.
5
An ideological and self-referential aspect can also be traced to the British forces’ initial
support of Greek nationalism: it was a testament to the idea that their ‘civilising’ mission, this
force that legitimised the narratives of colonialism and modernity, could also expand to
include populations that were referred to as descendants/heirs of ancient Greece. Of course,
when Cyprus was later formally made a Crown colony and Greek nationalism was reinforced
in Cyprus to the extent that it threatened the British presence on the island by capitalising on
the idea of ‘glorious ancestors’ in claiming a superior, non-colonial status, the British narra-
tive was reversed and the Eteocypriots came to be referred to as the true ancestors of
Cypriots.
6
Panayiotou A. (2006) ‘Lenin in the coffee shop: The communist alternative and forms of
non-western modernity’, Postcolonial Studies, 9(3), pp. 267–280.
7
Ktoris S. (2013) Turkish Cypriots: From Margins to Partnership. [Τουρκοκύπριοι: από το
περιθώριο στο συνεταιρισμό] Athens: Papazisis.
12 G. IOANNOU
Following the formation of Turkish trade unions, even the labour move-
ment was divided on an inter-communal basis, in addition to the intra-
communal left-right division. The fact that many Turkish Cypriots
remained registered with the Pancyprian Federation of Labour (PEO)
[Παγκύπρια Εργατική Ομοσπονδία, ΠΕΟ] until the second half of the
1950s12 does not mean that they endorsed the enosist position, which had
been adopted by the Progressive Party of Working People (AKEL)
[Ανορθωτικό Κόμμα Εργαζόμενου Λαού, ΑΚΕΛ] since its inception in 1941
as a long-term anti-imperialist goal, a goal not shared by the Communist
Party of Cyprus.13 In fact, when AKEL accepted enosis as an immediate
goal in 1949–1950, contributing to the Church’s petition for signatures,
the possibility of PEO jointly representing both the Greek Cypriots and
the Turkish Cypriots was further undermined.14
The 1950s was a crucial decade as far as the evolution of inter-communal
relations in Cyprus is concerned. The development of distinct ‘national
consciousnesses’, that is the politicisation of ethnic origin and cultural
identity that had previously been unfolding in a slow and gradual manner,
was accelerated, given that already by the end of World War II the depar-
ture of the British forces seemed a tangible possibility.15 The emerging
Greek and Turkish nationalisms had already succeeded in determining the
12
Slocum J. (1972) The Development of Labour Relations in Cyprus. Nicosia: Government
Printing Office.
13
In fact, many Turkish Cypriots are still registered with PEO for practical reasons, bearing
in mind that Turkish trade unions are powerless and incapable of protecting their interests.
That being said, a group of Turkish Cypriots led by Derviş Ali Kavazoğlu remains registered
with AKEL for ideological reasons as well. However, inter-communal relations deteriorate as
Turkish Cypriots are undervalued and marginalised even within the left-wing trade union
movement provoking resentment. See Kızılyürek, N. (2019) A Story of Violence and
Resentment: the Birth and the Development of Ethnic Conflict in Cyprus, [Μια ιστορία βίας και
μνησικακίας. Η γέννηση και η εξέλιξη της εθνοτικής διένεξης στη Κύπρο] Nicosia: Heterotopia
Publications, Vol. 1, pp. 80–89.
14
Kakoullis L. (1990) The Left and the Turkish Cypriots [Η Αριστερά και οι Τουρκοκύπριοι]
Nicosia: Kasoulides./Paionides P. (1995) Andreas Ziartides: Without Fear or Favour
[Ανδρέας Ζιαρτίδης: Χωρίς φόβο και πάθος] Nicosia: Dorographics./Varnava P. (2004) Joint
Union Struggles of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots (Facts Through History) [Κοινοί
εργατικοί αγώνες Ελληνοκυπρίων-Τουρκοκυπρίων (Γεγονότα μέσα από την ιστορία)] Nicosia,
NP./Fantis A. (2005). The Union Movement in the Years of British Rule 1878–1960 [Το
Συνδικαλιστικό Κίνημα στα Χρόνια της Αγγλοκρατίας 1878–1960] Nicosia, NP.
15
Bozkurt U. and Trimikliniotis N. (2014) ‘Incorporating a Class Analysis within the
National Question: Rethinking Ethnicity, Class, and Nationalism in Cyprus’, Nationalism
and ethnic politics 20(2): 244–265.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
seizing the coast of the non-Slavonic Albanians; and when Austria-
Hungary prevented this (a right act prompted by most unrighteous
motives), Serbia fought an unjust war with Bulgaria and subjected a
large Bulgarian population, in order to gain access to the only
seaboard left her, the friendly Greek port of Salonika.
Hungary and Serbia are nominally national states: but more than
half the population in Hungary, and perhaps nearly a quarter in
Serbia, is alien, only held within the state by force against its will.
The energy of both states is perverted to the futile and demoralizing
work of “Magyarizing” and “Serbizing” subject foreign populations,
and they have not even been successful. The resistance of Southern
Slav nationalism on the defensive to the aggression of Hungarian
nationalism has given the occasion for the present catastrophe.
The evil element in nationalism under its many names,
“Chauvinism,” “Jingoism,” “Prussianism,” is the one thing in our
present European civilization that can and does produce the calamity
of war. If our object is to prevent war, then, the way to do so is to
purge Nationality of this evil. This we cannot do by any mechanical
means, but only by a change of heart, by converting public opinion
throughout Europe from “National Competition” to “National
Cooperation.” Public opinion will never be converted so long as the
present system of injustice remains in force, so long as one nation
has less and another more than its due. The first step towards
internationalism is not to flout the problems of nationality, but to solve
them.
The most important practical business, then, of The map of
the conference that meets when war is over, will be Europe must be
the revision of the map of Europe.... justly revised.