A government dodging responsibility

While much of Cypriot society demanded that the President assign responsibility for the deadly wildfire and issue a sincere apology, a marathon debate in Parliament revealed ministers and civil servants seemingly free of blame. A veil of responsibility-avoidance hung over the chamber, shielding the state and its officials, from the public service all the way to the country’s top leadership.

Whether Andreas Grigoriou was trying to protect his political superiors when he claimed, with almost comical naïveté, that he alone had decided, in the height of wildfire season, to take an official trip to Australia, is unclear. What is clear is that the discussion exposed three major systemic problems:

First, a highly paid civil servant who seems not to understand that his role carries obligations, not to the leadership, but to the taxpayers. Second, a state that functions poorly, leaving full responsibility for coordinating such a crisis to a single official. And third, a leadership that stubbornly refuses to acknowledge its own role in the mismanagement.

At some point, Cyprus must confront accountability in the public service. Coordinators who claim they “decide alone” to travel the world. Departments that, after disasters, write reports not to improve the system but to shield themselves from blame. Yet before civil servants can be held accountable, political leaders must model responsibility themselves.

One can only imagine how the Minister of Agriculture felt watching her general director publicly embarrassed. Did she feel shame in seeing confirmation that he had acted entirely on his own? Did she recognize that the debate reinforced the image of a state without planning, without protocols, without safety checks, and without seriousness, a state led by those refusing to take responsibility?

Society knows that half a month has passed since the wildfire, and no one has stepped forward to take responsibility. We still do not know who had ultimate command. We have heard no genuine apology from the president or his ministers, nor any real acknowledgment of what happened. Instead, we have seen only PR maneuvers to buy time: first the flawed official statement, then reports from responsible departments, and finally the arrival of American experts.

Bringing in technocrats to assess what went wrong is well-intentioned. In a state that proves itself unusual day by day, foreign experts may appear the only solution. Yet this approach risks becoming a government tool, a way to silence critics and redirect attention whenever convenient.

The majority of Cypriots did not elect Nikos Christodoulides to bring in foreign technocrats to diagnose problems. He was not chosen to comment on current events or to let outsiders assume the role of the state, apportioning blame. He is halfway through his term. It is time to decide whether he can lead with bold changes and admit mistakes, or whether his timidity will cement the perception of a government without responsibility. A government elected for its human touch, yet revealing a worrying absence of political conscience.

*This op-ed was translated from its Greek original