Yiannis Ioannou
The case of Pelekanos' admission that he never agreed with the bizonal, bicommunal federation, being himself the spokesman of a government - under Anastasiades - which has been supporting it over time, is not only a typical example of how political opportunism works professionally in Cyprus, but also a reflective commentary on the inconsistency in Cyprus. In Cyprus, inconsistency - especially in the political life of the country - is not a new phenomenon. It has been and will continue to exist as one of the basic structural problems of our political system, both at the ideological level and at the level of political practice - from the path followed by politicians to basic, psychological and developmental causes that define our famous - and non-famous - political men. From the Union to the compromise of Independence, and from intransigence to the slogans of return and liberation, the Cyprus problem - as our modern history since the 1950s and as an unresolved national issue - is the classic example of inconsistencies. Inconsistencies that were built, expressed, and politicized sometimes as separate ideological narratives and sometimes as the elements that created and self-defined entire policies at the level of planning and implementation.
In terms of their qualitative characteristics, in Cyprus we distinguish the inconsistent in three categories. In one category are those, usually, who are professional politicians: Either they belong, from an early age, to a party and rise up or - with abrasiveness - they step from party to party with the aim of professional rehabilitation through politics (or change of camp when the... pips don't come out), power for them remains an end in itself. As is dishonesty.
The inconsistent are the majority of our political staff in Cyprus. In fact, they almost always have been if you consider our modern political history.
Then you have that category that remains, over time, confused as to the limits of its ideological starting point in relation to its political life or the way it engages in politics: Here there are usually those who, as pieties of patriotism or the working class, clean up their ideology on a daily basis, but when it is judged in the actual "slaughterhouse of the board" they don't bleed their board and by extension immediately forget what they preached.
Finally, there is a category - among whom, to a large extent, our new generation of politicians - who combine the above characteristics of the two categories: Taking them through an apparently superficial approach, which reduces the image to a Gospel, the Post-Political to the unique way of being a politician, and the cognitive and educational poverty to a norm. Here the inconsistency is so obvious that it doesn't irritate or annoy you, but simply makes you blush with shame - of that kind of heterotropy - and at the same time deeply frustrates you.
The inconsistent are the majority of our political staff in Cyprus. In fact, they almost always have been if you consider our modern political history. Of course, within all parties, over time and from the left to the right, there are also notable voices, but they are the exception. Just as there are also politically minded fellow citizens, who nevertheless either consciously abstain from politics or compromise with our current political staff. This inconsistency will both define and transform our political system as long as it survives. With a final result before its ultimate prevalence as a trend universally. The political rise and establishment, on the party map, of populism and mediocrity. It is almost inevitable.
