Opinion
By Yiannos Stavrinides
Teachers, who are at the forefront of the reform, have voiced their disagreements, noting that the increased costs are not matched by an end to the practice of leveling down. So far, this has resulted in a brief work stoppage, accompanied by the predictable disruption. The government, in turn, has been unambiguous: if the reform does not proceed, European funding will be lost. Dialogue, from the government’s perspective, has run its course, leaving little room for adjustments. Parliament, now reviewing the matter, has limited leeway. The message is clear: Alter the underlying philosophy, and the reform will be withdrawn.
The tax reform, currently under discussion alongside the education measures, mirrors many of the same challenges. The government intends to implement it from the start of the new year. Yet the relevant stakeholders, the accountants’ association, have circulated a document listing a long series of objections. Remarkably, these concerns were raised as early as March 2025, and yet intervention has only come days before the bill is expected to pass in mid-December.
In both cases, the gaps in communication are glaring. The government faces the risk of opposition peaking just before the legislative deadline, causing disruption and complications during implementation. And a question arises: if these discussions began early, providing everyone a chance to voice opinions, how did we end up at the eleventh hour with the key stakeholders expressing fundamental disagreements?
Take, for example, the tax reform, whose centerpiece is raising the corporate tax rate from 12.5% to 15%. How can the accountants’ association claim that this change will threaten the few foreign companies that carry the largest tax burden, with the possible result of significant revenue losses? They point out that 30% of corporate tax revenue comes from just 30 companies, mostly foreign. According to them, the country’s competitiveness could be undermined, contradicting the government’s assurances.
The government appears to inhabit its own reality, framing its agenda as “transforming Cyprus from the 1960s.” Its argument is that these changes are so profound that they correct decades-long structural flaws untouched by any previous administration. If that is true, however, the handling of these critical issues is deeply flawed. How else can one explain such starkly opposing views just days before the reforms are due to be voted on?
Efforts to modernize the state are necessary and welcome. Yet we are a society that adapts slowly, and significant reforms take time to be absorbed. The government, which has had both time and a favorable political climate, now confronts realities that are far from comfortable: even after completing the procedures, fundamental disagreements remain. It is worth remembering that reforms enacted under such conditions either fail outright or fall short of achieving the goals for which they were intended.
