The Cyprus We Envision: Prospects for a Common Path After the Parliamentary Elections
From political fragmentation to shared vision: Rethinking Cyprus after the elections
One island, one voice, one future.
In a political landscape still searching for clear direction and meaningful convergence following the parliamentary elections, the Pancyprian Freedom Movement (Παγκύπριο Κίνημα Ελευθερίας) (Pankıbrıslı Özgürlük Hareketi) brought renewed attention to the importance of public dialogue.
Through a timely and thought-provoking event titled “Is This the Cyprus We Envision? What Are the Prospects for Shaping a Common Path After the Parliamentary Elections?”, the initiative sought to open up critical discussions about the country’s future trajectory.
Held on Tuesday, 28 April at the Nicosia Multifunctional Municipal Centre, the event created a platform for diverse perspectives on the evolving political scene. Participants explored key questions surrounding political developments, the potential for cooperation, and the challenges shaping Cyprus’s new political reality. The discussion highlighted both convergences and divergences, reflecting the complexity of forging a shared vision in a period of transition.
The event was moderated and presented by Eva Ieridou , who guided the conversation and introduced its central themes. A distinguished panel of speakers contributed their insights, including Oz Karahan, a parliamentary candidate and political analyst; Tonia Stavrinou, journalist; Kostis Efstathiou, Member of Parliament; Gözde Bedeloğlu, journalist; Şener Levent, journalist; and Giorgos Colokasidis, legal expert.
The event was documented through the lens of Stefanos Kouratzis, while translation from Turkish for Şener Levent’s contribution was provided by Giannis Moutsis, ensuring accessibility and inclusivity in this important exchange of ideas.
- Eva Ieridou:
With a strong sense of purpose, this event creates a space for meaningful dialogue on the future of Cyprus, bringing together historical experience, legal milestones, and contemporary political action.
At its core lies a simple but powerful democratic principle: ”one person, one vote.”
A defining moment in this journey was the case of Ibrahim Aziz, who successfully appealed to the European Court of Human Rights in 2003, securing the right to vote for Turkish Cypriots within the Republic of Cyprus.
This landmark decision helped restore a fundamental democratic right and opened the path for broader political participation.
Today, that path is being carried forward with renewed determination.
Particular emphasis is placed on the role of Oz Karahan, whose bold initiative to seek parliamentary representation within a unified Republic of Cyprus reflects a clear commitment to democratic inclusion.
His stance moves beyond rhetoric, actively advancing the principle that every citizen’s voice must carry equal weight.
The event also acknowledges voices such as Sener Levent, who have consistently defended freedom of expression and coexistence.
Ultimately, this is an invitation to reflect on a united, democratic Cyprus—where equality is not theoretical, but practiced.
- Tonia Stavrinou:
In her intervention, Tonia Stavrinou offered a sharp and unapologetic critique of the prevailing narratives surrounding the Cyprus issue, while calling for a fundamental rethinking of both political direction and public discourse.
Reflecting on her first encounter with Oz Karahan three years ago, she described it as a moment that reshaped her perspective. What stood out, she noted, was the articulation of a vision in which the liberation of Cyprus is not a divisive slogan, but a unifying objectiveon, one capable of bringing together Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots under a shared purpose. Such a perspective, she argued, disrupts entrenched narratives: those promoted by Turkey and the occupying regime, but also those sustained by segments of the political establishment within the Republic of Cyprus that have normalized division through proposals of permanent separation, ethnic zoning, or loosely connected state entities.
At the same time, she challenged what she described as misleading interpretations of bicommunalism, particularly when framed in ways that reinforce division under the guise of rapprochement. She also criticized far-right ideologies that invoke notions of ethnic purity while ignoring historical realities, warning that such approaches distort both patriotism and democratic values.
A central point of her argument was the need to redefine the Cyprus problem itself. Contrary to the increasingly common political rhetoric that “there are no frozen conflicts,” she argued that in the case of Cyprus this phrase is often used not to highlight the ongoing consequences of occupation, but to pressure society into accepting any form of settlement, regardless of its long-term implications. In her view, the dominant political consensus has largely converged around an approach that treats the Cyprus issue as an internal dispute between two sides, reducing the solution to a process of partition of land, power, and sovereignty, rather than reunification.
Instead, she insisted that the Cyprus issue must be understood in its true dimension: as a matter of survival. The events of 1974, she argued, did not mark the end of a historical process but rather the achievement of an intermediate objective within a broader, ongoing strategy by Turkey to assert full control over the island. This strategy, she outlined, unfolds on multiple levels: the gradual removal of Turkey from the center of the problem in international discourse; the normalization of division through everyday practices and economic incentives; the systematic exploitation and development of occupied properties; and the demographic transformation of the population through settlement policies and migratory pressures.
Within this context, negotiations over the years have often functioned, in her view, as a distraction, creating the illusion of progress while realities on the ground continue to harden. As a result, each new round of talks appears to move the prospect of a solution further away, while the consequences of occupation deepen and expand.
She also pointed to a growing sense of disillusionment within society, particularly among younger generations. Faced with political stagnation and a lack of meaningful direction, many either withdraw from public engagement or gravitate toward extreme political expressions. This, she suggested, reflects both a failure of education to cultivate democratic consciousness and the absence of a broader political framework capable of giving substance to patriotism within a progressive and democratic context.
In this climate, she argued, patriotism itself has been distorted, either dismissed as nationalism or appropriated by the far right. Yet, she stressed, the demand for the liberation of Cyprus from occupation is not an extreme position; rather, it is the prolonged status quo that should be considered extreme.
Looking ahead, Tonia Stavrinou emphasized that Cyprus does not need further management of defeat, but a coherent plan for freedom. This requires, above all, political awakening: a clear, democratic, anti-occupation, and unifying discourse, one that does not surrender patriotism to extremism, nor equate peace and coexistence with submission.
Such a discourse, she concluded, must be inclusive. It must speak to all Cypriots, regardless of which side of the divide they live on, those who continue to resist and who refuse to accept a future defined either by subordination or by the geopolitical designs imposed upon the island.
Gözde Bedeloğlu:
”Truth, Memory, and the Price of Integrity in Cyprus”
With deep respect, Gözde Bedeloğlu addressed the distinguished guests, fellow panellists, and all those gathered to honour the memory of Ayhan Hikmet and Ahmet Muzaffer Gürkan.
Speaking not only as a journalist, but as the niece of Ahmet Muzaffer Gürkan and his wife İsmet Gürkan, she brought a deeply personal voice to the commemoration. Although physically absent, she emphasized that through technology she stood present in spirit, expressing heartfelt thanks to Oz Karahan for the invitation.
She recalled that when Hikmet and Gürkan founded the newspaper Cumhuriyet, they were not merely practising journalism—they were pursuing an ideal. They believed in the survival of the Republic of Cyprus and in the possibility of equal citizenship beyond ethnic divisions. Their work challenged racism, external interference, and the forces driving the island toward partition. Through their writing, they sought peace, and like all principled journalists, they remained committed to telling the truth, no matter the cost.
That cost was ultimate. On the night of April 23, 1962, both men were assassinated before reaching the age of forty—at a time when they still had so much to offer their country.
They were branded as “traitors.” Yet, as Bedeloğlu revealed through excerpts from Gürkan’s diary during his student years in London in 1955, he was a young man filled with longing for his homeland and growing चिंता for its future. What he described as “terrible boredom” was, in truth, the quiet anguish of a patriot sensing the darkness ahead. Those who seek to silence such voices, she noted, often resort to the most painful accusation against true patriots: betrayal.
She also recalled the powerful words of Şener Levent, who wrote that even after their deaths, persecution continued—extending to their families, their dignity, and their memory. Despite everything, Hikmet and Gürkan remain symbols of courage: individuals who risked everything for the survival of the Republic and paid with their lives.
Reflecting on the present, Bedeloğlu shared her own experience of censorship. In 2024, after receiving the Kutlu Adalı Honour Award, her speech—dedicated to Gürkan and İsmet Gürkan—was censored, and even her photograph was withheld from publication. She pointed out that others, including Ilkay Adalı, have faced similar silencing. Accepting history as written by those in power may be convenient, she said—but truth is heavy, and it comes at a cost.
That cost is also deeply human. She bore witness to the lifelong pain of İsmet Gürkan, who held her wounded husband in her arms for the last time and passed away without ever seeing justice.
Today, the “concern for the future” that Gürkan expressed decades ago remains alive—carried by journalists and all those who believe in democracy. For Bedeloğlu, the Cyprus worth striving for is clear: a free, democratic, and united island, where no one is excluded because of identity, and where the skies carry not warplanes, but the doves of peace.
She concluded by bowing with profound respect before the sacred memory of Hikmet and Gürkan—whose legacy continues to illuminate the path toward truth, justice, and a united Cyprus.
- Oz Karahan: “We Will Either Find a Way or Create One”
There is a saying: “We will either find a way or create one.”
And as the great Cypriot composer Manos Loizos once reminded us, “The road has its own history.”
For many of us, our paths crossed through a shared struggle, the struggle for the liberation of Cyprus. For Oz Karahan, this convergence is not only political; it is deeply personal, representing one of the greatest honours of his life.
This reflection is also dedicated to the memory of Ayhan Hikmet and Ahmet Muzaffer Gürkan, two figures whose names may not be widely known, yet whose role in the history of Cyprus remains profound. Assassinated in 1962 for their commitment to democracy and the survival of the Republic, they stand among its earliest martyrs, voices silenced for defending unity against division.
The modern history of Cyprus is marked by sacrifice. The anti-colonial struggle of EOKA between 1955 and 1959, and its fallen, form one of the most significant chapters of this history. Yet Karahan reminds us that the fight did not end with independence. The very structure imposed by the London–Zurich Agreements introduced divisions that undermined genuine democracy.
Against this framework, Hikmet and Gürkan stood firmly. They rejected ethnic quotas and bicommunal divisions, advocating instead a simple but powerful democratic principle: “One person, one vote.” Their vision was not romantic idealism, but a grounded understanding of history and political reality.
At the heart of this vision lies the concept of constitutional citizenship, the idea that individuals belong to the state not through ethnicity, religion, or community, but as equal citizens. This principle stands in direct opposition to any system resembling apartheid, regardless of how it is framed.
Today, Karahan argues, Cyprus faces two fundamental tasks. The first is the continuation of the anti-occupation struggle to achieve full sovereignty. The second is the defence and deepening of democracy itself, breaking free from imposed structures and building a truly representative state.
He points to pivotal moments that shaped this trajectory, including the 2004 case brought by İbrahim Aziz at the European Court of Human Rights, which helped secure the right of Cypriots to vote together beyond communal divisions. This milestone, along with the courage shown by figures such as Şener Levent, reflects a continuous struggle for democratic normality.
Yet the central issue remains unchanged: the occupation of Cyprus. According to Karahan, it lies at the root of nearly every challenge facing the country, from political dysfunction and corruption to economic hardship and demographic transformation. Without liberation, he insists, there can be no genuine future.
Recent developments, from military movements to settler expansion and tensions on the ground, reinforce the urgency of this reality. Efforts to expose illegal activities in occupied territories, including those involving individuals such as Simon Aykut, have been met with intimidation, highlighting the risks faced by those who speak out.
At the same time, Karahan criticizes the political complacency within the Republic of Cyprus, warning that superficial approaches allow long-standing strategic objectives, rooted in policies dating back to Nihat Erim, to persist unchecked.
For Karahan, the struggle is not only against occupation, but also against internal systems that weaken democratic institutions. Corruption, inequality, and the erosion of the separation of powers cannot be separated from the broader political context.
Above all, he emphasizes unity, not as a slogan, but as a democratic necessity. The future of Cyprus depends on strengthening the common political identity of its people, beyond imposed divisions. Gains achieved under difficult conditions must be expanded and used to challenge both external domination and internal complicity.
History, he reminds us, is filled with societies that disappeared. Cyprus must not become one of them.
The vision is clear: a united, pluralistic, democratic Republic of Cyprus, sovereign across its entire territory. A country where future generations can live freely, with dignity, on their own land.
And so, the message is repeated:
The only solution is liberation.
The only solution is unity and democracy.
We will either find a way — or we will create one.
- George Colocasides: A Vision for Cyprus, Our Homeland
Expressing his appreciation for the invitation, George Colocasides began by referring to Oz Karahan and his candidacy in the upcoming parliamentary elections. Without hesitation, he voiced his support, noting that even if immediate success is not achieved, such efforts can lay the groundwork for a meaningful political course in the future.
He also paid tribute to Ayhan Hikmet and Ahmet Muzaffer Gürkan, the journalists of Cumhuriyet who were assassinated in 1962 by TMT for their efforts to unite Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots around the defence of the Republic of Cyprus. Their sacrifice stands as a powerful reminder of what genuine unity and democratic commitment demand.
Turning to the political climate, Colocasides stressed that parliamentary elections are not, in themselves, a turning point. He expressed little expectation of immediate change, warning instead of a continued deterioration and a deepening distrust between citizens and the political system. In his view, conditions may worsen before they improve.
He argued that the existing party system is slowly decaying—not because it is resilient, but because citizens have remained largely passive and tolerant in the face of systemic dysfunction. A more decisive civic reaction, he suggested, could accelerate the cleansing and renewal of political life.
The vision for Cyprus, however, is clear and easily defined.
It is a Cyprus free from Turkish occupation troops.
A Cyprus without settlers.
A unified state that guarantees human and political rights for all its citizens, regardless of ethnicity, colour, or origin.
And, crucially, a Cyprus free from foreign guarantees.
Is such a vision achievable today? Colocasides answers candidly: no. The primary obstacle lies in the expansionist ambitions of Turkey—ambitions that pose a threat not only to Cyprus, but to the broader region, including Greece, Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Armenia.
This raises a critical question: should Cyprus adapt its vision to these geopolitical realities in order to make it more “realistic”?
His answer is unequivocally negative.
Such adaptation, he argues, would require abandoning international law, undermining the principles of the European Union, and compromising fundamental human and political rights. More profoundly, it would mean accepting conditions that negate the very essence of freedom—reducing free citizens to subjects once again.
Looking ahead, Colocasides calls for an immediate return—not necessarily after elections, but starting now—to a political agenda centred on liberation from occupation, the enforcement of human rights, and adherence to international law.
He criticises the concessions made by past leaderships following the rejection of the Annan Plan, arguing that political elites acted as though the referendum had never taken place. Rather than seeking to understand the reasons behind the public’s rejection, they dismissed it, revealing a deep disconnect between the political class and society.
In his view, the Cyprus issue must be reframed. It is not a bicommunal dispute, but an international one—between an invading state and a victim state. The Republic of Cyprus must reclaim full control over its handling of the issue and act as a protective state for all its lawful citizens: Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots, Maronites, Armenians, and Latins alike.
He firmly rejects the notion that the protection of Turkish Cypriots can be delegated to the occupying power or its subordinate structures. Equally, he criticises ongoing discussions around confidence-building measures that, in his assessment, reinforce the status quo rather than challenge it.
Instead, the focus must return to the core issue: the ongoing occupation and its consequences.
At the European level, Colocasides advocates for a more assertive strategy. The Republic of Cyprus should leverage its strengthened position within the EU and work alongside allies such as Greece and France to push for Turkey’s exclusion from key European structures—particularly in defence—so long as it continues to occupy part of an EU member state and fails to meet accession criteria.
He also highlights the evolving defence architecture of the European Union, arguing that Europe’s external borders cannot be defined solely in relation to Russia. The defensive frontier, he insists, runs through the Aegean and reaches as far as the tip of the Karpasia peninsula.
Ultimately, he calls for the formation of a citizens’ front. Traditional party structures, he argues, have failed. For the first time, citizens themselves must lead and compel political forces to follow a new course.
He challenges long-standing assumptions about intercommunal dialogue, noting that such engagement has often been dominated by overly conciliatory approaches that sideline human rights and international law. Figures like Şener Levent and Oz Karahan disrupt this pattern by opposing occupation while maintaining a principled stance, creating discomfort for those advocating compromise at any cost.
Colocasides concludes with a warning: building political solutions on the erosion of human rights is inherently dangerous. If rights are sacrificed today under pressure, they can be denied tomorrow under different circumstances. True trust, he argues, is built not on shifting power balances, but on consistent adherence to human rights and international law—regardless of conditions.
This, ultimately, is the foundation upon which a just and sustainable future for Cyprus must rest.
