A democracy becomes truly strong when it combines rules with understanding and responsibility with compassion.
The recent events in Larnaca sparked understandable discussions about migration, legality and the responsibilities of the state.
Η νομιμότητα μάς λέει τι επιτρέπεται να κάνουμε. Η ενσυναίσθηση μάς θυμίζει γιατί το κάνουμε.
Yet beyond the incident itself, a broader reflection emerged, one that reaches far beyond the shores of Cyprus.
How can a democratic society enforce its laws without losing its human dimension?
The answer is neither simple nor self evident. It may, however, lie somewhere between two values that are too often presented as opposing forces.
Legality and empathy.
Law preserves order. Empathy preserves society. Both are essential if democracy is to remain genuinely human.
This idea extends far beyond migration. It touches almost every major challenge facing humanity today. Wars, refugee movements, social inequalities, climate pressures, geopolitical rivalries and international conflicts all raise the same fundamental question.
Can stability be achieved through power alone?
In recent years, there has been a growing tendency to approach complex problems primarily through deterrence, enforcement and control. These are undoubtedly necessary tools. No society can function without laws, institutions, borders and public order.
But the question remains.
Are they enough?
Most of the challenges confronting us today do not originate at our borders. They emerge long before they reach them.
They are born in poverty, conflict, failed governance, inequality, lack of opportunity, environmental degradation and international imbalances that have accumulated over generations.
Too often, we focus on consequences while neglecting causes.
Prevention remains the least visible but perhaps the most effective form of policy.
The same principle applies to international relations.
Societies and states rightly defend their rights and interests. Yet far less attention is devoted to the responsibilities that accompany those rights.
The same applies globally. Nations pursue their national interests, as they should. But lasting international stability also requires a minimum degree of collective responsibility.
Membership in international institutions, the European Union, the United Nations and other multilateral frameworks provides not only influence and opportunity but also obligations.
An obligation to contribute to preventing crises rather than merely managing their consequences.
An obligation to seek solutions that serve the common good and not only immediate national advantage.
An obligation to see human beings behind the statistics.
Empathy is not sentimentality. Nor is it a substitute for strategy or policy.
Rather, it is a tool of understanding.
It allows us to recognise how our decisions affect other people, other societies and sometimes entire regions of the world.
In many ways, empathy resembles communicating vessels. It flows in every direction. When strengthened in one place, it creates conditions for trust, cooperation and stability elsewhere. When absent, its consequences rarely remain confined to those who lack it.
This reflection is not new.
More than two thousand years ago, Thucydides examined the tension between power and justice in the ancient Greek world. His work is frequently cited to justify the dominance of the strong.
Yet perhaps its deeper lesson is something else entirely.
Choice always exists.
Even under pressure.
Even within difficult constraints.
The question is not whether limitations exist. The question is whether decisions are made with restraint or arrogance, with wisdom or short term calculation.
For countries such as Cyprus and Greece, this discussion carries particular significance.
Our geography, history and participation in European and international institutions provide us with an opportunity not merely to observe developments but to contribute constructively to a more stable and more humane international dialogue.
Perhaps, therefore, our objective should not simply be adapting to the balance of power of any given era.
Perhaps it should be contributing to an international environment where power is accompanied by rules, legality by justice and politics by empathy.
Because ultimately societies are not judged solely by their ability to impose order.
They are also judged by their ability to sustain a sense of shared destiny.
The transition from “I” to “We” may not simply be a moral choice.
It may well be the wisest form of collective self preservation.
Societies do not become better by choosing between strength and humanity.
They become better when they learn how to embrace both.
- Dinos Toumazos is a co-founder and director of Agora Dialogue.