Interview by Stavros Antoniou and Andri Daniel
The removal of Nicos Sykas from the DISY Limassol ballot, did it bring political damage or benefit to the party? Was it a difficult decision for you, given how immediate the recommendation for his removal was?
It was a difficult and painful decision, but a necessary one. Not only for me, but also for the Executive Bureau and the Political Bureau that ratified it. I wish we were not in this position. It was a purely political decision. We do not decide or prejudge anyone’s innocence or guilt. But such a serious allegation cannot be allowed to cast a shadow over the entire political camp. We are not discussing benefit or damage. Principles are principles.
Was the recent working breakfast at DISY headquarters, with Nicos Anastasiades and Averof Neophytou, aimed at bringing traditional party figures to the front line of the pre-election campaign?
Our constant aim and obligation is to try to keep our political family united. That is the central mandate I was given, and I will never tire of working for unity. It was a good opportunity to discuss the challenges we face and to set out our plan. The goal is to make use of all our cadres, historic and new.
We also had, the day before yesterday, a meeting of the Presidential Council, in which former presidents, former ministers and former MPs participate. We are entering the final stretch and we want everyone active. We also want to send our people a message of consensus, unity and collective effort.
Videogate
Cyprus was shaken by a video showing alleged investors, which led to the resignation of the director of the president’s office and the president’s wife stepping down from the Social Support Agency. Do you believe responsibility lies solely with the President of the Republic?
What happened is admittedly very serious. The country was exposed at the most critical time, especially with the assumption of the EU presidency, a period during which we must demonstrate seriousness and responsibility. It is a major setback in the collective effort we have been making, as a political system and as a society, through legislation and political decisions aimed at transparency and accountability.
It is certainly not only to political parties that the president must give explanations, as he himself stated, but he must address the society he leads. The president has a responsibility to explain what is said in the video. He must distance himself from friends and close associates who have been exposed and convince society, through actions, that everything will be investigated and that such phenomena will not be repeated.
He must ensure the restoration of citizens’ trust and the country’s credibility. As regards the criminal aspect, we await the findings of the independent criminal investigator. Answers must be given so that no shadow remains and no suspicion of a cover-up persists. Transparency everywhere.
Social Support Agency Fund
Is full transparency regarding who contributed to the Social Support Agency Fund the right approach, or could it discourage additional support for those in need?
First of all, in the times we are living in, transparency, accountability, oversight and zero tolerance for anything reprehensible are not negotiable. That was the aim of our bill and it remains our non-negotiable principle. Had it been accepted by the president months ago, the country would not have entered into these difficulties.
Second, it is deeply problematic to demand transparency and accountability everywhere, for example with donations to political parties where contributions over €500 are published by law, but not apply similar rules to such a fund.
Third, woe betide us if our society must depend on private contributions to the fund in order to support destitute students. Where is the state, which has an obligation to support them?
Will there be an initiative to change the fund’s use or its mode of operation?
We have already said that we will submit a new bill with substantial changes to the way the fund operates, ensuring full transparency and the publication of contributions.
Has parliament failed to exercise meaningful oversight of the executive on major issues such as investments, appointments and public money?
In a strictly presidential system like Cyprus’s, it is wrong and unfair to transfer all responsibility to parliament. There is a clear separation of powers. Parliamentary oversight is exercised, but we do not have the authority to impose actions on the executive in areas that fall under its own competencies.
I will cite, as an example, our bill on transparency for the fund. As I mentioned earlier, the president exercised his right of referral and the Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional. This could have been avoided, or at least voluntary measures for transparency could have been adopted.
Legislative elections
In less than four months, Cyprus heads to legislative elections. What is DISY’s target, and what is your personal goal as Speaker of the House?
We have said this many times. We want DISY to remain the leading force, with the most seats in parliament. Regardless of whether someone agrees or disagrees with us on everything, every citizen is called upon in these elections to decide what kind of House they want.
Do they want DISY to retain its role as the main, leading, responsible and serious force in the country? Or will they allow chaos to prevail and AKEL, along with other populist and so-called anti-system formations, to gain the upper hand?
Do they want a House dominated by irresponsible populism and shouting, or a responsible House that meaningfully fulfils its role for the benefit of citizens?
If citizens demand responsibility and seriousness, then we say that a strong Democratic Rally is necessary. Our political camp, in the most difficult moments for the country, stepped forward and carried a heavy political cost with one sole concern, the future of the homeland.
Today we see the mismatched pairing of AKEL and ELAM going hand in hand in votes in parliament and in Europe. And this is logical. They are united by similar positions on the economy and on Europe. They agree in their anti-European stance, shrinking our country’s footprint in Europe. In the economy, they revive bankrupt policies. It is striking how similar their cost-free and dangerous rhetoric is.
More broadly, especially in the era we are living in, there is no worse recipe for the country than the mixture of fanaticism and frivolity that corrodes society. If we have learned one thing to date, it is that the country needs calm and sobriety. Reason and responsibility. Substantive, implementable policies and consensus.
Yes, we all want new faces in parliament. Our political camp was the first to institutionalise renewal and to present serious ballots with new candidates. But with seriousness, not experimentation, amateurism and personal obsessions that can lead to destruction.
We all say we want reforms and change. The difference is that we want to fix, not demolish. Citizens also know from experience that we can and do implement the reforms the country needs. We proved it, and we are optimistic that the public will stand by us.
They recognise that we do not confine ourselves to criticism, but take responsibility and step forward on all issues that concern citizens. They also feel in their daily lives the benefits of reforms and initiatives we spearheaded and implemented, GeSY, tax reductions, the Guaranteed Minimum Income, reduced military service, the appointments register, the minimum wage, the minimum pension, and more.
My personal goal as Speaker of the House is the adoption, with the widest possible consensus, of the necessary reforms and legislation that benefit the country and restore trust and institutional credibility. To reconnect with the thread of democracy and modernise our country.
There are two vacant positions on DISY’s Larnaca ballot. When will the candidates be announced?
We are at the final stage and this pending matter will soon be resolved. We have already completed the ballot in Paphos. You can expect news from Larnaca as well.
Presidency of the House
If certain partnerships align, would you be interested in another term as Speaker of the House?
Regardless of the speakership, I consistently pursue cooperation with political forces for the good of the country. Especially in the times we are living in, broad parliamentary majorities are necessary for progress and results that benefit citizens.
Stagnation or chaos, which some are attempting to impose on society and parliament, does not help. As regards the speakership itself, it is premature to discuss anything. These are perhaps the most critical parliamentary elections in our history, and we must first see how the balance of forces is shaped in the new House.
DIKO
DIKO leader Nikolas Papadopoulos told Politis that DIKO seeks cooperation with DISY after the elections. Is there common ground, given that DISY is in opposition and DIKO is in government?
With DIKO, there are frequent convergences in parliament, as we share similar views on key issues relating to the economy and development, social policy, the country’s western orientation, defence, and Cyprus’s role in Europe.
There was cooperation in the past as well, when DIKO was in opposition. We recognise its contribution at critical moments for economic recovery and institutional reform. This tradition continues today through interventions that shaped the final text of tax reform, teacher evaluation and other legislative initiatives. We are therefore positive. Reason and consensus are the only constants that allow us to move forward.
Presidential elections
Could cooperation with DIKO extend to the 2028 presidential elections?
The need for consensus is ongoing, but our focus is on the work of the House until the end of its term and on the upcoming elections. Everything in its time.
On women in leadership
Have stereotypes in Cyprus matured enough for a woman president of the Republic?
The gender of the president should not be a subject of discussion, as it has nothing to do with ability. Yet the fact that this question is asked is significant in itself. We have made progress, but much more needs to be done before we can say stereotypes have been eliminated.
On the right and the far right
ELAM claims DISY does not properly represent the right. What defines the right, and how does it differ from the far right?
ELAM has neither the history, nor the struggles, nor the ideology to lecture us on what the right is. The Democratic Rally is the only responsible right-wing political camp. When DISY, in difficult times, stepped forward against all odds and fought for freedom, democracy, national consciousness, the West, Europe, the social market economy, rationality, political ethics, responsibility, sobriety and a sense of measure, for all the values that should define our political space, ELAM was either non-existent or a satellite of the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn.
When we brought the country into Europe, where was ELAM? When we restored the honour of EOKA fighters, where was ELAM? When we rebuilt a bankrupt economy, where was ELAM? When we recently designed the Republic’s largest ever defence programme for our security and defence, where was ELAM?
Let me tell you where ELAM is. It is busy voting together with AKEL in parliament and in Europe. It is busy promoting dangerous proposals, such as distributing passports to migrants, or tabling failed resolutions in the European Parliament that expose our country.
In reality, ELAM is irritated because DISY represents the governing right, a right that governs, synthesises, evolves and endures over time. We are the opposite of ELAM, because ELAM offers easy words, cost-free promises and policies without depth or cost for those proposing them, but with enormous cost for the country.
True patriotism does not flatter. It serves the national interest with substance and vision. It believes in security and defence not through slogans, but through seriousness. It believes in strong alliances with other states, alliances that cannot be built on ELAM’s extreme positions. It believes in patriotic realism, not in the patriotism of unworkable promises and vote-chasing.
Patriotic is not what shouts. Patriotic is what delivers results. Patriotic is what moves the country forward, not backwards. The modern European right defends the greatest achievement of Western societies, liberal democracy. It stands against all forms of authoritarianism and centralisation, wherever they come from. It respects institutions because it knows that without institutions there is neither freedom nor security.
We honour our tradition, our national and cultural identity, our struggles and our heroes, not for populist consumption, not for political exploitation, not to buy consciences. Values are not tools. They are a compass. Those who shape policy through populism, in the name of a supposed patriotism, always end up with the opposite result. They damage the very country they claim to defend. If we truly honour our history, we must first study it and learn from it.
On President Christodoulides
Is the social liberalism invoked by President Nikos Christodoulides an attempt to encroach on DISY?
We are not bothered when the president draws from our political and ideological reservoir. What concerns us is when this is not reflected in practice. Declarations are one thing, actions are another. In any case, it was through our proposal that he is now part of the European People’s Party. If this troubles anyone, it should be the governing parties. We put the country above all else.
Is it true that before the last reshuffle the president approached DISY with a generous proposal that was rejected?
No. We have repeatedly stated that this does not concern us. Citizens and the competent party bodies have defined the framework of our political role. From our position in parliament, we act constructively, supporting what is right and correcting what is wrong.
We have helped resolve problematic bills and exercised substantive parliamentary oversight. Without DISY’s decisive interventions, many bills would not have passed. We protect the country, propose solutions and take responsibility. But I repeat, I am deeply concerned about what kind of House we will have after the elections. Will decisions be possible? Who will represent us? And where do we want to go?
We stand against the chaos some seek to impose on society and parliament. We stand with the citizen, and that is how we will remain.