Oh my God, could the “Yes” versus “No” debate be rearing its head again?
Can a person still cause harm even as they die?
Papadopulos’s death has risen to the top of our agenda. We’re all talking about it, young and old alike. What a man he was, what kind of man he was, and so on. But does Papadopulos’s death really matter that much to us?
_Apparently, it does!_
Papadopulos’s death was no surprise. The repercussions of this expected death, however, have been quite interesting and have brought hidden feelings to the surface. So it seems we had been expecting something like this. It seems we haven’t really achieved social consensus, and were looking for a reason to voice these feelings.
_Who knows, perhaps this is an opportunity to say what’s inside us… We should make good use of it and, I think, say everything we feel while it’s still early._ I say it’s still early because, if an agreement is reached in the Cyprus talks, a referendum will once again become part of our agenda. But it seems we still aren’t ready for that, and the “Yes” and “No” divide left over from the 2004 referendum hasn’t faded over time. On the contrary, it has been kept alive, buried even deeper. Whenever something happens, we immediately bring that divide into the conversation and weave it into what we say.
We’re seeing it again these days, following Papadopulos’s death. The “Yes” camp in this divide has ignored his death and may even have welcomed it inwardly, while the “No” camp is recalling the anti-Turkish hostility and massacres he carried out within EOKA, expressing its satisfaction and, through his stance on the Annan Plan, its gratitude, if only inwardly.
But what matters here isn’t what either side has said; it’s the fact that led me to use the word “sides” as I wrote this sentence. In other words, the existence of sides within the same community…
But can there be sides within the same community? Of course there can—and there should be! The thing is, when it comes to matters affecting their future, the sides in that community must be united. They must be united so they can show, at any moment, that they can speak with one voice, knowing what they want and determined to get it. This makes that community stronger and more successful than ever in achieving its goals.
But can we speak with one voice? More to the point, do we have any common understanding that would allow us to speak with one voice? For example, what kind of solution do we think there should be to the Cyprus problem? Does our President, whom we chose as our negotiator, know what we want? Is there a form of settlement we all agree on? As we look for answers to these questions, another question comes up: Are we responsible for not being able to speak with one voice? Or is the responsibility ours to place on our politicians, who fail to advance progressive ideas on this issue and produce policies oriented toward the future and broadening the community’s horizons, instead of focusing on day-to-day politics?
Can our politicians bring us together under one roof on matters that affect all our futures? Or do they produce narrow policies focused on day-to-day domestic politics and their own interests, driven by their attachment to office, and try to profit from this divide and partisanship?
In this state of affairs, shouldn’t our politicians be asking themselves the real question? Until Thursday, I hope…
Please pay attention to your surroundings, and please be respectful in traffic.