One year on from the presidential elections, Averof Neofytou breaks his silence.
In an exclusive interview with Phileleftheros, he characterises the Christodoulides government as a “government of observers” with tendencies of “petit grandiosity”. He emphasises the need for unity and mobilisation of DISY supporters for victory in the upcoming European elections, calling on citizens to send a message to the government by voting for DISY.
He engages in self-criticism and analyses the reasons behind the electoral failure of his own presidential bid. He expresses his views on Anastasiades’ interventions in DISY and the events before and after the presidential elections. He criticises the government across the board, from the economy, housing and energy to migration, and conveys the need for a stronger opposition.
At the same time, he offers support to Annita Demetriou, calling on her to shut her ears to personal agendas and move forward with confidence in leading the party.
There is much talk within DISY, even from the leadership, about the need for unity. Do you believe the party’s unity is at risk? How do you see your role in the effort for a united and strong DISY?
I have not stopped reiterating, my consistent position: the future of our homeland is intertwined with the existence and continuous evolution of a strong, thus united and cohesive Democratic Rally. However, a strong DISY, in political practice and the social sphere, implies creativity, boldness, and a progressive agenda. It implies clear and well-thought-out positions, which in turn presuppose hard work, consultation, dialogue with society, and understanding of international geopolitical developments. To me, these are the prerequisites for a dynamic and modern party that lays the foundations for a return to governing the country.
My stance is determined by these factors: to be present and useful with modern positions and innovative proposals, always based on our ideological identity. Returning to the core of your question: a united DISY is a strong DISY, the party of responsibility that generates ideas and proposals for the future of the country and has the ability to turn them into realistic policies. When these conditions are not met, the ground is fertile for petty politics, egoism, and introversion. I absolutely abstain from all these things; my concern is for the future of our Cyprus, and I am absolutely convinced that this can be ensured by a strong DISY.
Polls show, on the one hand, a growing dissatisfaction with the government and, on the other hand, a reservation, if not distrust, towards the opposition. How do you comment on this?
There is no more corrosive condition for our democracy than a weak government facing a fearful, vacillating opposition. The Cypriot people, through their vote, entrusted DISY to lead the opposition. And our new president confirmed this role with a conference decision. We owe it to honour this role consistently, with a sense of political responsibility, hard work, dynamic confrontation where required, and consensus when circumstances so dictate. I think it is clear to everyone that, as a DISY cadre, and as a former president, I am systematically working towards this direction, and this is the message I am trying to convey to all levels of our party and society.
We cannot and should not remain indifferent to a government that, from a very early stage, convinces us of its inadequacy and structural inability to meet the demands. At some point, I characterised it as a “government of observers and commentators” due to the proverbial inertia of its head and members, who merely observe developments and comment on them as if they do not concern them. So, we must stand against it, not with populism and communication tricks, but with strong positions, substantiated discourse, and the aura of a party that will once again be at the helm of our Cyprus.
How do you comment on Nikos Anastasiades’ interventions regarding the situation in DISY?
Allow me to make a more general comment: unfortunately, quite often in politics, we get bogged down in discussions that do not concern citizens, their lives, and their daily lives, nor the country as a whole. Such a discussion is the one you refer to. This issue has been judged, it has ended. Citizens, especially those from DISY, know very well what has happened; they know very well what role each has played, especially in the period before the presidential elections and in the elections themselves. And he knows better than anyone. So, it is unnecessary to recycle this conversation.
I, for my part, will not do it. I devote myself to the big and important issues and try to contribute to the best of my ability because my primary concern is the future of the homeland. The small things and any personal bitterness, have left them definitively behind me.
How do you evaluate Annita Demetriou based on her performance so far as the leader of DISY?
Annita has dedicated her whole being to the cause of DISY, which, as we all know, is not an easy ship to steer. I think she deserves to stand with more self-confidence, pay less attention to the personal whims of one and the other, and instil that the unity of the party is achieved as we stand resolutely and with positions on the front line of the opposition, against a non-existent government.
Some hold you responsible for the party’s internal turmoil. Some say that you do not want DISY to do well and that you are channelling votes elsewhere…
Those who spread such things probably confuse me with someone else… If I have achieved anything in my political journey, it is straightforwardness. In fact, some consider straightforwardness to be one of my weaknesses – that I should be more “round” in expressing my thoughts. So, with this straightforwardness, I tell you that I am fighting with all my strength for DISY’s victory in the upcoming elections – but also for its success after that – considering introversion self-destructive for our party.
The antidote to introversion is DISY’s outreach to society and its political offensive for a victorious outcome. By the way, I want to add the following: we must attach great importance to the European elections, as parties and as citizens, given that the European stakes are particularly serious. At the same time, there are the prerequisites for a new political reality. That is why I call on citizens to send a message to the Christodoulides government by voting for DISY.
How do you comment on Pelekanos’ move to ELAM?
I was, I am, and I will continue to stand against any defection. I cannot, in any case, accept the normalisation of the deserter’s behaviour, a normalisation of the type “since Christodoulides did it, why shouldn’t I do it too?”. So, I stand against it because, quite simply, every such divisive move hits DISY.
A year after the presidential elections, how do you assess the result?
Read what our “national pollster”, Mr Mavris, said, recording the phenomenon of groups of voters moving to strengthen the third, until then, in the polls, Mr Mavrogiannis, to exclude Averof from the second round. By now, who made this choice is known. When I started the pre-election campaign, the polls gave us 7%. That we climbed 20 points is due, first of all, to the wonderful effort of the ordinary members of DISY.
Nevertheless, a year later, I do not hesitate to engage in self-criticism for having delayed putting my reformist stamp on the campaign, with specific proposals. When I did, as with the targeted tax relief for young people, the result was that we gained ground dramatically in the youth vote, which is a significant political legacy for the present and future of our party. However, to call a spade a spade: the election result shattered the argument that “Averof was not electable”, with Nikos Christodoulides, then a member of the government, running against the party.
It is now well-known how many DISY supporters voted for him. Just think that if his candidacy had not existed and if my proposal had been heeded to refer to the party members to decide the party’s candidate, perhaps the percentages we would have gotten in the first round would have been higher than the percentages in 2018 on the first Sunday, taking into account the 6-8% who voted for us from other spaces.
However, you did not manage to secure a party collaboration…
But how could there be party collaboration? The other parties saw the data, they saw the split within DISY with the extra-institutional candidacy of Nikos Christodoulides and moved accordingly. These questions have been answered…
The “window of opportunity” for the Cyprus issue will be a death knell if we do not move boldly
Regarding the Cyprus issue, you repeatedly state that Ms Holguin has a specific and tight schedule and that this entails risks. What are these risks?
You are right to remind me, and I reiterate it in all tones: the UN envoy is “time-bound”, she has a specific timeline for action, which does not exceed 6-7 months, according to what also transpires from my discussions with very reliable international diplomatic circles. If we do not move with boldness and determination, this “window of opportunity”, which happens to be favoured by the international and regional geopolitical conjuncture, will close definitively. And then, I am sorry to say, the Cyprus issue will be a death knell. And we, without realising it, will find ourselves facing an almost automatic upgrade of the occupied areas.
As I have emphasised in a detailed, written intervention even before the envoy was appointed, such a dramatic finale suits Ankara, part of the Turkish Cypriot community, and some advocates of the so-called velvet and silent divorce on our side. The so-called acknowledgement of the regime in the occupied areas (I do not believe they will ever achieve recognition) will be the beginning of a final national catastrophe. Because, quite simply, Turkey will not be content with what it holds in the northern part, but, through the demographic alteration of the occupied areas and the free areas (see migration), Greek Cypriots will be, in a short time, a small minority in our homeland. This is the great danger!
From your diplomatic contacts, what feedback have you received regarding the stance of the international community?
Indeed, the signs are not good at all, and I wonder, do we not understand or do we not want to understand? Let me give you a very likely scenario, to which many foreign diplomats also converge: if we do not move immediately and decisively, after a few months, the special envoy will record the gap, will declare an impasse, and probably also the UN Secretary-General will withdraw the mandate for the Cyprus issue that he has received from the Security Council. And then, as I have also said, instead of a new beginning, we will experience the beginning of the end.
What would you have done if you were in the position of the President of the Republic when he met with Ms Holguin?
The first thing I would have done would have been to dispel any shadows that the Greek Cypriot side allegedly disputes political equality, and of course, I would have refrained from the well-known equivocal and vacillating positions on the Guterres framework. I would have signed it in front of her, and because my position would not have had asterisks and footnotes, I would have demanded that the other side also abandon the idea of two states. I would have emphasised that, as correctly reflected in the Guterres framework, the outdated security system of 1960 cannot continue, it cannot be applied today!
I would also have put forward energy and natural gas as a significant asset, as well as Cyprus’s geopolitical value in Europe and the West’s security system, NATO. All this, of course, requires leadership stature and determination, which I am very much afraid, runs counter to the fashion of the times that “requires” us to be pleasing to everyone – so not to say or do anything substantial…
“I will stand by the President of my country if…”
In an article on the Cyprus issue, you wrote something like, “Mr President, I will stand by you”, under certain conditions. Do you mean it? And how?
I said it, and I say it again. And I proved it with my stance in the case of the “Amalthea” initiative. But I will stand by the President of my country if he shows the fortitude to rise to the occasion: to act as a responsible politician who sees the bigger picture, with national and political criteria, not petty politics. “Amalthea”, specifically, is a good example: the regional conjuncture favours us and the President takes the correct initiative, but he does not see the opportunity, through our upgraded regional position, to “unlock” the Cyprus issue. He rests on some communication benefits and constantly conveys an image of petit grandiosity.
How did he capitalise on Cyprus’s significant position as a humanitarian aid hub in the region? How did he turn this positive initiative for the neighbourhood into a positive event for Cypriot citizens and our national issue?
During a period of European and international acclaim for Cyprus’s stance, we did not even see the traditional paragraph on the Cyprus issue in the recent European Council. Where is the link between EU-Turkey relations and the Cyprus issue, as proclaimed by the President? Where is – and no one sees it – the senior European official, sent by the European Council and not by the Commission, that our President boasted about? What needs to be done overall, I analysed it for you earlier.
If the President takes these steps, of course, I will stand by him!
