In the myriad of issues arising from the dual election contest on 9th June, the discussion about numerous peculiar requests for relocations has also emerged, meaning changing one’s address to alter the place they vote.
Cases of new registrations in the electoral roll with disputed addresses are also part of the equation. Such phenomena are not new, but it’s the first time it becomes an issue because it has gained prominence.
The Electoral Service and provincial administrations must conduct the necessary investigation, and where there are false declarations, take the necessary actions. Beyond this dimension, the issue has broader political implications, and political parties must recognise it.
First and foremost, there is the paradox of this election contest for Local Government with many candidates.
The total number of candidates will be in the thousands. Is this bad? Having people vying for election to offer their service is not negative. However, what distorts the situation is the way it seems both the candidates themselves and a significant portion of the electorate operate.
The high number of relocation requests indicates that the vote in local elections is primarily, or at least to a large extent, personal.
People vote for individuals: relatives, friends, acquaintances, godparents, neighbours, and so on. Thus, the criteria of local communities are often not political or ideological but relate to personal relationships. This aspect is more pronounced in smaller communities.
This behaviour of the electorate doesn’t necessarily mean it’s politically correct, but neither should it be dismissed.
After all, everyone has their own selection criteria. In any case, it’s a factor that needs consideration as it largely explains the many problems and reactions almost all parties had to manage in the local elections.
Political parties also failed to consider another characteristic of voter behaviour: the relaxation of party discipline. People no longer easily follow party directives if they disagree or aren’t convinced of the correctness of decisions.
While parties claimed they would prioritise the wishes of local communities over their candidate choices or even partnerships, in the end, they proceeded with party discussions and proposals, largely bypassing what the local community wanted and requested.
In some cases, the reactions were such that party leaders were forced to retreat in the face of protests. The case of Stavros Stavrinides in Strovolos for DIKO, and Nikos Nicolaides in Limassol, are illustrative.
However, there are also many instances where candidates and partnerships weren’t choices from the grassroots but imposed from the top down.
Problems are already emerging as local communities’ reactions are intense, and there is a serious possibility it will reflect at the ballot box. Some measurements are not encouraging for certain candidates, and the risk of electoral failure is visible for both them and the parties that chose them.
How will party leaderships handle this, and how will they justify it? Especially if the electorate sends strong messages with their choices?
These are issues that should deeply concern all party mechanisms.
They need to understand that the electorate operates very differently now. This trend was evident in the presidential elections, and parties should have taken it seriously when deciding on the local elections, which inherently have a more relaxed vote. However, they didn’t…
