By This post is also available in: ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ (GREEK) TÜRKÇE (TURKISH)
From the very beginning, the Cyprus issue has been presented to the world under the guise of ‘self-determination’… Both Greek and Turkish Cypriots did so…
Just as the Greek Cypriot side clung to ‘self-determination’ while aiming for Enosis, the Turkish Cypriot side also sought refuge in the same ‘magic’ words while founding a separate state…
Throughout our recent history, the Greek Cypriot side, in defending its thesis, always viewed the ‘Cypriot people’ as a ‘whole’ and, when talking about ‘self-determination’, never accepted that Turkish Cypriots were a separate ‘entity’ with separate ‘rights’.
When they knocked on the doors of the UN in 1954, the Greek Cypriots’ fundamental ‘thesis’ was this:
The ‘Cypriot people’, as a whole, would exercise their right to self-determination, and Cyprus, as a whole, would be annexed to Greece.
In other words, ‘Enosis’ would be achieved…
Neither the Turkish Cypriots nor Turkey had an ‘alternative’ to this ‘national ideal’ with such deep historical roots…
The leaders of the ‘Islamic community’ did not have a common ‘stance’ towards ‘what they wanted’.
However, from the very beginning, they had a very clear idea of ‘what they did not want’.
Throughout our recent history, Turkish Cypriots have always opposed ‘Enosis’ and never accepted it as an ‘option’ for resolving the Cyprus issue.
Yet, it was not at all easy for them to ‘clarify’ what they wanted.
Without the ‘cunning’ tactics of Britain, the owner of Cyprus, they might not even have developed a serious ‘thesis’ on Cyprus…
Thanks to Britain’s encouragement, after trying out a few positions, they decided on ‘partition’ in the second half of the 1950s…
Thus, faced with the Greek Cypriots’ demands for self-determination, they clung to ‘double self-determination’…
Exactly 71 years have passed since 1954.
Neither the Greek Cypriots’ ‘self-determination’ nor the Turkish Cypriots’ ‘double self-determination’ has been realized.
In between, the ‘Republic of Cyprus’ was established, followed by years of ethnic violence and ‘complete division’ in 1974…
In his latest book, titled ‘The Island’, Prof. Niyazi Kızılyürek addresses this entire process and analyzes the ‘milestones’ on the journey to ‘self-determination’ without going into excessive historical detail.
The most important feature of the book is its ‘richness in sources and dimensions’.
The author’s ‘multilingual’ capacity has allowed us to learn about evidence from English, Turkish, and Greek sources regarding different policies relating to the same periods.
I think that in this respect, the book stands out from hundreds of other books on our recent history. It brilliantly presents the stages of change undergone by different sorts of ‘national politics’ in a ‘multidimensional’ framework.
But more importantly, while documenting the 71-year transformation of the ‘self-determination’ phenomenon we mentioned, it focuses its lens on the ‘leftist parties’.
Kızılyürek uses meticulously gathered archival information to describe how AKEL and the labor unions failed on the ‘national issue’ and how they sometimes fell in line with the church.
Even when it contradicts his own ‘stance’, he avoids taking a sharp position in the face of historical observations and chooses to ‘stand in the middle’ to encourage the reader to think ‘multidimensionally’.
However, the most compelling feature of the book is that it ends with a ‘package of proposals’ at the end of the historical preamble.
Kızılyürek is one of the most ardent defenders of the ‘federal thesis’. In fact, he has highly ‘theoretical’ proposals, elaborations, and accounts.
However, with this book, this veteran of the federation movement has now reached another ‘level’ in his demand for federation.
He has added ‘structural’ elements to the character of the ‘federal solution’ he has been advocating for years.
According to him, ethnic nationalism has prevented the emergence of a ‘common will’ and a sense of ‘shared destiny’ in Cyprus. A united sense of a society and ‘homeland’ could not develop in Cyprus. Due to external factors, too, it could not determine its own shared destiny. Therefore, it is necessary to achieve a new sense of ‘us’ that will emerge from the merging of the wills of the two communities. If a new ‘Republic of Cyprus’ is to be formed, it must be a ‘state’ that will enable the strengthening of this sense of ‘us’. This new state cannot be built on the understanding that marked the Republic of Cyprus, established in 1960. The merging of the wills is essential.
Again, according to Kızılyürek, “Citizenship rights should not be determined by ethnic origin, lineage, or religion.”
Kızılyürek proposes a concept of ‘constitutional patriotism’ that does not deny ethnic, or cultural identities but does not interpret citizenship rights through the lens of cultural, or ethnic identity…
In other words, a sense of citizenship that transcends nationalism… A concept of citizenship based on human dignity as the foundation of all rights…
“A common super-identity in a multi-ethnic federation”…
Of course, according to the author, this can only be achieved under the leadership of a leftist movement free from ethnic nationalism…
Again, according to Kızılyürek, “We must move away from the spirit of the London-Zurich agreements.”
The ‘ethnic-based’ demands currently being discussed at the negotiating table carry this ‘spirit’, and these demands could only lead us to ‘ethno-federalism’…
Kızılyürek, who also proposes some practical mechanisms for this, includes concrete steps in his book such as a ‘cross-voting and weighted voting system’ and ‘the legislative body electing individuals who will serve as rotating presidents.’
With this proposal in his book, Kızılyürek has opened a new page that will broaden our horizons in the context of federation.
Integral federalism against ethno-federalism…
In an era where the word ‘federation’ has been removed even from joint statements, how will a reading of the federation in a new format from a ‘supra’ perspective be received?
We will discuss this thoroughly tomorrow evening. We will be waiting for you…
This article was originally published on 16.12.2025
Source: NİYAZİ KIZILYÜREK: ETHNIC FEDERALISM, OR INTEGRAL FEDERALISM?
