Five months after his previous intervention, in which he effectively urged DISY to support Nikos Christodoulides, Nicos Anastasiades has made another appearance. This time, he called on (echoing the proposal put forward by Efthymios Diplaros three weeks earlier) DISY and the current President to commit to ensuring that whoever fails to reach the second round will support the other. Shifting the discussion from who DISY’s candidate will be to who will support whom in the second round, even before the first round has taken place. And bringing the former President’s role in internal party developments back into the spotlight. With Annita discussing the proposal publicly, without rejecting it. And confirming that, once again, DISY’s greatest rival lies within the party itself.
For this is a move that undermines DISY’s bid for the Presidency from the outset and creates a huge contradiction. At a time when DISY is trying to distance itself from Nikos Christodoulides and challenge him at the polls, to convince the public that it represents a political alternative distinct from and opposed to the current President, this proposal undermines its message of political autonomy, highlights the uncertainty surrounding exactly what the party’s candidate is standing for, and creates the impression that DISY is entering these elections with two candidates. It sends the message to the public that it does not matter who they vote for, as they will inevitably have a choice in the second round. One of those choices being Nikos Christodoulides.
Except that in 2023, Nikos Christodoulides was elected by going against the party, plunging it into a deep crisis. And ever since then, he has pursued a political agenda aimed at undermining and splitting the party. At times through the appointment of DISY members, at times by creating posts that served only his own political expediency, and at times by adopting ELAM’s slogan, ‘DISAKEL’.
It is within this political context that the proposal for mutual support is being put forward.
The problem is not merely that this is a defeatist approach, as has been said, since it magnifies doubts as to whether the party can even reach the second round. But that it is a politically unethical approach. Both towards DISY and towards the two party officials who chose to stand as candidates through internal party procedures. It undermines the very logic of the party’s autonomous political campaign; at the same time, however, it also undermines those vying for the nomination. After all, they are essentially being asked to proceed towards an election whose very outcome is called into question from the outset. With this proposal, Nicos Anastasiades is acting against the party’s interests and serving the interests of his political opponent. And he is doing so at a time when, for many, the very existence of DISY is at stake. Instead of strengthening the party, he is shifting the focus away from his political proposal and onto post-election arrangements. Instead of highlighting his differences with Christodoulides, he leaves open the possibility of a pre-election agreement. And instead of helping to rebuild the party, he is once again fuelling internal divisions.
What purpose, then, does this particular intervention serve? Why is the former DISY president choosing to open this debate at a time when the party is attempting to chart its own course? And why, whilst some are being called upon to vie for the nomination within the party, is he putting forward a proposal that undermines the stakes of their candidacy? The answer lies in the way he has operated over the last four years. Nicos Anastasiades, with this stance, confirms that he has no concern whatsoever as to whether the DISY candidate will make it to the second round. Just as he had none in ’23. His sole concern is to secure his personal agenda. To reaffirm his political influence. Following the first round in ’23, he is taking action for the second round in ’28.
The man who, with his political acrobatics, led DISY to the brink of collapse four years ago, is now returning to finish the job. And the party leadership is publicly discussing his proposal, leaving open the possibility of adopting it. The question is not why he is doing this. The question is why the others are allowing him to do so.
Source: ANASTASIADES’S SECOND ROUND
