WE MUST LEARN TO LISTEN TO VOTERS ON BOTH SIDES
There’s something profoundly broken in how our political and media class understands what’s happening around us. The numbers speak. We just refuse to listen. Societies shift. We insist on viewing them through the warped lens of our own prejudices.
Citizens on both sides of the Green Line are sending messages. We respond with silence. If the recent research by Charis Psaltis (University of Cyprus), Neophytos Loizides (University of Warwick), Eliz Tefik (LIPA Consulting) and Nikandros Ioannidis (Cyprus University of Technology) taught us anything, it’s this: the time has come to learn how to listen. To read numbers not as statistics, but as political messages. And above all, to break the chains of stagnation that hold the whole of Cyprus captive to fear and delusion.
The starting point is familiar: the elections in the occupied areas on 19 October 2025 saw Tufan Erhürman triumph with a striking 62.8% against Ersin Tatar, who limped in at 35.8%. For many Greek Cypriots, the news barely registered. Some dismissed it as an “illegal process.” Others wrote it off as “Ankara’s business.”
But as Psaltis points out, this stance is absurd: “You can’t say you want reunification whilst simultaneously ignoring what Turkish Cypriots think and how they vote.” Because behind those percentages lies a society searching for breathing space, political maturity, and a practical way out of isolation.
The survey, conducted between 2 and 17 October 2025, captures a clear shift: Turkish Cypriot society is exhausted by stagnation, moving away from two-state rhetoric, and showing willingness to re-engage with a federal, European, realistic prospect. Compared to 2020, rejection of the status quo has nearly doubled (from 20.8% to 36%), whilst support for partition has dropped by 15 percentage points. This is a political earthquake—not because it instantly transforms the landscape, but because it reveals the dynamism of the society behind borders that some want us to believe are “immovable.”
Voter behaviour in the north reveals something deeper: a maturation in the face of dependency and fear. Despite pressure from Ankara and its heavy influence over media and structures, voters found ways to express “silent resistance”—as the researchers call it. Around 14% of undecided voters ultimately backed Erhürman, whilst there was also a “shy vote”—citizens who didn’t declare opposition to Tatar in surveys but delivered it at the ballot box. This isn’t merely political realignment; it’s proof of social resilience, democratic self-confidence, and a need to redefine Turkish Cypriot identity away from Ankara’s embrace.
On the other side, in the south, reactions ranged from awkwardness to self-satisfaction. Some parties spoke of a “message of unity” or “rejection of two states,” but few bothered to understand what’s actually happening. Or to read the deeper desire for change. It’s striking that the main issues influencing the vote in the north—economy, the Cyprus problem, corruption, health system—are the same ones plaguing Greek Cypriot society.
This ought to make us think: might the parallel be more substantial than we’d like to believe? Might we too, trapped in party and clientelist systems, have stopped seeing ourselves as a society that changes, that can demand something different?
Cypriot stagnation isn’t a natural phenomenon. It’s the product of political choice. For years, our leadership has sought excuses to dodge difficult decisions: “Turkey doesn’t want it,” “conditions aren’t ripe,” “we’ll see after the elections.” Now, with the Republic of Cyprus assuming the EU Presidency on 1 January 2026, isn’t it likely President Nikos Christodoulides will find “serious reason” to slam the brakes? What’s more serious than the Cyprus problem? Perhaps the need for “European unity” in the face of “Russian danger,” or the pressing “need for national unity with Athens.” In reality, though, this is the same tried-and-tested recipe for delay, the calculated choreography of inaction.
What’s changing, however, is that the world around us isn’t standing still. Turkish Cypriots are demonstrating, through their vote, that they’re not passive recipients of Ankara’s decisions. And their society, despite isolation, is developing political behaviours aligned with European values: professionalism, meritocracy, secularism, balanced power relations.
The ideas that supported Erhürman—a functional federation, energy cooperation, parliamentary system, economic rehabilitation—aren’t utopian fantasies. They’re the same elements missing from the south. Rather than playing the same old tape of distrust, the Greek Cypriot side ought to study these findings carefully.
The Psaltis-Loizides-Tefik-Ioannides research isn’t just another academic document; it’s a mirror. It shows that society in the north is shifting from the doctrine of fear towards the logic of realism. That people want European answers, not grand rhetoric. They want to hear politicians who know how to manage economies, institutions, international relations—not recycle “it’s not our fault.”
If we persist in treating this development as a “non-event,” then responsibility for the next lost opportunity will rest squarely with “the system” that until now has hoarded without answering to anyone. Because every time a current emerges in the north favouring a solution, the system drowns it beneath the weight of procrastination diplomacy and scaremongering. Every time a politician appears who speaks the language of realism, “the system” brands him a “tool” of Ankara and the Grey Wolves.
Every time a number tells us “people are tired of partition,” the system screams “burn him at the stake.” With this attitude, we’re not merely passive; we’re complicit in maintaining the swamp.
Reunification isn’t a romantic slogan; it’s an existential necessity. And for it to happen, we must first liberate society from inertia, bigotry and complacency. Cyprus’s political culture, for decades now, has been built on postponement, smugness and the absence of strategic vision. The research by these four academics reveals something precious: that the other side of the island appears ready for the next step. The question is whether we are. If we continue living with “let’s not upset the balance” syndrome, then the balance will swallow us whole.
The EU Presidency cannot be an excuse for inaction; it can be an opportunity to bring Cyprus back to the European table on terms of contemporary politics, not national phobia. Erhürman’s victory isn’t simply political alternation; it’s a warning. Societies change before regimes do. If we don’t follow, we’ll be left alone with our delusions and the chains of stagnation now binding our children’s feet.
Charis Psaltis notes something worth remembering: “You can’t support reunification whilst ignoring the other’s voice.” Perhaps, then, it’s time we started with the basics: listening. Not to confirm our certainties, but to transcend them. Reading the numbers not to interpret them as we please, but to understand them. And grasping that stagnation isn’t destiny—it’s choice. A choice we can, at last, change.
This article was first published on 26.10.2025