By Professor Kerim Munir
The September 30 Cyprus Mail article by Rebekah Gregoriades, “Cyprus issue movement ‘positive’ says [Greek House president Nikitas] Kaklamanis,” offers yet another round of declaratory statements: full withdrawal of “illegal occupation troops” on one side, and insistence on “two sovereign states” on the other. Both are maximalist, both are unrealistic, and both only reinforce the perception that the Cyprus problem remains frozen not by its people, but by its politicians.
This raises the first foundational question: can the current set of politicians truly resolve the Cyprus problem? After half a century of failed talks, rotating leaders and rhetorical escalation, the legitimate answer is that perhaps they cannot. Cyprus is too important to be left in the hands of transitional politicians, each carrying their own domestic baggage. A stronger role for civil society, independent voices and a reconciliation council is long overdue. If politics alone cannot move us forward, then society itself must.
If politicians cannot resolve the Cyprus problem, civil society must step in – the island’s future is too important to be left in limbo.
The second foundational question concerns the nature of political discourse itself. Blanket demands for “all troops out” on one side, and absolute insistence on “two states” on the other, are nonsensical. They foreclose dialogue before it begins. They create false choices: sovereignty without security for Greek Cypriots, or security without sovereignty for Turkish Cypriots. Neither formula will work. What is needed is the middle path of BBF 2.0 – a bizonal, bicommunal federation that integrates security and sovereignty in a dual-layer system: reduced Turkish forces under international verification, residual guarantees embedded in multilateral treaties, and a federation robust enough to prevent either domination or secession.
Security and sovereignty must walk together – without both, Cyprus will remain divided, but with both, a shared destiny is still possible.
The third foundational question is about memory and identity. We must not succumb to amnesia – nor to rumination. Forward-looking debate is essential. Leaning on the language of “Europeanness” as if it were an exclusive racial or ethnocentric virtue does not help; indeed, it compounds the problem. Since the rejection of the Annan Plan in 2004, Cyprus has in effect lived in two proxy unions: the south as a Europeanised form of Enosis with Greece through the EU, and the north as a dependency under Turkey. Both sides must confront this reality, rather than use it as ammunition against one another. And it must also be acknowledged that politicians on either side who are committed to preserving this status quo have a profound conflict of interest when it comes to resolving – or not resolving – the Cyprus problem.
Since politicians continue to trade in slogans and absolutes, it is time for the people themselves to be heard.
The people themselves should be asked directly, through a UN-supervised public consultation open to all Cypriots with Republic of Cyprus citizenship and those with verified birth on the island, north or south, aged 18 and above.
Such an opinion poll, conducted simultaneously in both communities, would be more than a survey. It would be a prequel to a democratic federal system – a rehearsal in which Cypriots begin to see themselves as joint stakeholders in shaping their future. It would also represent a unique and innovative approach to resolving inter-communal strife, showing the world that even the most protracted conflicts can be addressed by asking people directly, honestly and equally what kind of peace they are prepared to live with. In time, it could serve as an example for other divided societies to follow.
This consultation is designed to provide a clear indication of public opinion beyond the positions of politicians. It does not represent a fixed solution, nor is it legally binding. Instead, it tests whether Cypriots believe reconciliation and federal coexistence are possible if pursued with realism, compromise and courage.
Responses would be collected anonymously and published transparently, with the goal of guiding future negotiations so that they reflect the aspirations and concerns of citizens themselves.
Illustrative poll questions
1. Reconciliation Council – Do you support the creation of a permanent Cyprus Reconciliation Council devoid of politicians – with participation from civil society, youth, women’s, sports, arts, and professional groups – to ensure future convergence rather than renewed division?
2a. Mutual Responsibility (1963–1974) – Do you agree that both communities must accept responsibility for the violence, displacement and mistrust that occurred between 1963 and 1974, and commit to a forward-looking reconciliation process rather than relying on exclusive blame?
2b. Mutual Responsibility (Post-1974) – Do you agree that both communities must accept responsibility for the events and injustices that followed 1974, including displacement, property usurpation and prolonged division, and commit to reconciliation that prioritises future coexistence over endless recrimination?
3. Security & Troops (Crans-Montana ‘Sunset Clause’ Model) – Do you support a federal solution in which Turkey retains a guarantor role but with phased reductions oftroops – for example at five, 10, and 15 years – under UN/EU verification, leading to a final review and commitment to possible full withdrawal?
4. Political Equality – Would you support a rotating presidency and vice-presidency, where offices alternate between communities and candidates must win both an island-wide majority and a minimum percentage of votes in each community – ensuring no leader can be elected by one side alone?
5. Property & Justice – Do you support a settlement where property claims are resolved by restitution where possible, and by compensation or exchange where not, administered by an independent international commission?
6. Confidence-Building Measures (CBMs) – Do you support immediate CBMs – such as Varosha under UN administration, expanded Green Line trade, and shared energy projects – even before a final settlement, to build trust?
These questions are not theoretical. They are the core dilemmas: security versus sovereignty, justice versus finality, responsibility versus blame, trust versus fear.
This third question echoes the UN secretary-general’s compromise proposal at Crans-Montana in June-July 2017: no more “zero troops, zero guarantees” (Greek Cypriots) versus “indefinite guarantees with troops” (Turkey/Turkish Cypriots), but instead a time-bound framework with monitoring, phased reduction, and a review clause – a practical “sunset clause”.
There will never be another war in Cyprus as it would mean the mutual destruction of the beautiful island that is beloved by both sides. The real divisions are now political and psychological, often reduced to optics, as noted by the Cyprus Mail editorial of October 1, “Our View: Christodoulides’ handling of Cyprus problem is just about the optics.” Citizens know that security and sovereignty can be balanced, and they should be asked directly how.
Courage over dreams
As Shakespeare warned in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, “The course of true love never did run smooth.” Dreams are not solutions; they are only dreams. Political theatre that chases maximalist fantasies is tragic because it wastes precious time.
And as Voltaire wisely reminded us, “The best is the enemy of the good.” Cyprus does not need the perfect solution that never arrives and cannot be delivered by its current set of political leaders. It needs the liveable solution that both communities can accept.
The politicians must stop blurting out contradictory assertions. The people must demand something better. And civil society must claim its place at the table. Otherwise, we will remain not at the edge of progress, but at the edge of the same self-made precipice.
Perhaps in writing these words I risk becoming a kind of Bottom, the weaver in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, briefly wearing the donkey’s head and imagining that what seems impossible might still be within reach. Yet in Cyprus, the donkey is also our national symbol – stubborn, resilient, and enduring. If it is naïve to believe that this island can still find a liveable settlement after 50 years of division, then I am willing to play the fool and the donkey both. I would rather be a dreamer than a cynic – for to be a cynic is to abandon hope that compromise or shared destiny can ever work. Then why not?
By Professor Kerim M Munir, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Former graduate of The English School, Nicosia. This piece is offered as both a personal reflection and a civic appeal seeking to advance public discussion at a critical moment
