The Eschatology of the Solution

The “solution to the Cyprus problem” has been discussed for decades as a historical milestone that will one day arrive like a final moment that will vindicate, destroy, or redeem. This way of thinking is problematic because, unfortunately, we rarely treat it for what it really is: a situation that will have to function in practice.

For more than 51 years now (for some, even longer), we have been anxiously awaiting the “solution to the Cyprus problem.” This phrase whether it comes from discussions in once-thriving coffeehouses, from loudspeakers at political rallies, or from aesthetically “polished” television interviews and statements remains as vague as ever. And why? Because, in my view, we have reached the point of treating this “solution” not as a concrete goal to be achieved, but as a mythical destination that we continually approach yet never reach.

Cypriot society has not only largely accepted this approach, but has embraced it and made it its own to such an extent that I believe even Tantalus would be envious. A great deal of ink has been spilled on this issue, often very perceptively. Anyone interested in a truly illuminating analysis could turn to the book “Denktash in the South” by Grigoris Ioannou. However, what I want to focus on here is something specific that concerns essentially all of us who genuinely want to live in a reunified Cyprus: we must remain realistic and prepare in a substantive way.

The effort to resolve the Cyprus problem is, understandably, a matter of high politics. Negotiations always take place somewhere distant and cold, usually in Switzerland, which only heightens the contrast with the warm Mediterranean Cypriot climate in which we are expected to implement the convergences reached in those discussions. I mention climate to express something we all understand but rarely confront directly. The solution to the Cyprus problem, even if agreed upon, is rendered from the outset something foreign, given, even imposed from the top down. Civil society appears absent from this process, and above all, the average citizen is not given the space to understand what is truly at stake or to disengage from ideological dogmas of the past.

But the problem is not only political and diplomatic. As an issue rooted primarily in incomplete and recent decolonization, realities on the ground remain fluid, and the wounds are still fresh. Here it is important to emphasize that in Cyprus the question of identity never truly took root, especially within communities themselves. While in other places with histories very different from ours,“myths” and “heroes” have solidified and real understandings have been reached between opposing ideological camps, on our island even today we are divided by terms that define the collective. “Cypriot,” “Greek Cypriot,” “Turkish Cypriot,” “Turk,” “Greek,” “Greek-speaking,” “Turkish-speaking,” even “Kypreos” all are terms laden with ideology.

With the violent separation of Cypriots first in the 1960s and culminating in the invasion of 1974, the spread of a “nation-building narrative” was set in motion on both “banks” of the Green Line. However, the narratives of the two sides, this relatively recent and fragile historiography, are fundamentally in direct conflict with one another . As a result, a spirit of cooperation is not cultivated, but rather one of competition, and the solution to the Cyprus problem is mutilated from an opportunity to address each community’s pathologies into a zero-sum game of dominance.

From this dynamic, however, we know very well that some benefit. Because I want to keep this article to a reasonable length, I will mention indicatively: the political survival (and dominance) of certain political forces; the usurpation and exploitation of supposedly “abandoned” properties; ongoing militarization; the isolation and gradual assimilation of Turkish Cypriots; the exploitation of state structures for personal gain; the absence of a complete and functional constitutional framework; and many other phenomena that stem from the unresolved national problem.

Yet I want to admit something: we all benefit from the illusion of normality or at least we think we do. We are indeed the generation of entrenched peace. We do not experience clashes, we do not hear bombings, and we do not feel threatened by paramilitary organizations. Politics may be polarized, but it is not bloody, while our standard of living and level of education have increased impressively. The truth, however, is that the situation however prosperous it may appear, is not normal, and above all, it is not permanent.

Within this context, it is widespread to see (and understandably so) the perception that a dysfunctional solution would disrupt precisely the calm we have grown accustomed to. Therefore there is a paradox here: on the one hand, we have largely settled into our current condition, while on the other we are promised a just solution that will magically solve all our problems, granting us “vindication,” “liberation,” and a “new perspective.” Ultimately, what we are living is a permanent state of suspension, an endless negotiation without clearly knowing what it is we are actually pursuing.

Does this mean that we should not seek a political settlement? No. It means that we must understand that a solution is something real, something that, once agreed upon, we will actually be called upon to implement. The real obstacle is not the negotiating table, nor the referendum ballot box. It is the fact that we see the solution as something instantaneous, as a single point at which, for some, catastrophe will arrive (I recall the Archbishop’s statements about “national euthanasia”), while for others, absolute redemption will occur.

I therefore conclude by saying that if we want to perceive the “solution” as something more than a political slogan, we must prepare in practical terms, right now. No matter how much the political leadership avoids explicitly naming the bizonal, bicommunal federation, resorting instead to deliberately vague terms such as “agreed framework,” this does not negate its political content. Within such a framework, the Cypriot people will one day be called upon to coexist. If, then, we do not work seriously and realistically to prepare the ground, the phrase “solution to the Cyprus problem” will remain an eschatological myth, while year after year Cyprus will continue along uncertain and dangerous paths.