There is a strong tendency among the electorate to vote punitively. It is unknown, of course, whether this intention will be translated into votes. However, there is a sense of concern and intense scepticism, not only within political circles but also among a segment of society that views this reaction with scepticism.
A portion of society declares that they will not vote for any of the parties they consider, justifiably or not, as part of the establishment. They stand against the party system with anger, perceiving it as a source of corruption and the cause of their own unhappiness and difficult daily lives.
At the same time, it is this very system that they often turn to for favours and patronage. Nepotism and clientelism are deep-rooted issues in Cyprus’ political system.
It is understandable that people demand and want solutions to their problems. As long as the State and the authorities, including political parties and politicians, cannot meet their needs and provide solutions to their deadlocks, they become angry, frustrated, and react punitively.
Economic Hardship and Political Discontent
This anger is fueled by economic hardship, the state’s inability to provide basic services, and the rise of far-right parties like ELAM. Economic hardship, rising costs, the relentless pace of society, the State’s inability to provide basic services to its citizens, and various other factors, including the recent addition of the immigration issue, create an explosive cocktail within society that acts as a lever for political deregulation.
Somewhere in this equation, a few years ago, ELAM emerged, just as far-right parties have done in many European countries. In our case, we also have the phenomenon of Feidias Panayiotou to discuss and analyze extensively.
And all this noise ultimately seems to be reinforcing the society’s tendency towards revenge. But it is no laughing matter; it warrants serious analysis.
At the same time, however, the political system appears weak and incapable of addressing both society’s problems and its systemic issues. The phenomenon of “image politicians” and their dominance on social media has become entrenched in the political landscape, although we often refuse to acknowledge it.
Let us reflect on the individuals who hold the fate of our country in their hands, and let us question why we made these choices or why our choices were based on the logic of “the lesser of two evils.”
Unfortunately, politics is now largely practised through videos and social media posts rather than in the political arena. Politicians have boosted their popularity thanks to their sympathetic image, which they carefully cultivate and maintain. They even have entire crews following them everywhere to post stories and videos of their every activity, functioning more as influencers than politicians.
So, why are they now upset that a “TikToker,” who has nothing political to show for himself, has managed to draw attention and stir up the pre-election landscape? A large part of society is essentially making political choices in the same way it has done in recent years.
It chooses individuals it considers “one of its own.” Its “children.” “Safe” or “less dangerous” candidates, according to its criteria. Mediocrities in whom they see a reflection of themselves. Perhaps this is how they believe they can take revenge on what they perceive as the establishment.
And for this, society itself bears tremendous responsibility for its choices. There is also a significant portion of society that chooses disengagement and distance from politics, inadvertently allowing others to make decisions and shape developments with their choices.
This is also a consequence of disappointment, one might argue.
It is, therefore, up to the political system to find answers to its own disease. Can it rise to the challenge before the next elections?
