A PUZZLE: HOW MANY TURKISH CYPRIOTS ARE LEFT?

The last census which covered all the inhabitants of the island of Cyprus was made on 11 December 1960 and the number of the Turkish-Cypriots (T/Cs) was 104,320. Adding on this number, the 475 Moslem gypsies and other Moslems, it reached to 104,942. The total number of Christians was 473,265. (Census of Population and Agriculture 1960, Government Printing Office, Nicosia, 1962)

ESTIMATE IN 1973: 114,960

Because the T/Cs left the structure of the Cypriot state after the beginning of intercommunal clashes at the end of 1963, no census covering the T/Cs could be made. According to the study of the Canadian researcher, Richard A.Patrick, who served as an officer in the UNFICYP, "Political Geography and the Cyprus Conflict 1963-1971", published in 1976, there were a total of 119,147 T/Cs living in the T/C settlements on the island. The population estimates of the G/C administration for the T/C in Cyprus put the number as 114,960.

THEIR POPULATION IN THE SUMMER OF 1974: 115,758

After the division of the island with the war of 1974, the following information was given in a report prepared by Mr.Ahmet Sami, the secretary-general of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Justice of the "Autonomous Turkish-Cypriot Administration", dating 20. October 1974:

“A total of 83,719 T/Cs live on the territory of the "Autonomous Turkish-Cypriot Administration". There were 32,039 T/Cs left in the south. Appr. 10 thousand of them are in the SBA, 4,200 in Limassol and in its villages, 12,000 in Paphos district, 2,630 in the Larnaca district, 3,209 in the villages of Nicosia district. It was stated in the same report that until 19 October 1974, about 12,000 T/Cs moved to the north with their own possibilities.”

According to the information given above, there were 71,719 T/Cs living in the northern part, 44,039 T/Cs in the southern part of the partition-line drawn after the war, making a total T/C population of 115,758.

THOSE BROUGHT FIRST FROM TURKEY

According to a news-item, published in the Zaman newspaper of 9. August 1977, Mr.Hakki Atun, the Minister for Settlement and rehabilitation of the "Federated State of the Turkish Cypriots", declared that 20,934 families, i.e. 83,650 T/Cs were settled in the north in the three years between 1974 and 1977. As the number of the T/Cs coming from the south were 44,039, the remaining 39,611 persons were those settlers brought from Turkey.

As it is well-known, the Turkish settlers were brought from Anatolia for the first time in October 1974 with the pretext that "they would work in the hotels and gardens left by the G/Cs", but later this practice was widened in January 1975 as the families of the martyrs fell in the war of 1974 were also settled in the north, continued with giving houses and plots of land to those who wished to settle in Cyprus.

The Zaman newspaper of 10 June 1976 reported Mr.Denktash, saying the following during an election speech: "Those, who opposed us, were exploiting the plight of the people. It was a matter of out-rooting and settling about 80 thousand people. This magnificent mission was done by human beings, they could make some mistakes." Mr.Denktash was making politics with the number of 80,000 by adding the number of Turkish settlers to the official 44,039 resettled T/Cs.

47,186 MAINLAND TURKISH SETTLERS AT THE END OF 1983

In the draft "Second Five-Year Development Plan", prepared by the State Planning Bureau, published in September 1983, it was stated that 91,225 persons were re-settled between 1974 and 1982 on the territory of the "Federated State of the Turkish Cypriots". As the number of the T/C refugees coming from the south was 44,039, the number of the Turkish citizens, settled in Northern Cyprus can be put as 47,186. It is interesting that there has been no official statement on this matter until now.

WHY THE POPULATION STATISTICS WERE NOT PUBLISHED?

The population of the T/Cs were 104,942 in 1960 and 115,758 in 1974. The number of the T/Cs covered also the mainland Turkish settlers, starting from July 1974. The population reached to 173,224 when a census was made on 26.5.1990 for determining the number of the voters before the general election. The head of the regime in Northern Cyprus, Mr.Rauf Denktash, answered the reporters the reason why the population statistics were not disclosed: "If we disclose them, they will know who came from where!" (Yeni Düzen, 23. July 1993)

EUROPEAN COUNCIL ASKED FOR A CENSUS

The Spanish MP Alfons Cuco, the rapporteur of the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography of the European Council prepared a report on the "Structure of the Cypriot Communities" dated 27. April 1992, which was discussed by the Parliamentary Assembly of the European Council. The Assembly adopted a resolution No.1197 on 7 October 1992 which recommended that the Committee of Ministers instruct the European Population Committee to conduct a census of the islands' population, in cooperation with the authorities concerned, in order to replace population estimates with reliable data. The authorities of the Republic of Cyprus and the T/C Administration were requested to keep the arrival of aliens on the island under strict control. Turkey was invited to register in its Cyprus Consulate all Turkish citizens residing and arriving in Cyprus.

It is unfortunate that since then no census was conducted in the north of the island under the observation of international organizations and the number of mainland Turkish settlers or the number of those Turkish citizens living illegally could not be determined.

 

HOW RELIABLE IS THE FIRST OFFICIAL CENSUS?

The results of the first official census, made by the T/C authorities on 15.December 1996 and was evaluated at the State Institute of Statistics in Ankara, were made public first after two years. According to this data, the de facto population was 200,587 and the de jure population was 188,662.

The difference between the two was explained by Mr.Ahmet Bulunç, Adviser of the State Planning Bureau, who made public the results, that 11,925 persons declared on the day of the census that their permanent place of residence were outside the TRNC.                   

The other demographical structure was given as follows:

Total population................. 200,857      %100

Citizen of the TRNC .......... 164,460       % 82

    Born in the TRNC.......... 137,398

    Born in Turkey ..............  23,924

    Born in a 3rd country.....     3,138

Citizen of Turkey...............   30,702        %15

     Student ........................     8,287           

     Employed....................    12,922

     Unemployed................      1,327

     Other (private business,

     pensioner etc.)...............    8,166

Citizen of a 3rd country.....     5,425         % 3

The number of the Greek-Cypriots living in the north was 384 and the Cypriot-Maronites 173.

As it can be seen from the above numbers, there is no statement about the number of those children born in the TRNC by the Turkish parents. There is no mention of the number of the appr. 35,000 soldiers of the Turkish Army in Cyprus, nor of their dependents. There are about 25 or 30 thousand illegal workers which should make the number of the de facto population much higher.

According to the information given by some authorities, who want to remain undisclosed, appr. 46 thousand people were given citizenship since 1974 and 20-25 thousand of them do not live permanently in the TRNC. (Avrupa, 31.1.1998) Famous politicians and parliamentarians were included among those. (Ortam, 17.19.1996)

Mr.Kenan Akin, who originates from mainland Turkey and was the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry of the TRNC, disclosed that there were 60 thousand mainland settlers in the TRNC. (Avrupa, 6.6.1998)

"40% OF THE POPULATION IS FROM THE MAINLAND"

The idea of re-establishing a political party like the "Re-Birth Party" of the mainland Turkish settlers which amalgamated with the Democrat Party in 1992, emerged after the lost of votes on the general elections made on 6. December 1998 and those, who were angry, published an advertisement of protest in the press which said "The 40% of the population (Kibris, 15. December), nearly one third of the wider range of the population were divided cunningly and their just and balanced representation in the parliament was obstructed. (Hürriyet-Kibris, 22.December 1998)

As it can be seen, the number of those, originating from the mainland Turkey, in the population of the TRNC, differs between 60 and 80 thousand and this number reaches over 100 thousand with the illegal workers.

IMMIGRATION STATISTICS OF THE TRNC

Below you will find the list of the passengers arriving at and departing from the TRNC through the air- and sea-ports, according to the years and citizenships. The number of the mainland Turkish settlers in the north is 100,000. As those born in Turkey and their children are later given the citizenship of the TRNC and they are included under the title of "TRNC citizens", it is difficult to know who are really of T/C origin.

                             ARRIVALS                                                  DEPARTURES

Year   TRNC      Turkey      Other          Total          TRNC       Turkey        Other         Total   

         

1974       5,098       5,573       1,022        11,693           6,093         4,193           804     11,090

1975    13,635      73,831       6,577        94,043        29,842        51,465        5,943      87,250

1976    30,764      83,440       4,552      118,756        31,454        80,347       4,985      116,786

1977    33,570   108,016        5,113      146,699        34,540        97,142        5,377      137,059

1978    35,449   104,738        8,177      148,364        36,410       103,108       7,802     147,320

1979    47,839     95,095      13,286     156,220         46,858         92,956     12,619     152,433

1980   51,204      69,810      14,793     135,807         53,135        68,727      14,082     135,944

1981   52,933     62,812      15,471     131,216          52,371        44,912      15,512     112,795

1982   49,870     62,058      22,811     134,739          51,764        66,172       22,631     140,567

1983   58,908     78,467      20,467     157,842          60,660        76,386       20,300     157,346

1984   57,929      93,913     18,925     170,767          56,763        90,403       19,511     166,677

1985   53,860    103,791     21,284     178,935          54,599       102,754       21,049    178,402

1986   55,076    105,729     25,763     186,568          55,788       105,492       25,603    186,883

1987   59,602    149,394     36,448     245,444          60,954       149,980       36,995     247,929

1988   60,178    173,351     56,050     289,579          62,243       169,501       53,966     285,710

1989   68,583    214,566     59,507     342,656          68,212       209,837       58,562     336,611

1990   74,681    243,269     57,541     375,491          73,771       241,764       57,615     373,150

1991   66,012    179,379     40,858     286,249          66,627       178,770       40,502     285,899

1992   78,466    210,178     57,440     346,084          80,304       209,045       57,380    346,729

1993   93,669    281,370     77,943     452,982          97,702       281,160       78,876    457,738

1994 109,787    256,549     95,079     461,415        113,012       252,813        94,514    460,339

1995 134,374   298,026     87,733     520,133         136,803      291,058       87,214      515,075

1996 133,072   289,131     75,985     498,188         135,079      286,691       75,337     497,107 

1997 138,109   326,364     73,000     537,473         138,884      321,208        71,853     531,945 

___________________________________________________________________________

      1,562,868  3,668,850 895,825  6,127,343     1,603,868    3,575,884      889,032  6,068,784

===================================================================

Summary:

As of the beginning of 1998 

Departing TRNC citizens                                             41,000                              

Remaining Turkish citizens in the TRNC                                           92,966

Remaining other citizens in the TRNC                                                                  6,793

As seen above, 41 thousand persons left the north of the island in the last 23 years and about 100 thousand persons, 93,000 being citizens of Turkey, remained there. If the number of 11,765 university students (10,349 from Turkey, 1,416 from other countries like Pakistan, Sudan, Jordan, Palestine etc.) are reducted from this (Kibris, 12.11.1998), there were at the end of 1998, a total of 87,994 aliens in the TRNC, 82,617 citizens from mainland Turkey and 5,377 citizens of the third countries.

Covered in the departing 41,000 persons are those Turkish citizens who were given the citizenship of the TRNC and those having higher education in Turkey and other countries during the school-year 1997-98 (Statistical Yearbook 1997 of the State Planning Bureau of the Prime Ministry of the TRNC, p.90) If those who are abroad on a travel for touristic and other purposes are also counted, about 38,000 TRNC citizens have already emmigrated from the island.

THE NUMBER OF THE T/C'S ARE NOT KNOWN

The number of the Cypriot-born TRNC citizens, 137,398, does not indicate the actual number of the original T/C's in the TRNC, because it covers the children of the mainland Turkish settlers.

The G/C newspaper Fileleftheros stated in a news-item titled "Revelation: Turks reached 25% of the population. Colonization speeds up and change its dimension" that although all of them have not been given the citizenship of the TRNC, the number of those mainland Turks reached 120,000. There are clear signs that Ankara speeded up the plots of changing the demographical structure radically, both in quantity and in quality.

Fileleftheros, relying on the information collected and evaluated through various channels, alleged that "the number of the T/C's is not more than 86,800 at the end of 1998. This means that their proportion in the Cypriot population has dropped from 18% to 11%."

The newspaper continued: "The number of the colonists is already over 120,000 and is between 125 and 128 thousand. According to the Report of the Statistics Department, the emmigration wave of the T/C's continue and 54,000 of them have already emmigrated. The number of T/C's is only 88,200 at the end of December 1997. Instead of increase, they decreased in number." (extracted in Halkin Sesi, 1.3.1999)

CONCLUSION

In the last 25 years since 1974, the T/C's have become more a minority in their own country, as the 37% northern part of the island is being kept under the occupation and the control of the Turkish Armed Forces. The demographical structure there has been changed in an important scale. The approximately 160 thousand G/C's who used to live on this territory before 1974 and who were displaced to the south of the partition line after the Turkish invasion, are not allowed to return. Whereas, the legal status of an occupational force on an occupied territory, its rights and responsibilities were arranged by international conventions and all of these are written one by one in the Regulations of Den Haag about the Ground Wars, dated 18. October 1907 and the 4th Geneva Convention on the Protection of Civil Persons during the Times of War, dated 12. August 1949. These conventions regulate how the occupational forces would behave according to the international law, when an occupation of a territory was made according to the international law.

Since 1974, the mainland Turkish settlers were first tried to be kept secret as "seasonal workers", today they have a say as the future of the T/C's are being determined as the T/C's are made a minority in the total population of the territory, which is kept under the occupation of the Turkish Armed Forces in the north of Cyprus. The settlers have become a social entity which plays an important role in the stalemate of the Cyprus problem.

(Translated into English by the author from his book "Kibris Nereye Gidiyor? (Quo Vadis Cyprus?)", published in Turkish, in Istanbul/Turkey, in June 2002, by the Everest Publishing House, pp.318-327. The article was originally published under the nickname "M.Sonuç" in "Kıbrıs'ta Sosyalist Gerçek" (Socialist Reality in Cyprus) journal, Issue No.42, July 1999)

FEDERALISM : THE WAY TO UNITY IN CYPRUS

Nowadays almost half of the world population lives in the countries, where the constitution and the structure of the state are federal. The socialist federalism implemented in the socialist countries, where the working class is in power (e.g. the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia) and the bourgeois federalism of the developed capitalist countries will not be dealt here.

Especially after the Second World War, the colonialist countries, Great Britain in the lead, practiced a new policy of federalism. In this new period of the capitalist general crisis, this federalisation of the colonies was realised by bringing federative elements into the constitution of those countries and by making detailed legal arrangements. Through this, the possibility of influencing the character, the structure and the form of the new states, which were about to become independent soon, emerged as an element of the new colonialism. The aim of this new strategy of the imperialist powers was to keep the old colonial territories under their sphere of influence as long as it was possible and to protect their economic and strategic interests under the specific conditions of each region.(W.G.Grafski-B.A.Straschun, Federalism in the developing countries of Asia and Africa, Moscow, 1968)

Great Britain, which was the country forming most of the federations in the colonial countries, depended on her experience in legal arrangements both in her dominions, Canada and Australia and in the USA. Great Britain, as Karl Marx stated, used the Roman principle of “divida et impera” for the extension of her sovereignty in India and created enmity among various nationalities, tribes and casts. The same policy was also used in all of the British colonies in Africa.

But in all former colonies there was a close relationship between the national resistance and the nationalities policy of the colonial country. The colonialists intensified their divisive policy of nationalities after the formation and the strengthening of the national liberation movements. Parallel to this practice, which was about to emerge in this period, when the imperialist colonial system started to crack down, the colonialists, as if they agreed beforehand, tried to make special arrangements in the colonial countries in the direction of federalism and autonomy. By doing this they tried to combine the national differen­ces in a great scale with the national contradictions, to weaken the anti-imperialist unity front and to keep their sovereignty in other forms through arrangements. As it will be remembered, this policy was tried to be practiced under “self-government” in Cyprus in 1948, but it gave no result, because of the ambition of the Greek Cypriots for enosis (Greek word for union-with Greece)

As stated above, the main weapon of the nationalities policy of the colonialists was the administrative and political separation. With the help of this, they managed to break off the centuries old political, economical, cultural and other relations between the communities or nationalities or deteriorated their development. In order to achieve national integration, the colonialists took no initiatives, on the contrary they practiced openly a destructive policy for the split of the national movement. They succeeded in changing the structure of the state into a federal one or realised the division of the minorities. They put the national prejudices to the fore and funned them. They managed to make the weak communities influ­ential in the ethnic composition of the colonial armies and they used them against the stronger ones. A typical example for this was seen in the anti-colonial struggle in Cyprus, where the police force from the Turkish-Cypriot community was used against the Greek-Cypriot resistance fighters.

The origin of the idea of having a federal constitution in Cyprus

In the 1950’s the British imperialism did not want to lose its last colony in the strategic region of Middle East, Cyprus. But later she preferred to withdraw itself to the territories of the two military base areas and decided to give the administration of Cyprus over to the Turkish and Greek-Cypriot communities.

The British law expert, Lord Radcliff, who partitioned India and left Pakistan apart, prepared the proposals for a new constitution for Cyprus in 1957 as Cyprus was then a colony. In Paragraph 28 of his re­port, he stated that there was no ethnic-regional division in Cyprus, which was a precondition for an arrangement of federal state in Cyprus. He wrote down his opinion that a federation of the Cypriot communities was a very difficult constitutional form. On the other hand, Lord Rad­cliff proposed a dual administration for the island. One, under the British governor, whose administration would be responsible for the Foreign Affairs, Defense and Internal Security and the other administra­tion would be autonomous, consisting of legislative assembly, executive and the judiciary.

In the plan of June 19, 1958, prepared by the British Premier Minis­ter MacMillan, it was gone further and Cyprus was about to be given for 7 years to the “tripartite administration” of the three NATO countries, Great Britain, Turkey and Greece. We have to stress yet another fact about the crux of the nationalities policy: C.M.Woodhouse, who worked as a successful agent in the British Intelligent Service, loyal to the conservative aristocracy, wrote in his Memoirs (London 1982) that Mac­Millan, who had been Foreign Minister before, had insisted on the mobilisation of the Turkish-Cypriots in order to neutralise the Greek-Cyp­riot agitations.

The Republic of Cyprus and its constitution

After the special meeting of the NATO Council of Ministers in Paris from 16th to 18th December 1958, the Premier Ministers of Great Britain, Turkey and Greece agreed on the foundation of an independent republic of Cyprus through the agreement signed in Zürich on February 11, 1959. The ideas of taksim (partition) and enosis (union with Greece), which were being advocated by the both sides respectively, were supposed to be abandoned. The separatist elements of the Macmillan plan were transferred to the new constitution. The three NATO countries, Great Britain, Turkey and Greece were the guarantors of the independence, sovereignty and the territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus through the signed agreement of Guaranty and Alliance. The British military bases in Akrotiri and Dhekelia were put out of the territories of the Repub­lic of Cyprus and the British sovereignty was to continue in these re­gions for the protection of the imperialist interests. Thus the guarantor countries were protecting and developing their own interests on the island rather than the interests of the Republic of Cyprus.

Turkish Professor of Constitutional Law, Nihat Erim wrote in his memoirs: “While preparing the constitution of Cyprus in the summer of 1959, I told in one of my speeches that this Cyprus state, planned in Zürich and in London, was in reality a federation. This was a federation with specifics of its own.” He went further on, saying that the only necessary thing for the good functioning of this federation was the good will of the both sides. (Nihat Erim, Cyprus as much as I’ve known, I’ve seen, Ankara 1975, p.98-167)

The 1960 Constitution divided the administration between the Greek- Cypriots, who make the 80% of the islands population and the Turkish-Cypriots, who make the 20%. It forsaw the preservation of the 70:30 ratio in all of the executive organs and 60:40 ratio in the army. According to an evaluation by Prof.S.A.de Smith, the most complicated and detailed constitution of the world after the constitution of Kenya was prepared in Cyprus. As the rights of the communities were tried to be controlled through guarantees and limitations and to be balanced. Constitutionalism was parallel with communal egoism (Prof.S.A.de Smith, The Common­wealth and its constitutions, London 1964, p.285). Through long and complicated precautions, it was planned to avoid the misuse of the rights by the both sides, but an influential organisation of a state was not realized.

The constitution of the Republic of Cyprus was supposed to bring a federal state order, not through territorial separation, but through communal separation. Additional to the House of Representatives, comprising of 55 Greek- and 15 Turkish-Cypriots, there were Communal Chambers for each community, but their members were to be elected separately by their own communities. Thus they were representing in a way the executive of the regional administration in the classic federal system. But the Chambers did not have the rights for executive openly and this dual structure helped the strengthening of the separatist tendencies in the public service. (The problem of separate municipalities, proposed by the British in 1958, sew the first seeds of separation then.) In this situ­ation, the necessary institutional guarantees, requisite for intercom­munal cooperation were ignored and the federal relations were annihila­ted. (Carl J.Friedrich, “Dangers of Dualism:Cyprus” in Trends of Federa­lism in Theory and Practice, New York 1968)

The authors of the book called “Cyprus problem” emphasized the following: “This dual element, comprising of Turkish and Greek communities. Was under the foundation of the whole state life. This state of affairs went through the whole political and social mechanism, despite the monistic (unitary) structure of the state, into dualism. The unitary structure was placed on the reality of two separate communities and on very sensitive balances in the constitution. This point was clearer in the formation of the political institutions. The state mechanism with one constitution and the unitary structure with its characteristic of federal content was a typical proof of transformation into a federal administration in the future. (Murat Sarica, Erdogan Tezic, Özer Eskiyurt- Cyprus Problem, Istanbul 1975, p.22)

The conflict in 1965 and the Turkish thesis

The constitutional conflict started in the years of 1960-63 resulted in intercommunal clashes on December 21, 1963. Underground organisations on both sides caused bloody events. The Cyprus question was put again to the fore in the international arena. Dr. Galo Plaza, who was appointed by the Secretary-General of the UN as a mediator in order to find a solution to the problem, wrote in the Paragraph 97 of his Report of March 26, 1965 the following: “The Turkish-Cypriot community insists on a solution based on the geographical separation of the two communities under a federal system of government.”

Dr. Plaza went on by saying that the Republic of Turkey had the same opinion and stated in the Paragraph 150: “The establishment of a federal regime requires a territorial basis and this basis does not exist. The events since December 1963 have not basically altered this characteristic; even the enclaves, where numbers of Turkish-Cypriots concentrated following the troubles, are widely scattered over the island, while thousands of other Turkish- Cypriots have remained in the mixed villages.”

The federal form of government, proposed by the Turkish side, was in fact a proposal for the partition of the island (or with official wording, the geographical federation). Even the line of partition was proposed. (Plaza Report., Paragraph 154)

One of the architects of the Constitution of Cyprus, Prof. Nihat Erim wrote his above mentioned Memoirs that in the summer of 1959, as General Turgut Sunalp was in Cyprus for the preparations of the Turkish Army contingent to be stationed in Cyprus, he visited the island all over, mountains and plains with a car as he caught the possibility and pointed the necessary places on a map opened on his thighs. He also participated at the Third Tour of Negotiations on the Acheson Plan in Geneva. Mr. Acheson told Nihat Erim himself that the Pentagon is in need of such commanders as General Sunalp” (ibid, p.98 and 367)

Imperialist Conspiracy

The complicated structure of the I960 Constitution of Cyprus, which was prepared with a view of opposing the division of the island’s territory into two, did not satisfy both sides, because of their own reasons and caused a lot of difficulties in its implementation. The intercommunal talks for a new constitution for the Republic of Cyprus continued between the years 1968 and 1974 on the basis of a “unitary state”. But the sides could not reach to a solution. (For a detailed analysis of the agreed and disagreed points at the negotiations, Polyvios Polyviou, Cyprus in search of a constitution, Nicosia 1976)

After the coup, prepared against the President Archbishop Makarios the CIA through the hands of the Greek junta in June 1974 failed, the following military intervention of Turkey created the preconditions for the partition of the island, longed for a long time by the USA and the British imperialism. The bi-zonality, which was necessary for a federal solution was realised by the transfer of the Turkish- and Greek-Cypriot populations after the war. In other words, the two units of a federation were created de facto and the remaining question was to form an influential central government de jure.

Unitary and federal state

The Soviet scholar G.B.Strauschenko writes in his book “Nation and State in the newly liberated countries” that in those countries, where there is an effort to form a single nation out of the state people (Cyprus is not in such a period at the moment), the choice has to be mostly in favour of an “unitary state”, where a high degree of centralism governs and that this was the favourite form, chosen by most of the leaders on the African continent. Because, if in the existing state, a new single nation is to be formed after an appropriate process, a unitary structure of state is more suitable for those countries. (ibid, p.279)

Strauschenko, in his same book shows that if the national conflicts are sharp and it is impossible to protect the unity of the state, the most suitable form of state is federalism. The federal form of state, which was difficult to implement before 1974 in Cyprus, as we stated at the beginning of the article, seems to be the only form of state in the aftermath of 1974, where no solution was reached and this could secure the unity of the island of Cyprus and its people.

Federal and confederal state

As known, federal states are composed of more than one states or part of states (autonomous republic, canton or states). The constituent units, which form the federation, have their own legislative and executive organs and as a rule they have their own judiciary organs. On the other hand, unitary states are formed only by regional administrative units (regions, provinces, governments).

The difference between a federation and a confederation is that a confederation is a unity of states, which have their own organs, dealing with the general affairs, which are defined exactly. A decision, taken by the organs of a confederation, is valid after the signature of all the member states of the confederation or if a sufficient majority signs (Marxistisch-Leninistische allgemeine Theorie des Staates und Rechtes, Band 1., Berlin 1974)

Bourgeois federalism in the developing countries and some impor­tant principles

The bourgeois federalism practiced in the developing countries is more complicated than the unitary state and it needs a special effort for its implementation. There is a need for capable cadres in the state and administration. It is not only necessary that the federalism would cope with the realities in the country, not only in the practical and social fields, but also in the economical field. Therefore one has to be very careful. Because of the economical under-development and the extreme dependence on the imperialist countries, the state in the deve­loping countries has to play an influential role in the economy under the present conditions.

Although Karl Loewenstein, one of the bourgeois scholars, supports the idea that federalism has become obsolete in the 20th century and that economic planning is the DDT of federalism, in fact, it is only the pest of dualism that economic planning (the DDT) has killed. (Ramesh Dutta Dikshit, The political geography of federalism, New York 1975, p.6)

In federal states, state ownership in the important sectors of the economy requires the planning and the orientation of the important economic processes by the state; control and direction of the internal and external financial economy by the state, restriction of the foreign and private capital, bringing the economy of the private sector under influential state control, promotion of the agricultural production by the state and the erection of new property relations, es­pecially in the rural areas. In the developing countries, especially in most of the states in Africa, there are different social and political orientations and different levels of development. This should not be forgotten. For this reason, it is necessary to centralise the state and the political power strictly, which are not sufficiently formed or are under very difficult conditions in the bourgeois federalism. (Grafski-Straschun, ibid)

Another point, which should not be forgotten, is that bourgeois federalism is not an instrument for the solution of the questions of ethnic or national development. Federalism is rather a specific form of practicing the political power on the regional administrative level. It works with a relative decentralisation and formal and structural independen­ce between the regional levels. It depends on a relatively developed bourgeois constitution and on parliamentarism with two or more political parties. (ibid)

The relationship between many problems during the formation of the state and the ethnic-national structures, which are in transition, is still in a seed-form and it is very difficult to diagnose them. Because of this reason, if the forms of the national-regional autonomy are built in a progressive way in the federal states of the deve­loping countries, it can be helpful for the solution of the questions of the ethnic-national development or the conflicts, in the interest of the whole people of the country and its social progress.

On the other hand, the role of the subjective factor in general and the role of the state by the solution of the national-ethnic problems and conflicts will increase. Hence, there will be necessity, especially in the states, which chose the way of socialism, for the conceptions of politics and state law on a scientific base, which will be realist and suitable for the conditions of the country. Without high consciousness and administration and planning, in which the whole society participate the problems cannot be solved. For this reason also Lenin regarded the federal form of state as a possibility for a “voluntary integration” for the ex-colonies, which have achieved their freedom newly and have a complex ethnic-national composition of the population and have adopted the way of social progress. (Lenin, Werke, Band 27, Berlin, p.145)  

Therefore in the poly-ethnic processes of consolidation, being experienced in the developing countries or under the conditions of sharpened ethnic-national conflicts or when the states or the divided territories of the countries are in need of reunification, federal state structure can make an important contribution for the solution of the questions of national development or for the reduction of national conflicts. (Klauss Hutschenreuter, Problems of nation formation and state development in Transsahara of Africa, Berlin 1970)

The way to unity in Cyprus

The rightist circles in Cyprus, when they speak of reunification of the two separate regions, which were created de facto after 1974, start from the point of two separate states and seem to adopt a federal state of Cyprus, which has a weak central authority. As Ismet Inonu, former Premier Minister of Turkey, told on September 8, 1964 in the Grand Assembly of Turkish Nation about the official concept of a federation, he explained “We started the discussion not by saying partition officially, but using the word federation, just to stay within the framework of the agreements.’’ This official form of federation is synonymous with confederation, which envisages the partition of the island.

As it is known, in a confederation there is no direct contact between the peoples of the constituent units and the central authority. The central authority is compelled to reach the people only through the respective regional governments, which may or may not allow this contact. In a federation, by contrast, there is a direct relationship between the central government and the people, who not only share in the task of the constituting it, but also submit to its rule (in the spheres of its competence without interposition of the regional governments as intermediaries. (Dikshit, Ramesh Dutta, ibid, p.3)

Contrary to a confederation, there is no division of sovereignty in a federation. The constituent units are only autonomous in certain limited spheres. Once a federation is created the states have to abide by the decisions of the properly constituted central government in matters, where the constitutional compact empowers it to act. (ibid, p.3)The regional and central government in a federation should not only be coordinate, but they should also be cooperative. (ibid, p.8) A balance between the two opposing sentiments is necessary. This balance should, however, be so struck that the forces for unity have a slight edge over those for separation. As Wheare says (Federal Government, London 1953), if the communities involved are not prepared to submit themselves to an independent government, they have not achieved the first prerequisite of federal government. This is important, for federalism is essentially what Riker terms a bargain between prospective national leaders, who want unity and the officials of the constituent governments, who stand for larger regional control .(Riker, W.H., Federalism: Origin, operation, significance, Boston 1964, p.11) Indeed, “a truly federal government is the denial of national (sic) independence to every state of the federation” (Dicey, A.V. Introduction to the study of the Law of the constitution, London 1939)

Some prerequisites of federal government

Ramesh Dutta Dikshit refers to Wheare in his above mentioned book and writes that he has tried to isolate various factors for union and separation, which appear to him as necessary factors in the origins of federalism. He enumerates the following half-dozen factors, all of which operated in the U.S., Switzerland, Canada and Australia, to produce a desire for union among the communities concerned (ibid, p.37). Those factors are:

1. Need for common defense

2. Desire to be independent of some foreign power and a realization that only through union independence be achieved

3. Expectations of economic advantages from union

4. Some political association of the units involved prior to their federal union

5. Geographical neighbourhood and

6. Similarity of political institution (ibid, p.220-221)

It will be noted that Wheare excludes from this list of prerequisites for union, factors such as community of language, of “race”, of religion or of nationality. To these six prerequisites Wheare adds one more: “Leadership or statesmanship at the right time.” (ibid, p.221)

The situation in Cyprus now

It is of interest to look at these prerequisites one by one in the concrete situation in Cyprus.

1. Is there a need for common defense for the Turkish- and Greek-Cypriots, who have lived over 400 years side by side on this island? Of course there is such a need against imperialism and its aggressive organisation NATO, which wishes the partition of the island and to stop the struggle of the people of the island for social liberation. It is imperative for the Turkish-Cypriot leadership especially, to follow a policy of non-alignment consistently, in order to put Cyprus out of the sphere of influence of NATO.

2. From the point of view of the progressive and democratic forces, which have understood that the way to the complete independence of Cyprus is through unity, the demand for being independent from the imperialism and its military bases as well as from the “motherlands” is valid as ever.

3. Expectations of economic advantages from union are very wide especially among the Turkish-Cypriot working masses.

4. From the point of view of certain political parties of class approach, there is an association of political aims of the Turkish- and Greek Cypriots before the federal union. This association of political aim will be crystalised better in a democratic system.

5. Geographical neighbourhood is the most appropriate in Cyprus, where the small island is divided into two.

6. Although there is a similarity of the political institutions on both sides, there is a difference in the level of maturity of the democratic life. But this can be developed with mutual solidarity and especially with the elimination of the anti-democratic elements, without any outside interference. Moreover, there will be common political organisations based on class approach rather than ethnic-national origin.

Another point of view, which should not be overlooked is that the solution of the problem in the concrete conditions of Cyprus depends on one hand on the elimination of the influences of imperialism and neo-colonialism and the military bases and on the other hand to decide the internal question of nationalities how to be solved, which is the main issue. But the determining factor is not the difference between the two communities, on the contrary it has to be stressed that the class struggle in the country and in the international arena will be decisive.

The problem is not as the bourgeois circles suggest which community will govern the other one, but which class will have the power in his hand on the whole surface of the island. That is our evaluation.

(The original Turkish version of this study was published in Ortam daily newspaper under the name “Ertan Yüksel” as two separate articles, on 20, 21 December 1984 and on 22, 23, 24 January 1985)

SOME THOUGHTS ON FEDERALISM IN CYPRUS

    Although the adapted Turkish thesis after 1974 for the solution of the Cyprus problem is "federation", unfortunately there has been no detailed scientific study until today by the interested individuals or organizations, e.g. the political parties, about the structure and the function of the proposed "Federal Republic of Cyprus". As far as I can follow, the first article, which evaluated this subject in the Turkish-Cypriot (TC) press was published in the Ortam daily (20-21 December 1984) with the title "The way to unity in Cyprus passes through federation, not confederation" by Ertan Yüksel. Later in three other articles the subject was elaborated under the title of "Federal solution in Cyprus" and the stress was made on some principles which will help the success of a federation in Cyprus.

            The subject "federation" was put on the agenda once more and was discussed during the "Second German Week", organized by the TC-German Cultural Association from 26th Nov to 6th Dec. 1985 and the contributions which gave information to the public were read there. The titles of these contributions were "The history and culture of the federal systems in the Federal Republic of Germany and in the world" by Prof.Vural Ülkü, "Federal Germany and the federal systems in the world" by Oktay Feridun, "Cyprus Conflict and the approach of the both sides to a federal solution" by Zaim Nedjatigil and "Federalist elements in Cyprus between the years 1955 to 1984" by Uwe Berner.

            Again a documentary compilation under the title "The first proposal for federation in Cyprus with the partition in mind as the Turkish view and the concept of federation of the Soviet Union" was serialized in the "Söz" weekly magazine for 6 weeks, starting from 17th January 1986 and the misunderstandings and the facts were stressed there once more.

            Lately, a serial of interviews were published by Sevgül Uludağ in the Yeni Düzen daily on the "Economic aspects of a federal republic (5-10 May 1988) and "Working life in a federal republic" (13-20 June 1988), where the views of some individuals and members of some organizations were reflected to the public opinion. Later the views of Mr.Denktaş's economical adviser, Mr. Ahmet Aker were published on 19-23 August 1981 and the views of some businessmen on 22-27 August 1988.

            There was another serial in the Kibris Postasi newspaper, a chronological review of the GC press on a federal solution (24-28 September 1988) prepared by Ahmet An. Ismet Kotak published a 4-day serial about his impressions from the Prag Meeting of the Cypriot political leaders from 20 to 23 May 1989.

The political parties keep silent on this subject

Until now, if a federal Republic of Cyprus will be established the following questions should have been answered: How will be the functioning of the state structure? How will the citizens of the federal republic feel the federalism in their everyday life? Unfortunately these questions are not dealt with yet by any political party, which at least seems to defend federalism, by the help of an enlightenment and propaganda campaign. It is worthy to think why they have not begun such a campaign. It is not yet clearly stated what kind of political solution is aimed at: Federalism between the states, that is confederation or federalism in one state, that is federation? Everyone comments diffe­rently on federalism, but as long as we are going to establish a federal republic, I don't know why it is not discussed before the public, what federalism is and what it is not. The main reason for this is that both those having the power and those oppositional parties do not work within the principles of the political science and they are satisfied with day-to-day politics. Then, it is left to the people and organizations outside the political parties, who are interested in this subject, to answer the following questions:

Why is the federal structure accepted in Cyprus? How was the his­torical development in this respect? Those, who are in favour and aga­inst this structure should say what are their argumentations? According to the law of constitution, which necessary bodies should be set up in the future FR of Cyprus? How will be the division of the governmental duties between the federal state and its provinces? In which spheres of influence should the central and local governments act together? What is a federal parliament, what are its duties, how does it work? How is the position of the political parties regarding the federal parliament? How influential is this parliament in the political determination processes? Will the policies of the federal and provincial governments be supportive or destructive to each other? Which one will have more say on the money collected from the tax-givers? Which government will have what kind of financial resources, who will be financially independent from whom and at which point?

Sovereignty will be at the central federal government

We can still go on asking more questions. As it is looked upon from the point of view of political science, there is a difference between repeating the stereotyped sentence "our party is for a bi-regional fe­deral state" and finding answers to these questions. Even the most left wing Republican Turkish Party talks about a divided right of sovereignty between the northern and the southern provinces of the FR of Cyprus. This shows what the RTP understands from federation. Thus this party falls into parallel of the official line, which says "federation" and means "confederation". On the contrary, the sovereignty belongs to the central federal government in a federal state and what is shared between the governments of the provinces is the state power.

            Then, there has to be the following article in the constitution of the FR of Cyprus: "The form of the state is republic and the FRC is a union, which consists of two regions. Both provinces, in the North and in the South are the territory of the state of the FRC. Beside the central federal state, there will be two separate administrations, one in the north and one in the south. Both of the federal and the provincial administration will have representative-parliamentary governments and their administrators will be elected directly by the citizens.”

            The idea of “we are responsible from the sea- and air-ports in the north and they, in the south" does not suit to the principle of a federal state. This is true in a confederal structure. But in a federal state, the entering into the country by aeroplane or by ship will be checked up by two uniformed officials. The federal authority will set the passport of the visitor, while the provincial authority will ask if there is something to be declared to the customs office. There has to be both amblems at the entrance, one of the province and one of the federal state.

Federal parliament-provincial parliament

            The most outstanding character of the federal states is that there are two parliaments. One is the federal parliament, where the problems of the whole country are discussed and the decisions are taken. The other one is the provincial parliament, where the local provincial matters are discussed. The political principles of the central federal state are written in the federal constitution. Besides the respect to the human rights, freedom and equality, the respect to the representative democracy, principles of the law and the social state are all put into order in the constitution.

            The bi-regionality of the federation, which will be stated in the constitution of the FRC and the common action in the legislative have to be unchangable articles. Even the 2/3 majority, which will be enough for constitutional amendments at the federal parliament would be able to change this federal structure and organizations.

Bi-regionality does not mean two states.

There should be no tolerance for those, who use the term bi-regionality in the meaning of the two states and who do not understand federalism by creating a confusion of concepts and a conflict. The FRC will be a single state, consisting of a central federal government and the provincial governments. The fixed boundaries of the provinces will not be changed and no province will ask for this later. But some corrections on the boundaries could be made with the consent of the both provinces. Most important of all, it has to be written in the constitution clearly that the union of the whole island or one of the pro­vinces with another country is out of question and that the propaganda for this cannot be made.

            The constitution of the provincial governments will be arranged in a way that they will be independent from the federal constitution, but not contrary to its provisions. The provincial constitutions will be the basis for the legislative, the executive or the judiciary of the province. Every province will have its own parliament and government. There will be a prime minister and ministers of every province with the provincial government and the parliament. Its judiciary organs will take its own political decisions, but this will only cover the sphere of its own provincial legislative authority. It will have a limited financial autonomy and it can put additional taxes and use this money freely. It can make laws, related to its own province and veto the ones made by the federal parliament. But both provinces have to obey some fundamental principles. The provincial laws have to be in harmony with the republican, democratic and social state of law character of the central federal state, the validity of the laws in the provinces will be under the responsibility of the province.

Federal Constitution is above the provincial constitution

What are the principles for the regular function of federalism and the constitutional homogenity? The central government will guarantee the constitutional order in the provinces. The federal constitution is always above the constitution of the provinces and it has more say. For example the provinces cannot make a new law on the family law or on the traffic rules. The federal government can appoint an official for the province, which does not fulfill its responsibilities and the government can give orders to this official. If the freedoms and the democratic order are disturbed in a province, the federal government can send the federal police force to this province and retain the order. How this will be done is regulated by the laws.

No division, but cooperation

It is very important to develop mutual confidence and contacts. Cooperation will be supreme between the provinces, not the division. The protective character of the Federal Supreme Court for the Constitution has a big role in the development of these relations of security The Federal parliament has to approach friendly and constructively to the provinces and vice-versa. The federal constitutional court will be the protector of the federal peace in the country. The disputable subjects between the federal parliament and the provinces will be examined by the federal constitutional court in order to find out which party is right in the case of uncertainty.

            The division of the duties and the responsibilities of the state is another important subject. The state duties have to be taken seriously both by the federal government and the governments of the provinces. These can be summarized as follows: To protect the country from outside, to make laws in order to maintain security inside the country, to show the power of the state everywhere in the country, to fulfill the constitutional responsibilities of the principles of the social state like health, old age and housing matters.

            One of the characteristics of a federal state is that the sovereignty rights of the provinces in their international relations in the fields of foreign policy and military are extremely limited. In other words, according to the international law, the provincial governments do not have their own sovereignty in their contact with other states. Foreign policy and the defense subjects belong to the central federal government. For this reason the provincial governments do not have their ministers for foreign affairs and defense. The provincial parliaments do not deal with these subjects and they do not make laws on them. They cannot discuss the related problems and do not make declarations. As an exception they can make agreements with other states, but these agreements have to get the approval of the federal government. This can be a cultural agreement (for example a TV-broadcast) or an agreement on the sea-cleanliness and this needs the approval of the other province. Or it has to be very careful in not disturbing the interests of the other province. It is natural to have cultural diversity in federalism.  Theatres, museums, libraries and monuments are different. The  radio -TV broadcasts and the press are separate, because of the language difference. But the federal state secretary or a provincial mi­nister can speak to the people or the decisions of the federal or the provincial courts can be read to the people from these media organs. One can establish organizations on federal or provincial basis on the subjects of economy, religion, sport, labour and social relations. There can be political parties, functioning in both of the provinces or in one province only. The provincial groups of a party can come together at the federal parliament and work more influentially. The elections for the federal state organs have to be done throughout the country. When the federal government is formed, there has to be representation of the provinces. It should not be formed only out of one province. The results of the provincial elections may change the structure of the federal or the provincial parliament.

Division of power   

In federalism, the judiciary powers of the state are stated clearly in the constitution as "the ones belonging only to the federal parliament" and "the ones belonging only to the provincial parliament". For example foreign policy, defense, civil defense, citizenship, passport, fiscal and financial subjects, customs and foreign trade, federal roads, air ways, maritime lines, post-telephone-telegraph services belong only to the federal parliament. It can make frame-laws related to the high-schools, hunting, protection of the nature, land distribution and consolidation, residence and identity affairs. Among the subjects, which belong only to the provincial parliament are culture, provincial police force, provincial education and health problems. There can be contradictory laws in the matters of citizen rights, penal law, demonstration and meeting rights, rights of the foreigners to reside, nuclear energy. But different laws should not result with big differences because of different  policies.

The points against federalism

As we have seen above, there are some points against federalism. First of all, the capabilities of the central officials and the pro­vincial ones can be different and the living conditions in several places of the country may not be at the same level. Thus, the principle of social state can be disturbed. The equality of chances, social security, promotion of the individuals and social support may not be the same in both provinces. As a result of this, there can be different outcomes in the economic, social, cultural and political fields. This situation is already deeply felt in the northern region of Cyprus before federalism is set up.

            The federal and the provincial officials have to respect the views of each other when they take political decisions. In case of conflict, a compromise has to be reached. There has to be no suspicion on how the view of the state is. It should not give way for the diminishing of the politicality.

            Federalism is an expensive form of state. It will require a lot of money. Beside the two different provincial governments and parliaments, there is a need of a federal parliament, a federal government and the federal administrative organs. The process of taking political decisions is complicated. The gradually increasing taxes cannot be sufficient for the federal expenses. If the federal policy is very strong, sometimes the provinces can have their own policy in the foreground.

The points in favour of federalism

Beside the above criticized points, there are lots of points, which are in favour of a federal state structure. Especially in the circumstances, when the unity of the people is necessary, federalism is very useful to strengthen the unity of the state. With the democratic participation of the people, democratic values are realized and strengthened and this will be beneficial for the people, whose possibilities have become more. The citizens use their votes twice, once on the provincial level and once on the central federal state level. The provincial participation is being increased more on the federal level and the influence of the citizen will be more. In a modern pluralist party state, the influence of the horizontal power distribution in the executive, legislative and judiciary is very low. But in a federal state, the vertical power distribution strengthens them more. The power of the central and the provincial governments are limited in a certain rate, but they have to work together for the realization of the state duties. Thus, they can influence and control each other and limit their use of power. Through this way, the division of power in a federal state and its limitation will strengthen the state of law.

            Federalism develops the possibilities of bringing the opposition together and promotes the contest of the political parties. Both in the central and in the provinces, the political parties are forced to increase the number of their voters according to their individual and capacity-related characteristics_, in order to strengthen the parliamentary administration. If the federal and the provincial parliaments have different votes of majority, it will be possible to get some oppositional parties in some provinces into the power, while the majority of the government the federal parliament can be forced to be in the opposition in that province.

            There is a need of political leader cadres in a federal state. The practice of democracy in the provincial parliaments and the parliamentarism will be realized better. The provinces are the places, where the capable political forces are existent for the federal posts. It is same for the federal parliament, where distinguished politicians are raised. This circulation of the political cadres guarantees the realization of the state duties and the disappearance of the conflicts. As compared to the unitary system, the federal provinces have the right to exercise new political ideas in their fields. They can warn the federal government or the parliament in certain political matters. This can be in the other way round that the central government warns the provinces. Through this mutual exchange of experience, the social progress can be realized.

            Federalism provides the looseness of the strong party structures the political parties and strengthens the democracy of the party. The political parties can develop themselves within the provincial administration in forms of regional autonomy and self-sufficiency. The party organization, which is tested in power or in opposition can bring proposals to the party central. There is no such possibility in the unitary states for the local party organizations. In this way, both the party program and the aims of the party can benefit from these proposals.

            Finally federalism gives the possibility of having diversity in unity. Cultural diversity, individual and local characteristic can be protected and developed and the massive monotypicality can be left away.  Besides, there is respect for the partnership and togetherness, the monotony is avoided and the diversity in various fields of life is reached.    

Main issue: The question of  power

                If we summarize, we can say the following: As one thinks on the practice of federalism in Cyprus, the most important point, which should not be forgotten is that the bourgeois federalism is not a vehicle for the solution of the national or ethnic problems. Federalism is more a specific form of practice of the political power on the level of the regional or the provincial administration. Different political preferences and differences of the socio-cultural development between the provinces can be removed, through the central federal state and the extreme centralization of the political power and through a strong structure. In the concrete situation of Cyprus, the question of state and the power depends on one hand on the elimination of the influences of imperialism and neocolonialism and the abolishment of the military bases from the island. On the other hand it depends on how the internal main issue, the question of nationalities will be solved. But again the determining factor is not the national differences between the main two ethnic communities living in Cyprus, but the class struggle in the country and on the international level. This has to be underlined. As the bourgeois circles argue, the question is not "which community will govern which one?", but it appears as "which class will have the power in its hand on the whole of the island".

Reference Source:

Federalism in the Federal Republic of Germany (in German),  Informationen zur politischen Bildung, Heft: 204/1984, Bonn.

(The original English version of this study was read on 10-11 February 1990 in a conference, organized by the bi-communal Movement for an Independent and Federal Cyprus, at the Ledra Palace Hotel in the buffer-zone of Nicosia. The Turkish translation of the same study was published in Yeni Düzen daily newspaper on 2 and 3 February 1990.)