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)