The Cyprus Review, by Yiannis Moutsis

Historein, 2015

The transition of the Ottoman Muslim community of Cyprus from the status of a religious community—and even more so the ruling community of the island—to that of a national community presents a peculiar case, since that process evolved without any direct effect by Turkish nationalism. After the Cyprus Convention in 1878, the administration of the island was all British and was organized on a strict colonial basis. Since nationalism was formed in Cyprus along communal lines, an attempt is made to trace the contribution of the colonial regime to their formation. More specifically an effort is made to present communal attempts to redefine traditional religious institutions in order to neutralize the British colonial control over them. In that context religion through its institutions assumed a secular and nationalistic scope. Keywords Ottoman Empire – Cyprus – millet – Young Turks – British colonial rule – Greece

Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 2008

In 1931, an uprising of Greek Cypriots proclaiming “Enosis” (political union of Cyprus [with Greece]) swept the island of Cyprus, then a British colony. Rapidly recovering from the initial shock, British authorities seized the opportunity to abolish representative institutions (long considered an impediment to the sound administration of the island) and impose limitations on freedom of expression. Under Governor Sir Richmond Palmer, an era of authoritarian rule began. The broader aim of British rule in the 1930s was to reshape Cyprus as an ideal polity, whose inhabitants would thrive materially and civically; however, the two preconditions for the establishment of such a polity—the neutralization of local politics and the international isolation of the island—would be rendered unattainable owing to the activity of Greek-Cypriot notables who seized the opportunity of a vacancy in the Throne of the Orthodox Archbishop of Cyprus to restructure a political arena with international ramifications.

2016

The outbreak of the October Revolt in 1931 provided the government in Cyprus with an ideal opportunity to act against its political opponents and repress political activity in the island. But the authoritarian regime failed to dampen the growing political ferment in Cyprus, which would ultimately make British colonial rule unsustainable. This thesis seeks to explore the politicization of Cypriot society and to interpret the discourses and dynamics of the emerging political spaces. In particular, it focuses on three key themes in the making of contemporary Cyprus: first, the confrontation between secular and confessional politics and the consolidation of nationalism in the Greek-Cypriot community; second, the processes through which nationalist politics eventually prevailed within the Turkish-Cypriot community, at the expense of the traditional, pro-British elite; and thirdly, the emergence and consolidation of a 'Left' political space, dominated by the labour movement and AKEL. Throughout the 1930s and 1940s the Orthodox Church sought to claim an ethnarchic leadership over the Greek-Cypriot community, promoting a nationalist politics, bonded by the claim to enosis, or union of Cyprus with Greece. The confessional politics of the community, however, came to be challenged by the gradual formation of a broad secular political space, marked by the foundation of AKEL in 1941. The social and political programme put forward by the party gained great appeal among the Greek-Cypriot population, redefining the politics of the community. However, AKEL employed the increasingly hegemonic nationalist discourse and eventually adopted enosist politics. By 1950 ethnarchic enosist politics had prevailed within the community, demonstrating the state's failure to gain Greek-Cypriots' loyalty. By contrast, the Muslim traditional pro-British elite lagged behind the rising nationalist politics advocated by a modernist secular Kemalist political force. Despite the Government's attempts to control its appeal, the modernizing leadership had prevailed within the Turkish-Cypriot community by the end of the Second World War. The new leadership called constantly for communal autonomy and for Cyprus' restoration to Turkey if Britain left the island, while its cooperation with the Government would be dependent on the political conjunctures throughout the rest of colonial rule. Faced with the increasingly radical Greek-Cypriot nationalism, the Turkish-Cypriot community was gradually nationalized, as demonstrated at the end of the 1940s. 3 Nevertheless, some bi-communal cooperation materialized at the grassroots level: throughout the period under scrutiny Greek-and Turkish-Cypriots participated in common labour mobilizations. Despite the Government's legal and administrative precautions and the use of repressive measures, the trade unions, supported by the parties of the Left, managed to organize a mass labour movement appealing to broad sections of Cypriot society across ethnic and religious boundaries. However, the adoption of the enosist politics by AKEL and the hardening of the nationalist politics of both the Greek-and Turkish-Cypriot leaderships led to an increasing polarization of Cypriot society on ethnic lines, a process which the labour movement proved unable to avert. By 1950, nationalist politics had prevailed within both communities, leading to the consolidation of the ethnic division of Cypriot society in the following years.

Cyprus from Colonialism to the Present: Visions and Realities, 2017

In the months prior to the independence of the Republic of Cyprus, the future status and political rights of the small ethnic and religious groups on the island was decided ´This chapter tries to reconstruct the struggle of the Armenians, Maronites, Latins and British residents for the most important rights a minority needs to possess: the right to self-identification i.e. the right to express their distinct identity; the right to preserve their distinct identity by practising their culture, language and religion; the right to public participation in public affairs and participate in decision-making in particular on topics that relate to their rights and finally the right to equality before the law and the prohibition of discrimination. The main focus in this chapter will be on the right to public participation as citizens and as a community. The historical account of this struggle is mainly based on documents retrieved from the British archives. Key Words: Armenians, Maronites, Latins, British Residents, Minority Rights, Transitional Period

2013

Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 2015

Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 2014

This paper considers AKEL’s (Progressive Party of the Working People) stance on Cyprus’s national issue in the era of British colonialism (1922–59). For analytical purposes, the time span is divided into two periods. The first period covers the years 1922–41, the years during which the CPC (Communist Party of Cyprus) was functioning. The second period extends from AKEL’s foundation in 1941 to the declaration of Cyprus’s independence in 1959. The analytical framework focuses on five parameters that will illuminate the Cypriot communist left’s strategies, tactics and responses to the various developments and phases of the national issue of Cyprus in the period under study: the age of the party; the colonial status of Cyprus; external influences; intra-party conflicts; political opposition. It is argued that the national issue precluded presentation of a socialist agenda to the people of Cyprus, but it also helped AKEL reach out for alliances with other political forces and personalities, and gain and retain a prominent role in Cypriot politics.