Yusuf Kanlı

Should he be given a gold plaque and congratulated for confessing to a very serious crime against democracy, or should he be stripped of his parliamentary immunity, sent to court and sentenced to up to two years behind bars for buying votes? Or, was he trying to discredit the election results in which his party emerged as the third-biggest party, with some 10 percent of the vote and five seats in Parliament, while the Nationalist Unity Party, or UBP, of Dr. Derviş Eroğlu came first with over 44 percent of the vote and 26 seats in the unicameral, 50-seat Turkish Cypriot legislature and the Republican Turks’ Party, or CTP, the senior partner of the outgoing ruling coalition, lost ten seats and 17 points from its 2005 electoral support, dropping to 15 seats and 28 percent of the vote?

Yes, the subject is once again the recent elections in northern Cyprus and the shocking confessions of Serdar Denktaş, the son of Rauf Denktaş, the founding president of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Talking on the local SİM Radio station, the younger Denktaş confessed that he paid as little as 75 Turkish Liras a vote in the April 19 elections, during the last few hours of the voting. Moreover? He claimed that he has evidence proving the vote buying. Naturally, the Supreme Electoral Board, or YSK, of the Turkish Cypriot state announced that it has launched an investigation into Denktaş’s "public confessions." "If a party leader makes such a statement, we are compelled to investigate the claim," YSK Deputy Chairman Ruhsan Borak said.

Obviously, no one can say what evidence Denktaş might have to prove that he or other senior politicians of northern Cyprus were engaged in vote buying. However, Denktaş has claimed that vote buying has become a routine practice in Turkish Cyprus and that other parties were engaged in that very serious crime.

So sad, is it not? While we were all proud of the democratic atmosphere during and after the vote; of the fact that not a single violent event took place throughout Turkish Cyprus on election day; and of the demonstrated democratic culture that allowed a government to be replaced by votes in the ballot box without any tension, we now read claims from a senior politician that the vote was indeed rigged, that parties bought votes!

"Let us give up the vote-buying practice. What was it in the past? People were coming and explaining the difficulties faced by their families and politicians were trying to help them out. That was something else. But now there are people bargaining with politicians over their vote," Denktaş said. "Bargaining starts from 350 liras, 200 liras, 100 liras per vote. If there is no such thing, let other parties come up and say they did not buy votes. In the last two hours of the voting, there was an increased turnout at the election booths. Yes, some people had their barbeque, enjoyed the morning with their families and voted in the afternoon. But many people waited at home and went to the booths after their expectations were met by some parties. No one should say there was no such thing. I have evidence, I may disclose it."

Worse than election bribery
This charge, of course, is far more serious than foreign, or, to put it more clearly, Turkish, interference in the Turkish Cypriot elections. It is as well far graver than the recruitment offers, easy credits and other such election bribery programs applied by the outgoing CTP during the election campaign. It is even worse than the household-appliances distribution campaign in Turkey's southeastern Tunceli province run by the country's ruling AKP government during the local elections campaign. Yes, there might be no difference as regards the end result, and definitely both election bribery and vote buying are incompatible with moral and legal norms as well as with the fundamental "free vote" principle of democratic governance, but vote buying by party leaders or senior politicians is nothing less than placing dynamite under their own seats in Parliament, in government or at party headquarters. After all, tomorrow someone richer might buy all the votes and put a "democratic" full stop to democratic governance.

Indeed, the detention at polling stations of several people trying to take photographs of how people voted in the booths was taken as an indication of some serious foul play, but Denktaş’s confession demonstrates the need to take stricter measures to ensure the safety of the vote, the voter and, of course, of democratic governance in northern Cyprus.

Perhaps newspapers, at least some of them, will be carrying that striking photograph at least somewhere in the inside pages. The photograph was that of a girl primary school student wearing a turquoise skirt, white shirt and socks. While most other kids were wearing blue plastic shoes, she was wearing yellow plastic boots. Her parents must be one of those hit worst by the "tangentially" passing crisis. Her boots were worn out. From the large holes at the heel, her bright white socks were visible.

Like all other kids enlisted by their teachers for the National Sovereignty and Children’s Day celebrations at Ortanca village in the southeastern Van province, she was dancing to the tunes of "Düm tek tek" Eurovision song of singer Hadise, the new pride of Turkey.

"Düm tek tek ... Düm tek tek ..."

The girl in yellow worn out plastic boots is dancing to demonstrate the bitter reality of poverty! Dancing to display to looking yet blind eyes the pain of her parents who could not afford to buy their daughter a pair of blue shoes! Dancing to underline the gross injustice in the distribution of wealth in this country! Dancing to condemn unemployment that has reached a record 15 percent, a republican record Ğ the great achievement of the government.

Worst! Dancing to demonstrate the gross negligence by her teachers of the psychology of the girl student in worn out yellow plastic boots!

Most likely, by the time readers are reading this article, both the Education Ministry and local authorities have already launched an investigation against the "incapability of teachers in finding some sort of a cover-up formula and hide that poverty photograph from the eyes of the nation."

Probably, some "responsible authorities" have started considering whether to cancel the accreditation of the photo-reporters and the cameramen "responsible" for reporting to the nation such "irresponsible" news.

Perhaps the prime minister of the country will declare soon that no one should allow those papers carrying that photograph into their houses and accuse those newspapers of over-blowing, exaggerating an exceptional situation at a remote town of the Southeast and using it as a golden opportunity to attack his all-successful government. Of course, the girl in worn out yellow plastic boots is an "exceptional case" in a remote part of the country. But, we unfortunately have too many of these "exceptional cases" all over our country, even in our biggest cities with the highest per capita income.

Hadise is singing "Düm tek tek"! The girl student in yellow worn out plastic boots is dancing to mark the April 23 National Sovereignty and Children’s Day at the Ortanca village of southeastern Van province.

In Ankara, the president of the republic, the prime minister, the speaker of Parliament and of course the education minister and in all provinces governors and mayors give their seats briefly to some selected students in a symbolic gesture to demonstrate the importance they give to our children, who will be the rulers of tomorrow.

The children sitting in those big chairs deliver lofty statements prepared by their teachers.

The Parliament speaker hosted a reception for "Protocol A" to mark this very important day in the history of nation: the establishment of Parliament in the middle of the War of Liberation. Some TV channels allocate several hours to the Children’s Day celebrations and special programs on children during which top politicians of the country proudly address kids and explain what big strides the country has achieved over the past decades.

The girl student in yellow worn-out plastic boots is dancing in front of the eyes who look but cannot see; scream with her silence to ears that cannot hear; become the symbolic representative for a brief period of the thousands of kids, our kids, in worn-out boots in all colors!

Still, in view of the fact that there are tens of thousands of girls who were not given the change to even receive primary school education for various reasons, particularly because of the illiteracy of their parents or pervert religious traditions, we have to congratulate the parents of the girl in the worn-out yellow plastic boots of sending their daughter to school despite all the economic difficulties they apparently face.

Was it a surprise? After hearing Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan declaring just a while ago that until the Nagorno-Karabakh problem was resolved and the Armenian occupation of Azerbaijani territory was terminated, Turkey would not take any step toward normalizing its relations with Armenia, yes, it was a surprise to read the statement from the Foreign Ministry declaring that Turkey and Armenia have concluded drawing a road map aimed at normalizing their relations in a manner that would satisfy both countries. Was the prime minister not telling the nation the truth? Is the Foreign Ministry trying to fool foreign leaders and parliaments on the eve of the April 24 anniversary of the so-called Armenian genocide in a bid to stop them using the word "genocide"? That is, was the Foreign Ministry statement an effort to "save the day," or was there a genuine wish in Ankara to establish full diplomatic relations and open its border gates with Armenia (closed immediately after Armenian occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh), or was it a product of the "Let’s leave this April 24 behind with no major problem with some palliative moves, and who knows what will happen next April 24," or that sort Machiavellian approach we have become accustomed to observe over the past six years of neo-Ottomanist "foreign policy successes" of the ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, administration? What has changed since Erdoğan, Deputy Prime Minister Cemil Çiçek and many other top executives of the AKP were declaring in front of cameras that Turkey would not let down Azerbaijan and would never open the border and normalize relations with Yerevan as long as the occupation of Azerbaijani territory continued? Did the Armenian occupation end? Is there any statement from Yerevan saying it has worked out a roadmap with Baku for its withdrawal from occupied Azerbaijani territory?

What might be the reason behind this move, which smells like an overdose of political opportunism? Was Turkey trying to make it easy for American President Barack Hussein Obama not to use the word "genocide" in what has become a traditional April 24 statement of the White House? Coincidentally, a few hours before the Foreign Ministry made that statement, the Bulgarian parliament recognized the alleged genocide. Apparently, Bulgarian parliament recognizing the alleged genocide, however, was apparently no big insult for the Turkish Foreign Ministry, but helping out Obama not to use the contentious word at the expense of blowing up fraternal relations with Azerbaijan was far more important.

Does it worth?
Opening the border and normalizing relations with Armenia will be, of course, moves conceivable within the framework of Turkey’s strategic interests, particularly in its bid to have easier land and rail access to the Central Asian republic. Such moves also fit well with Turkey’s aim of playing a bigger role in the Caucasus. It also will be in line with the Turkish policy of establishing good relations with all its neighbors. Irrespective whether it is condemned as "Turkey has been held hostage of Armenian-Azeri conflict" or opposed with a milder but emotional "Turkey has to stand tall with Azerbaijan against Armenian occupation" position, the normalization of relations with Armenia should not come as a payback to a bonus of the American president not using the "genocide" word. Particularly, if there were progress in Azerbaijani-Armenian talks and if such a step by Turkey might produce a killer effect on the Azerbaijani position at those talks, can we still continue to ignore the sentimental outbursts in Baku against Turkey?

Whereas, is the "genocide" issue not the sole bullet in the U.S. revolver? If the U.S. president pulls the trigger and fires the bullet, the U.S. will become yet one of the several dozen countries that politically "recognized" the 1915 events as "genocide." Can the U.S. fire the same bullet again? No. Once fired, it will be over. Will it change anything apart from a serious blow to Turkish-American relations? No. Will it help the relatives of the 1915 victims, irrespective of their ethnicities, forget their pain? No. But, the U.S. will no longer be able to use the "genocide card" in blackmailing Turkey to undertake decisions and policies we otherwise would not subscribe to.What if Obama uses the contentious word? Will he be using the last bullet in the U.S. revolver and relieving us from decades old blackmail, or will he be helping out any noble cause that we are unaware of? Is it worth to turn our back to Azerbaijan, thus on ourselves?

Many countries have "national sovereignty" celebrations in various forms. Some mark it as "constitution day," while some celebrate it as a "national day" marking the end of the occupation, or some as the start of their independence campaign. It is a very important term, of course, for those who can understand or who are aware of how painful the absence of national sovereignty might be. Is there any other country in the world that marks this day as "National Sovereignty and Children’s Day"? What is the correlation between national sovereignty and children? To understand the true importance of this day for the Turkish people and state, how and when the Turkish Parliament was established must be examined. The Turkish Parliament was established in the middle of the War of Independence, and it was perhaps the sole Parliament the world has ever seen which not only struggled to build a new republic on the ashes of an empire but which itself commandeered the national struggle for regaining the independence of the occupied motherland.

Headed by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founders of the modern Turkish Republic preferred to transfer sovereignty, which until that day was considered divine, to the nation. Instead of imposing themselves as "absolute rulers" they established a legislature in the middle of the war and allowed the national will to enlighten the road to independence. It was the government and the military forces of Parliament that waged the war and won the country’s independence. It was how the Turkish Republic was established.

Thus, April 23 is the day when all the characteristics we identify today as those of modern Turkey were laid down stone by stone, step by step. It was that Parliament that proclaimed Ankara the capital of the new state and secularism the guarantor of freedom of conscience, declared equality of all before the law, and most important of all, introduced the modern and landmark principle: Sovereignty rests unconditionally with the people.

Supremacy of the national will
So easy to say now. So easy to talk about now. But consider the conditions of that period, when part of the country still respected the sultan's government and what was left of the once-gigantic Ottoman Empire: the powerful mullahs insisting on the upholding of Sharia and the divine powers of the sultan and a mostly illiterate fatalist population that believed whatever happened came from Allah and had to be accepted as such. Still, a handful of brave men and women under the leadership of Atatürk managed to change the ill fate of this state and nation. They did not allocate lifetime posts to themselves. They did not set up dynasties. They established a secular republic respecting the supremacy of law and adhering to the principle of the supremacy of national will.

April 23 was not just a revolution. It was not just a change of the administrative and legislative system of a country. It was the day the Turkish nation started to emerge from the darkness of the past into a bright future. It was the date when the Turkish nation said even if the entire world united their might against the Turkish state, there were sons and daughters of that nation who were ready to sacrifice their lives to rescue their "ill-fated mother," as Mehmet Akif Ersoy wrote in the national anthem.

Turkey is now at a new threshold. For the first time since those very difficult times, we have a government headed with a power-obsessive understanding, aspiring to the powers of a sultan. We have cadres in top posts of the republic who share a different worldview and a rather sui generis interpretation Ğ if not outright rejection Ğ of the secularism principle that was so far considered in this country as the central pillar of the success of Turkey having democratic governance in a predominantly Muslim society. In the new period and in full conformity with global trends, it is obvious that Turkish society will become more conservative and, compared to the past, there will be a surge in religious sensitivities. This is a new period that we will hopefully survive without compromising democracy and will emerge out of it in the long too distant future by further consolidating the democratic tradition in this country.

This is a challenging test that the Turkish democracy should not fail.

There is panic on the Greek Cypriot side, as well as in the European and transatlantic quarters hoping to see a Cyprus settlement later this year or the latest by April, the end of the presidential term of President Mehmet Ali Talat, that the nationalist-patriot front getting some 63 percent of the vote in last Sunday’s election and the biggest party of conservative politics in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, the National Unity Party, or UBP, obtaining 26 seats in the 50-member Turkish Cypriot Republican Assembly were setbacks to settlement efforts. Comments made in the Greek Cypriot side all stress that the election victory of the "anti-settlement" bloc loyal to the "any settlement must be based on the two-state reality of the island, political equality of these two founding states and must include continued Turkish guarantees" fundamental line of former Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktaş were indicative of the change of mood in the Turkish Cypriot side and will have a reflection on the talks even if Talat was not affected by the vote. UBP leader and incoming Prime Minister Derviş Eroğlu has been emphasizing his support for "whatever Talat has so far put on the negotiations table, the way he has been conducting talks and his declarations that Greek Cypriots cannot question the sovereign rights of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, or the TRNC, reality."

Similarly, American officials were commenting to this writer on election night after early results had placed the UBP some 15 points ahead of the outgoing two-way coalition’s senior partner socialist Republican Turks’ Party, or CTP: "We are now faced with an awful and very complicated situation." They were not hiding their displeasure with the UBP victory and indeed expressing strong worries that the talks process could land in a deadlock, a not-so-rare situation in the decades of Cyprus peacemaking.

Coalition a probability
Naturally, Greek Cypriots, Europeans and Washington have fixed their ears and eyes on the UBP to learn whether it will establish a single-party government, which it can, or include one of the two smaller parties that each have two seats in parliament or the Democrat Party, or DP, of Serdar Denktaş, which has five seats, and form a coalition government with a larger parliamentary base. It is too early to say which way Eroğlu will eventually go, but because of old enmities, the inclusion of the Freedom and Reform Party, or ÖRP, of outgoing Foreign Minister Turgay Avcı and the DP in a possible coalition appears to be far less likely than the social democrat Communal Democracy Party, or TDP, of Mehmet Çakıcı. Yet, as the parliament speaker has voting rights in the Turkish Cypriot legislature, the UBP’s 26-seat majority is sufficient for a single-party government. Such a government, however, will be at constant risk given the past history of parliamentarians transferring between parties. A coalition between the UBP and the TDP appears likely, though not certain.

Whether the UBP will have a one-party government or a two-way coalition may affect relations between the government and President Talat and consequently how the talks continued. Even though the UBP is supporting Talat’s negotiating position, the inclusion of a representative from the TDP, a party strongly committed to a federal settlement, in a government may help quiet the UBP’s "federation through the evolution of a confederation" position, which it anyhow appears to have shelved since the start of the election campaign, perhaps partly because it was trying not to harm its relations with the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, government in Ankara.

One more point that those pessimistic commentators were missing in evaluating the UBP election victory is the fact that any eventual settlement accord will be subjected to simultaneous referenda of the two sides of the island. At the moment over 60 percent of people on both sides of Cyprus are voicing strong opposition to a deal that Talat and his Greek Cypriot counterpart, Demetris Christofias, are trying to achieve. With the UBP in power and sharing responsibility with Talat, a deal with Greek Cypriots may help get a second "yes" in the north to a peace plan, while prospects are not that bright in the Greek Cypriot sector.

Thus, the UBP victory is not a handicap to the peacemaking process, but a contribution.

In the February 2005 Turkish Cypriot parliamentary elections, many people in the "patriotic front" in the motherland - Turkey - and in the fosterland - the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus - were hoping that the advancement of the socialist Republican Turks’ Party, or CTP, in northern Cyprus and the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, in Turkey would trend downward. On the contrary, the CTP increased its votes in the 2005 vote to 45 percent, significantly higher than the 35 percent share of it in the December 2003 vote. Consequently, the AKP increased its electoral support to 47 percent in the July 2007 parliamentary elections in Turkey, significantly higher than the 34 percent it got in the November 2002 vote. Thus the "butterfly effect," if there was one, was not at all valid in February 2005.

The change of the atmosphere in northern Cyprus, of course, was not at all a product of a "butterfly effect" if one considered the size and the extraordinary importance of Turkey for Turkish Cypriots. It could be best described as a "mammoth effect." The mammoth Turkey walked to a different political preference, and the quakes created by the walking of the mammoth created a strong political quake in northern Cyprus.

Perhaps, when he started to ponder whether to call for early elections, outgoing socialist Prime Minister Ferdi Sabit Soyer was considering that the increased electoral performance of the ruling AKP in Turkey would have a psychological effect, or yet another mammoth effect, on the Turkish Cypriot electorate and help him change the cliffhanger 25 to 25 seats in balance between the leftist and center-right parties in Parliament and thus help him produce a stronger socialist government. Indeed, if the AKP managed to increase its votes from 34 percent of 2002 elections to 47 percent in the 2007 polls, why wouldn’t the CTP increase its electoral support further than the 45 percent it received in 2005?

However, the growing arrogance and worsening economic performance of the AKP government in Ankara landed it an electoral defeat, which could indeed be considered elsewhere as a great success, when electoral support for the ruling party retreated by eight percentage points to 38 percent. The mammoth was walking in a different direction but it was so huge that like an ocean liner perhaps it would take a long time for it to complete redirecting itself.

Is this an impact of the March AKP defeat?
On the island, however, the retreat that has been supporting a "We shall always be a step ahead of the Greeks and Greek Cypriots in peacemaking efforts" policy on the island ever since it came to power back in 2002 might have played a major political reorientation, which produced the return of the patriotic and nationalist domination in parliament with a cumulative over 62 percent electoral support and 33 seats, just one seat short of the required 34 votes needed to make amendments to the constitution.

Furthermore, the biggest conservative party, the UBP, produced 26 seats, enabling it to form the new government on its own. In northern Cyprus, where parliamentarians have developed the skill of moving from one party to the other or resigning from their parties and establishing new parties thanks to manipulation by political actors in Ankara, a government with 26-seat parliamentary support, however, will be no different than trying to walk on razor’s edge for Derviş Eroğlu preparing to make a comeback as premier for the seventh time.

Perhaps just to avoid any unforeseen surprises Eroğlu may opt to have a coalition government with either the social democratic Communal Democracy Party, or TDP, which has two seats in the new parliament, or with the Democratic Party, or DP, of Serdar Denktaş, which has five seats.

We will see that in the days ahead. But will the Turkish Cypriot elections have a "butterfly effect" on Turkish politics? Will there be a return to patriotic and nationalist domination in the Turkish Parliament and in elections scheduled for 2011? Or has the change already started but impacts of it are seen more vividly in northern Cyprus?

Are we faced with a butterfly or a mammoth effect? Or, are the developments just coincidental?

It was no fun to go to mosque early every morning. No, I was not going to mosque for morning prayers.

Those were the difficult years, the primary school of my neighborhood had become barracks for the Turkish regiment which had to leave because of “increased security concerns” and “worries” that a clash with the Greek regiment could develop into a full fledged war between Turkey and Greece and was redeployed in my neighborhood, a few kilometers from the original site allocated for both forces that were sent to island in accordance with the founding treaties of the Cyprus Republic. As our school had become military barracks, the mosque of the neighborhood had become our school, excluding prayer hours.

This time, after decades, I was back in my old neighborhood mosque. This time it was converted into a polling station. In all past parliamentary and local elections held in the Turkish Cypriot political history, the new school building was a sufficiently big polling station for the neighborhood. This time, however, not only the mosque, but the municipal building, the additional municipal service building in the new quarter as well as the headquarters of the sports club were as well converted into polling stations.

As I was driving to the mosque yesterday morning, I remembered those years when all six classes of the primary school were having courses all together in the mosque building in the hearth of the neighborhood. I as well remembered the some sort of a dance-walk we were compelled to develop out of our concern to avoid the mud collected in the not so small holes in the road. Those were the times when the island was “united” but the Turkish Cypriot areas were grossly neglected by the “government” from which the Turkish founding partner was ousted by Greek Cypriot partners by force.

Polling station was very much like a big family gathering. Friends from primary school period, old and young relatives, former neighbors, friends who could not see each other for months, years were all there, some inside the mosque to vote, some engaged in heated political discussions under the old pergola in front of the coffee house opposite the mosque, some enjoying the shade provided by the huge “Verigo” grape tree covering the pergola, while some were playing cards. Demonstrating their democratic maturity, despite continued existence of the ideological divide between them, political antagonistic approaches were long over. There was no quarrel, no violence. It was as if the over-excited debates and tensions of the campaign period that divided families, separated friends never happened at all. Instead, people were discussing the problems the new government will have to tackle, irrespective who came first, second or whatever later in the evening when the vote count is completed.

How the talks with Greek Cypriots will be handled in the new period? Will there be a confrontation between the socialist and pro-settlement President Mehmet Ali Talat and a possible conservative National Unity Party, or UBP, dominated or a socialist-led three way coalition government? Could the election produce a strong-enough government to handle well without political opportunism and populist approaches the mounting economic situation? Would the new government accommodate well with Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, and would the AKP provide some urgent financial assistance which is desperately needed irrespective who comes to power?

Among the conservative elderly as well as one of every two young voters who somehow shifted from left and apparently voted for the conservatives yesterday, were all repeating the “It is time for unity” slogan of the UBP but in a rather different meaning than what the UBP was perhaps tried to tell the electorate during the campaign. They were all stressing that though they voted for the UBP perhaps it was in the best interest of northern Cyprus, settlement efforts and Turkey to have a right-left grand coalition between the UBP and the socialist Republican Turks’ Party, or CTP. Left-wing electorate appeared to be still skeptical of the success of such a government, citing ideological differences.

What would be the outcome of the election? Would the electorate produce a result forcing politicians abandon political differences and establish a grand coalition? There were still hours to learn that when this article was written.

In the last parliamentary elections in Cyprus, in February 2005, there was a cliffhanger result. The collective vote of the left was slightly more than the collective conservative vote, but 50 seats of Parliament was divided equally between the two ideological groups, making it impossible to establish a one ideological block government. Thus, the socialist Republican Turks’ Party, or CTP, which climaxed its electoral support and came first in the 2005 elections with 45 percent of the vote, established a two way coalition with the center-right Democrat Party, or DP, of Serdar Denktaş, the son of first President Rauf Denktaş.

In that 2005 vote, the strongest conservative party, the National Unity Party, or UBP, received a humiliating defeat with 31 percent of the vote. But worse was in store for the UBP. A few months later, in April of the same year, UBP leader Derviş Eroğlu received only 22 percent of the vote, while CTP leader Mehmet Ali Talat scored a straight victory and became the successor of President Denktaş with 55 percent electoral support, while Ferdi Sabit Soyer became the CTP leader and the prime minister. That defeat triggered strong unrest in the UBP, Eroğlu stepped down from leadership and was replaced by former Foreign Minister Tahsin Ertuğruloğlu.

The increase in the CTP’s popular support, which started with the December 2003 parliamentary elections, in which the socialist party for the first time in its history had exceeded 35 percent electoral support, started to take a downward trend when, with alleged guidance and support from the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, government in Ankara, some DP and UBP deputies resigned from their parties. They established the Freedom and Reform Party, or ÖRP, and the DP was replaced in the two-way coalition with the ÖRP. For the first time since the 1973 election of Rauf Denktaş as Turkish Cypriot leader, no Denktaş was present any longer in the northern Cypriot administration.

The way the ÖRP was established was not appreciated by large segments of society and a perception started to spread that the CTP-led government and Talat would surrender at the talks to Greek Cypriots. The start of the latest talks process as well as Talat agreeing to "single citizenship and single sovereignty" demands of the Greek Cypriot side at the beginning stage of the talks further cemented that perception. In a paradoxical manner, while the majority of Turkish Cypriots remained committed to a resolution, support for the talks persistently declined in public opinion polls. People who started to think from 2003 on that right wing politicians were unwilling to have a compromise deal, started to complain about too many compromises being made by Talat without getting the Greek Cypriot side move even an inch on fundamental Turkish Cypriot demand of full political equality of the two peoples in a future federation of "two equal constituent states." The latest polls indicate that if a referendum were held on a deal this Sunday, more than 65 percent might say "no."

The second biggest reason for the decline was continued rampant complaints of nepotism and corruption in administration that Talat and Soyer portrayed in the past as illnesses of conservative politics. People started to say "newcomers" were even worse than the "old team."

The third biggest reason was the growing economic difficulties; despite all their pledges Talat and the CTP could not even ease the international isolation chains on northern Cyprus. Naturally people did not bother with excuses that such pledges were made because the EU or the U.S. made such promises before the 2004 referendum but did not live up to their words later. The success in boosting per capita income in the north from around $7,000 in 2003 to around $15,000 dollars in 2007, thanks to the "casino industry" and the construction boom, took a sharp decline in 2008 also because of the property cases at the European Court of Human Rights.

If the UBP cannot come to power alone, the parliamentary arithmetic that will be produced by the polls might help the CTP remain in power with a three-way coalition because of the "UBP allergy" of almost all other parties. Yet, a right-left grand coalition of the UBP and the CTP might offer a golden opportunity for a compromise settlement on the island and much needed bitter economic reforms.