By Andreas Giorkatzis
Once the intention of the citizens to vote is crystallized through the polls and in some way the political thermometer rises, the parties will resort to insults and leontarias to repatriate the lost votes.
The parties, therefore, "in proportion", will dig up memories of the past, hoping to strengthen their percentages. The forces that voted "no" to the Annan plan (AKEL, DIKO, EDEK, EUROCO) will stigmatize DISY and its followers as being "young" and "outsiders". Consequently, the parties of denial will emerge as the guardians of the sanctuaries and saints of Hellenism, raising as a banner the "no" of the Cypriot people by about 80%.
It is worth attempting a historical re-emergence, to show that there are many examples in modern Greek history, where the majority was not always right before the unfair court of history.
Typically, when in October 1931 the Cypriot people expressed their desire to oppose - revolt against the British, due to the ruthless measures of the British governor Ronald Storrs, Eleftherios Venizelos opposed, considering such a rebellion. He believed that the Cypriot people should participate in the political development of the island, even under colonial rule, because it would create the conditions for the fulfillment of its goals. He believed, in short, in the solution of the Cyprus problem through the successive stages and the good friendship with England. However, the entire Cypriot-Greek political leadership and public opinion, led by the "Cyprus Struggle Committee", burned Venizelos for his slowness and "radiance", proceeding to the violent digging of the Cypriot. The uprising culminated in the burning of the British Government. Since then, the Cyprus issue has entered other paths, with the hardening of the English stance and the gradual introduction of the Turkish Cypriots - Turkey as equal players in the Cyprus issue.
Consequently, the majority was not right in the case of the inclusion of the Cyprus issue in the UN agenda in 1954 (internationalization of the Cyprus issue). At that time, the General Director of the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs was Alexis Kyrou, a Cypriot, who pressured the Papagou government to act as a representative of Cyprus for the internationalization of the Cyprus issue. In the public debate that took place at that time, with the culmination of the internationalization or not of the Cypriot, the only ones who disagreed were: the diplomat and politician Panagiotis Pipinelis and the writer George Theotokas. The majority of the Greek and Cypriot people, the press, the church, the academics, have been ardent supporters of internationalization. Internationalization ended in utter failure with innumerable consequences for Hellenism. The Cypriot issue came out of its "microcosm" and was led to its "macrocosm": from a purely colonial issue of Greece-England, it was transformed into an issue of Greece, England, Turkey, USA, Russia. Since then, different factors saw different things, from different points of view, in the Cyprus problem.
Selectively, history is not a quantitative concept, unless sufficient time has passed since the historical events took place, which is why it often ends up being for the actors: "my story, my sin, my big mistake."