Ethnic Nationalism and Adaptation in Cyprus

Abstract

Both ethnic communities in Cyprus have maintained strong political and cultural ties with Greece and Turkey, respectively, and at some point of their twentieth century history, each has aspired to become part of either the former or the latter. Yet the way this relationship has been imagined has differed across time, space, and class. Both communities have adapted their identities to prevailing ideological waves as well as political opportunities, domestic alliances, and interests. The article evaluates different responses to ethnic nationalism, highlighting important intra‐ethnic differentiations within each Cypriot community usually expressed in the positions of political parties, intellectuals, and the press. While the current literature identifies two major poles of identity in the island, “motherland nationalism” and “Cypriotism,” the article suggests that the major focus of identity of Cypriots is identification with their respective ethnic communities in the form of Greek Cypriotism or Turkish Cypriotism. In fact, contentious politics in Cyprus from the ENOSIS/TAKSIM struggle to the April 2004 referendum demonstrate the interplay of external constraints and collective self‐identification processes leading to the formation of these identities. The article concludes by identifying the implications of identity shifts for deeply divided societies and conflict resolution in general.

Identity and European integration: diversity as a source of integration1

“…Loizides (2007: 185), drawing on Laitin's (1998) analysis, argues that the ‘case of Cyprus supports scholarly perspectives that see identities as constructed and reconstructed as political factors and opportunities change’. From this perspective, Cypriot identity is both contingent and contextual.…”

“…Although these appropriate symbols and rhetoric from both mainland nationalism and from Cypriotism, they pay ‘more attention to the aspirations of the ethnic community in the island than to the interest of the ‘national centers’ or Cyprus as a whole. Thus, Greek Cypriotism and Turkish Cypriotism take ascendancy in two respective frequently oppositional camps’ (Loizides 2007: 173).…”

“…Although the Annan plan which proposed the reunification of the island was rejected in 2004, Eurobarometer studies at the same time indicated a rise in the number of Cypriots from both communities identifying themselves as only Cypriot (Eurobarometer 2004: 1). Loizides (2007: 185) has argued, meanwhile, that the response to Tassos Papodopoulos's speech on 7 April 2004, urging the ‘Greek Cypriot people’ to vote NO to the referendum, marked a turning point in Greek‐Cypriot self‐perception: ‘Thus, while all other ‘glorious moments’ in Greek Cypriot history were celebrated with Greek flags, at the end of Papadopoulos's speech, individuals spontaneously rushed to the presidential palace waving Cypriot flags, appropriating those as a symbol of Greek Cypriot identity …’…”

Echoes from the Past: Intergenerational Memories in Cyprus

“…However, the adults that the children come into contact with on a daily basis within family networks are also likely to present much messier memories reflecting their varying personal experiences and previous or current ideological positioning. For example, Loizides () argues that nationalist discourses often reflect right/left wing ideologies within the two main communities with the left more likely to challenge the selective amnesia of both sides. At times, during the focus group discussions, some young people suggested that more nuanced presentations of history were recounted by family members as the following quote indicates:

Of course I think both sides say different stories but my grandmother says it is so hard and both sides made bad things happen to each other and we each need to remember this.

…”

The Politico-Psychological Factors Of The Cyprus Conflict

“…The literature on the Cyprus conflict can be classified into two in terms of internal and external dynamics. Whereas some studies focused primarily on the internal dynamics of the Cyprus conflict (Kelman, 1990;Hadjipavlou-Trigeorgis,1993;Diamond and Fisher, 1995;Yılmaz, 2004;Loizides, 2007;Husnu and Crisp, 2010), the others dealt predominantly with the external aspects of the conflict (Keashly and Fisher, 1990;Richmond, 1999;Fisher, 2001;Güney, 2004;Müftüler-Bac and Güney, 2005;Eralp and Beriker, 2005).…”