On the verge of disrespectful dialogue between them, it seems that the leaderships of AKEL and DIKO are moving with what is leaked regarding their consultations for cooperation in the presidential elections. Obviously, this “achievement” is not only the responsibility of one side, but rather this is an attempt by both parties to cover their ears in the event of a possible failure of the attempt to coexist with a common candidate. The last “show” of the two parties seems to be developed around the name of the deputy president of DIKO Christiana Erotokritou.
The logical extension of the discussions in relation to Mrs. Erotokritou is that this proposal was made as an alternative to the rejection by AKEL of the candidacy of Nikolas Papadopoulos. That is to say, as some of DIKO leaked, the party president, aiming to reach an agreement with the main opposition party, informally threw the name of his deputy in the party on the table. An information that is not immediately refuted, but is in complete contradiction with the public obsession of some of the DIKO executives that the party's political congress made an unequivocal decision, to promote the candidacy of its president and no one else in the consultations with AKEL . The whole discussion, which develops mainly with various leaks in the media, has to do with:
- With the different readings that are developed in DIKO for the possibility to pass the opinion that their interlocutors do not respect the sensitivities of the party, but also their right to express their proposal themselves in front of the candidacy of their president. As the general secretary of DIKO Athos Agapitos stated yesterday in the Third Program of RIK, “we decide the persons we will propose in the dialogue and not AKEL”. With aggressive statements, which give the impression that some executives of DIKO, or in their entirety, do not want at all the possibility of cooperation with AKEL. {Bullet}
Concern and confusion
At AKEL it is clear that there is a serious concern about the possibility of accepting the second class in DIKO, something that Stefanos Stefanou took care to make public in connection with the removal from equation of the leaders of the two parties which will attempt to conclude their cooperation. On this, however, it seems in the proposal for Erotokritos that there were also positive recipients, outside the collective bodies. Even in AKEL, some people seem to be suspicious of the authenticity of the informal proposal of DIKO, because they estimate that “it may hide elements of tactics, with the aim of perpetuating the process”. At the same time, party officials are expressing ignorance as to whether such a proposal really exists in earnest or whether it was simply put up for dialogue without further clarification or discussion. They even think that some aspire to convince them of the impossible: “That it is possible to square the circle”.
