A surprise awaited Nikos Christodoulidis at the meeting with the leadership of DIPA-Synergasia on Friday. While he expected that the communication between the two sides would focus on internal governance issues, something that had been agreed upon in the first meeting between Christodoulidis and DIPA, Marios Karoyan brought back the Cypriot issues to the discussion. In fact, the president of DIPA “violated” this agreement and had his reasons for doing so. According to “P” information, Marios Karoyan raised before Nikos Christodoulidis issues concerning the Cypriot and which arose from the statements of the president of DIKO in the last days, starting from Sunday, when the Central Committee of DIKO decided to support Nikos Christodoulidis. At Friday's meeting, Marios Karoyan asked Nikos Christodoulidis to take a position on the statements of Nikolas Papadopoulos on key issues in the Cyprus issue and whether these positions also reflect the candidate himself. As “P” is informed, the candidate for the presidency made it clear before the DIPA delegation that the statements of the president of DIKO do not necessarily represent him, while he will position himself in detail on the Cypriot in the next period and mainly on his attitude in relation to the Guterres framework, the International Monetary Fund and the Cyprus solution framework. Marios Karoyan sent the message to his colleague that in the statement of positions, on the main issue which is the Cyprus issue, there is confusion, because on the one hand there are the public positions of DIKO and on the other the content of the positions as expressed by the candidate for chairmanship at the first meeting that DIPA had with him. The issues raised by the president of DIPA are specific:
- To what extent does the candidate for the presidency agree with the statements on the Cyprus issue as expressed by Nikolas Papadopoulos during the week.
- To what extent do the public reports of DIKO express the candidate and to what extent are these reports binding for the candidate himself.
- He asked Nikos Christodoulidis to take a position on the announcement of DIKO on July 22, 2017, a few days after Cran Montana, in which the then government representative, that is, himself, is criticized. In his statement, Nikos Christodoulidis had mentioned that “our side's approach was not zero troops and zero guarantees at the negotiating table”
Inconsistency
As “P” realizes, DIPA rightly puts Nikos Christodoulides' positions on the Cyprus issue up for discussion, but also under the microscope. He finds an inconsistency in the content of the positions he poses in his meetings as a candidate for President in relation to the declared opinions of DIKO, which he took care of as throughout the week to be presented by its president.
Marios Karoyan's handling of his second meeting with Nikos Christodoulidis had to do with DIPA's attempt to understand the real views of Nikos Christodoulidis in the current phase of the Cyprus issue, since it is established that he is currently expressing himself in generalities, apparently with the aim of be liked by the different groups it addresses. In other words, it is established that last week, both the candidate for the presidency and DIKO, each made their own pre-election campaign.
It is clear, however, that the candidate for the presidency and currently elected of DIKO, regardless of whether he identifies with the positions and assessments of the party, which of course proclaims that it does not stay in the past, aspires to remain within the logic of autonomy of speech and actions. He wishes to maintain his communication with an audience that is addicted to general, catchphrase references to all science, without being able, at present, to present functionally elaborated propositions that provide solutions. It should be noted that, despite the support of DIKO, the candidate for the presidency has not fully clarified his intentions, but also his disposition on how the party that supports him will turn into an active force, not at the level of an organizational structure and participation in the pillars of its action, but in the issues related to the content of what will be said to the outside. This issue is probably considered a big problem: How will the associates of Nikos Christodoulidis manage to maintain a public line, which is complementary to their positions and not contradictory, and mainly with elements of conflict in their various parameters. Will the active participation of other parties in Christodoulidis' campaign be a catalyst for the candidate?
