Imagine a scenario

Imagine two men in a room. They are a little younger than last time but the “known knowns” have not changed. Both of them want to ensure that their people will be safe long into the future. Both of them have elections to think about and both of them have bigger powers breathing over their shoulder.

For one man, let’s call him Mr TC, he knows that, if he can get this deal over the line, his people will be considerably better off than they were beforehand and are likely to vote in favour. Arguably his biggest challenge is persuading the big “sponsor” that it also needs to make moves.

For the other man, let’s call him Mr GC, he knows that, if he can get this deal over the line, he will surely win the Nobel Prize. But everything else is uncertain. All because his own side has insisted upon it, if there is a deal, and it is endorsed in twin referendums, everything will come into force at midnight on the same day. He will go from being the centre of attention in an internationally recognized state on referendum day, to the partial centre of attention in a power-sharing, still internationally recognized state, the following day. Moreover, the political parties who put him in power are biting at his heels, telling him not to compromise.

Is he going to make that deal? Or is he going to (at best) wriggle out of it and blame the other side or (at worst) trash the entire show?

The core weakness of the Cyprus negotiations process

This, dear reader, is the core weakness at the centre of Cyprus problem negotiations. In its current design, the Cyprus negotiations process puts far too much of the burden on two men in a room who have elections coming, and far too little on ordinary citizens. This is despite the fact that research has shown over and over again that citizens in Cyprus are far more flexible about Cyprus problem issues than their politicians.

Now imagine a new scenario

Now let’s imagine a new scenario. There are two men in a room. Both of them still want to ensure that their people will be safe long into the future. Both of them still have elections to think about and both of them still have bigger powers breathing over their shoulder. But this time, they have at their disposal proposals put forward by randomly selected citizens from both communities.

These might be a single, randomly selected citizens’ assembly, or a set of different citizens’ assemblies, each of which is given a specific, tricky topic to handle. They might be citizens’ assemblies on the classic “core Cyprob” issues, or they might be citizens’ assemblies on related issues that help the leaders reach agreement on the core issues.

An assembly on preventive security?

For example, one randomly selected representative assembly could address the question of “preventive security”. This is a topic that has traditionally been more or less ignored at the high-level negotiations, as the negotiating parties have focused on troops and guarantees, or to put it more colloquially, “guns ‘n’ ammo”.

Imagine, however, a raft of proposals, prepared by citizens, which recommend a range of preventive structures designed to reduce drastically any rationale for outside intervention in future. These might include early warning systems, mediation mechanisms, policing policies, anti-discrimination bodies, even street lighting to ensure people feel safe in certain areas. The Centre for Sustainable Peace and Democratic Development (SeeD) published some proposals like this (minus the street lighting) in 2017.

An assembly on a step-by-step approach?

Another randomly selected representative assembly could handle the question of whether the new state of affairs should come into force at midnight on the day of twin referendums, or whether it should be a step-by-step approach, where the two sides gradually get to know each other, gradually get to trust each other, and then have another vote, perhaps in 10 years’ time, where they decide the final state of affairs.

The Greek Cypriots have traditionally rejected a step-by-step approach, for fear that it will constitute recognition of a secessionist entity. However, if a randomly selected citizens’ assembly, comprising voters in both communities, proposes this, it could give democratic legitimacy to move away from the current “big bang” approach. The problem with the big bang approach is that it raises the bar for success so high that the Cyprus problem remains unresolved. And yet the world as we knew it is falling to pieces around us, with who knows what consequences for this small island. This means that finding ways to do things differently is a really urgent matter.

A displaced persons’ assembly?

Others have suggested an assembly of internally displaced persons (refugees in Cyprob parlance), who could be tasked with another question which has not been dealt with in detail at the high-level negotiations, namely how to run an “exchange” programme (where dispossessed owners opt to exchange their property for another), or how to incentivize a smooth and rapid property settlement process (for example using mass claims procedures and modern technology to speed things up).

A “hard core subject” assembly?

A bolder project, but one which I understand no one is quite ready for (even in some cases among the “peace” community), might put all of the “Guterres Framework” questions to one or more citizens’ assemblies. This would include questions about how political equality is expressed in practice; how much territory forms part of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot constituent states; how property reinstatement, exchange or compensation is handled; the free movement of goods and persons; and the future of unilateral intervention rights and of troops.

For the time being, the political leaders seem keen to keep these “classic” Cyprus problem questions to themselves. However, asking citizens to deliberate jointly on related questions, which could help them walk that final mile on the “big” questions, would still be a considerable improvement on the current, bound-to-fail, process.

Testing the proof of concept: C-UP

Whatever happens, we really need to change the way the process is conducted, to lower that bar for success and make sure the leaders are properly supported when making difficult decisions. This is why I am delighted that the EU is now funding the Updated Cyprus Peace Process Design (“C-UP”), a new project led by the Cyprus Peace and Dialogue Center (CPDC – note new website) in partnership with the interdisciplinary centre for Law, Alternative and Innovative Methods (ICLAIM).

Image: EU and UN together with CPDC and ICLAIM at the launch of the EU-funded C-UP project on 16 December. Photo source: CPDC.

A key aim of C-UP (a term I coined when we first launched the idea in May 2024), is to pilot citizens’ assemblies that focus not on the substantive “big questions” but on negotiations process design. How can we ensure that the negotiations process is designed for success and responsive to voters’ expectations in the 21st century? As CPDC president Meltem Onurkan Samani noted at the launch in December, “If this time is to be different, then the process itself must be different.” I hope to be writing more on this topic in the coming months.

Democracies desperately need to engage citizens

Even aside from the Cyprus problem, there is a pressing need for democracies to engage voters, given the shocking lack of trust in politicians and governments.

The latest Eurobarometer survey published in December 2025 showed that an astonishing 87% of (Greek) Cypriots tend not to trust political parties. In the Turkish Cypriot community, political parties fared better, with “only” 48% not tending to trust them. As for trust in government, 63% of (Greek) Cypriots do not trust their government. The question is not asked (or at least not published) for the Turkish Cypriot community, presumably because of recognition issues. But the EU average for not trusting governments is also 63%.

This is why we see a rise of populist parties and this is why we all risk sliding into authoritarianism, as populist parties realize that they cannot deliver what they promised.

Image source: EU Barometer Survey question on trust in government (pasted together by me).

Citizens really like being asked

I have also had personal experience of the benefits of engaging citizens. In December 2024 I worked with CPDC on a UNDP-funded “mini assemblies” project (public report waiting for me to prepare it!). The topic was not the Cyprus problem but energy transition.

The most striking thing for me was how engaged the ordinary voter participants were. Moreover, even when the proposition was “pretend your authorities are asking for proposals from you and that they will act upon your proposals”, they were really grateful to have their voices heard.

So even if you are sceptical about the capacity of citizens’ assemblies to solve the Cyprus problem, at least consider giving assemblies a chance to save us from terrors of populism, authoritarianism and tyranny.

If you want my premium monthly in-depth product, check out Sapienta Country Analysis Cyprus and other deep-dive reports here or single copies here. And if you can’t afford those but want the executive summary only for just €100/year*, you can find that here on Substack, at Cyprus Pocket Brief. Or support this publication, Sapienta Cyprus Snippets, for just €49 per year* by upgrading to paid.

Or tip me here, thank you

Share

*Monthly payments are a massive administrative headache, so since I can’t switch them off I have effectively banned them by setting the monthly price the same as the annual.