This pamphlet was published in 1985 in Limassol.

This PDF file is a scanned republication of the pamphlet, from a Greek collection of Cypriot anarchist texts on the Cyprus problem, entitled "for Cyprus", published in 2004 by the B12 initiative in Athens.

CYPRUS: THE NATIONAL ISSUE AND THE ANARCHISTS

This text was written by comrade A.P. around the end of 1985. Although it is his personal effort, it also expresses the general view of the Cypriot Anarchists who contributed (theoretically and practically) to the shaping of its final form.

—

The national issue in Cyprus is part of everyday life. You are born with it, you hear people talking about it everywhere and you almost can't imagine the world without it. No matter if in its specific form the national issue means different things every dozen or so years (e.g. Enosis, independence, occupation of Northern Cyprus). People (nannyed by their politicians) talk as if the problem has always been the same - and for hours they give you the impression that they can't imagine a world without it.

The far left that emerged after '74 did not, of course, escape these concerns. On the contrary, it made them the centre of its problematic. It tried to introduce a certain social critique through the classic thesis of left nationalism, that the ruling classes are selling out the national struggle.

Over time, two completely opposite interpretations of this position became clear - on the one hand, the Trotskyists (1) adopted the Cypriot national identity, the hat of the Cypriot state and defined the national issue as the struggle for independence (i.e. the independence and undisputed authority of the Cypriot state in Cyprus). On the other hand, the Maoists (this fashion has quickly faded away) made a long dive into the past and rediscovered Enosis (2). Here hellenism acquired all the romanticism that had been dreamed of for years by the nationalist movement. The Greek state became for the Unionists something similar to Moscow for the Communist Youth of Greece, and the national struggle acquired almost metaphysical dimensions - the preservation of our hellenism, “Enosis with the mother” and other similar things.

The anarchists were the first to deny the centrality of the national issue, the label of national identity, centring their critique against social contradictions and conflicts. Although this change of emphasis may seem simple now (especially abroad), its shaping was not so easy. Even today leftists try to put us in their labels (New Cypriots-Greeks, or “Cypriot, then what are you?” Unthinkable for them to be a person without a national identity). “How will we deal with the 'occupation'?” “How will we solve the Cyprus problem?” etc. These are not exaggerations - they are results of the ideological climate (and narrow-mindedness) created by nationalism, even in a milieu that wants to call itself revolutionary.

AN ANARCHIST CRITIQUE OF THE NATION

The anarchist critique of the ideology of the national is not simply based on internationalism - and this is one of the reasons why leftists find it difficult to understand it. The anarchist critique consists of two parts - the critique of the idea of the nation as an ideology and in the critical reassessment of the historical experience or nationalism. Anarchists do not deny the objective existence of problems that could be called “national” - they are problems concerning a dependency, cultural imperialism, etc. The difference with left and right nationalists lies in the definition of the social whole and in the way of dealing with the problem. Nationalists readily identify the social whole with an objective collective entity - the nation. However, the only objective substance of the nation is its state (that which exists or that which is about to be built). The nation, from an anarchist perspective, is an ideological unity cultivated through various mechanisms and based on the subjective identification of individuals.

The nation is not something objectively-historically given. Nations appeared in the Modern Age, but the process of their formation is neither inevitable nor ideologically innocent. Nations are formed around a state through long processes of conflict - not only external but also internal. Cultural and social minorities are suppressed and disappear (3), the state becomes the central axis of every nation, and nationalism, after the romantic phase of national constitution, becomes openly reactionary, suppressing social conflict in the name of the nation's supra-social unity. One could, of course, say that even if the rise of the nation is not a process of the “historical destinies of the race”, nevertheless nations are eventually constituted and do exist. The world is full of them and it's like closing your eyes to reality by denying the objectivity of their existence now. That's what anyone could have said 20 years ago. Today, however, things are not so simple. Even in the now 'historic' nations of Europe one encounters strong escaping tendencies, social and regionalist minorities asserting their autonomy from the stifling unity of the nation and its political administrator - the state. The emergence of these movements is not a new phenomenon. On the contrary, it is the continuation of a conflict that has been going on since the idea of the nation was formed and promoted. Nations were formed after internal conflicts - ideological and social (4). And this conflict continues and takes on new dimensions today.

Historically, anarchists have been among the leading figures in the resistance against the centralisation-homogenisation of the nation-state. For anarchists understood (even if they did not write it in academic dissertations) that the imperialism of the metropolis on the periphery is not only at the global level but also within a “nation-state” (capital against the province, hegemonic culture against the marginal, etc.). This is the basis of anarchist internationalism - an internationalism based on non-power, diversity and pluralism. Starting from the autonomy and interaction of different communities within a society, it proceeds to the international level. The reference point in these contexts is the community, not the nation. And it is for this reason that anarchists can be both anti-imperialists and critics of nationalist movements and their practices.

Because nationalism and the nation are ideological constructs and movements that undermine the practice of liberation. And a comparison could be made between Bolshevik socialism and nationalism. Both ideologies promise “great riches” before coming to power - but once in power they become just as (if not more) oppressive. And perhaps the convergence of Leninism and nationalism in the Third World is not so coincidental.

THE HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE OF NATIONALISM IN CYPRUS

If the nation is an idea that offers collective identification, nationalism is the ideology that promotes, cultivates and imposes it. The historical trajectory of nationalism in Cyprus (to return to reality after the journey to abstraction) is typical. Nationalism was not born spontaneously as a result of historical processes or as an awakening to the “destinies of the race” (5). Nationalism was imposed on Cypriots in the 19th century. Not only is the ethnic division non-existent but we have several common uprisings of Orthodox Christians and Muslims (the Greek-Turkish terms were also non-existent) against the elites of the two communities. Nationalism was imported from Greece and Turkey and imposed on the population through the educational system, vulgar politics and spectacular polarization. English colonialism was by no means unconnected to these developments (however much they ultimately damaged it). It introduced the Greek-Turkish separation (and imposed the conditions) at the level of political power. It would, however, be a mistake to think that nationalism was a ploy by the elites and colonialists to suppress social conflict. The rise of nationalism was promoted by various strata, but it was largely a phenomenon that was born by power structures and in turn promoted the reconstruction of power structures in Cyprus. Over the last 100 years, nationalism has been the ideological response of power (and its structures) to social conflict.

And anyone who looks at the history of the rise of nationalism will see this constant conflict between the ideology of power and elements of social resistance. A prime example of this conflict that has continued for decades is the refusal of the majority of Cypriots to accept an active form of chauvinism. Until before 74, when there were still relations between the two communities on a daily level, nationalism had only succeeded in making people passive in the face of its racist hysteria - the majority of Cypriots said and believed the now classic statement: “But we have nothing against the Turks (or Greeks)”. However, the prevalence of nationalism after the 1950s was total - and did not only lead to tension between the 2 communities. It created the ideological atmosphere that legitimized the state, suppressed class struggle for decades in the name of “national unity” and made the patriarchal family the undisputed basis of society.

As we have tried to show elsewhere, nationalism was essentially the unifying element of the hegemonic ideology. In '74, nationalism went through its most intense crisis in decades. In the space of a few months it was forced to change its face and went from being Greek with tsarouhia and davuls to Cypriot with vraka pants and lute. For a while it seemed that this change would be as successful as what was happening before '74. Around the end of the 70s, however - and especially from the 80s onwards - a general indifference among Cypriots and a shift to a petit bourgeois individualism began to emerge. The national isssue is of course everywhere - but there is also a cynicism at the same time.

The rallies are thinning out and the parties are forced to resort to spectacular political crises in order to keep the interest of the viewers-voters. At first glance, this shift may seem uninteresting or perhaps even worse than before. Leftists, who feel their loneliness more acutely, have a literature around “the situation getting worse”. They've settled everything in their theories and decided that the ruling classes don't want “the people” to care about the national issue - because as everyone knows this is Aeolus' bag for the “revolutionary prospects”. Now, of course, why Lycaugis cries out and wails about our store every day in “Phileleftheros” is not explained to us - maybe he has “revolutionary tendencies” too. From an anarchist point of view, however, today is [but] a reaction to the flattening and oppressive society constituted by the nationalist imaginary. A reaction with no positive prospects for the moment, but nevertheless a reaction as a continuation of the historical tradition - the conflict between the ideology of power (nationalism) and social resistance (however distorted the latter may be). Thus, if it followed the crisis of nationalism, this reaction was not a mere feedback loop. Slowly, new elements of politics and consciousness are also emerging. The emergence of anarchism (towards the end of the 1970s) was the first element of resistance and critique. For Cypriot anarchism is not just imported ideas - it is a reaction born out of the contradictions of Cypriot society. And its clearly anti-nationalist position is directly related to the historical experience of the individuals who make it up. Recently, new signs have begun to emerge. There are some basic mobilisations around community demands, even some spontaneous strikes, some discussion around women's equality is opening up, a youth subculture is beginning to be formed, etc. These phenomena do not, of course, constitute any revolutionary etc. movement. They are reformist, trade unionist or even marginal phenomena. Their emergence, however, is a promising new development. Something is finally in motion, albeit spasmodically. Beyond that, their appearance brings the results of tensions in social structures. In one sense, they are premonitions of a more general crisis in society. And the emergence of this crisis is not unrelated to the crisis of nationalism. The crisis of this incriminating element of the hegemonic ideology has loosened somewhat the tight ideological unity of society, opening the way for the expression of static contradictions in various social spheres and structures. The crisis of nationalism has not only not been promoted by the ruling classes, but is the result of structural contradictions and social resistances. And it is a positive thing. A radical critique must deepen this crisis and establish an alternative pole of reference if it wants to intervene in social developments. The unionists and the Trotskyists of Ekfrasi have become the tails of parties, ideologies and imaginaries from the past. Marx used to also say good things: “The revolution must draw its poetry from the future and not from the past”. In this context, there is a need to set aside the national issue from the centre of the debate - especially among individuals and groups who do not live with a romantic image of the past, but who are interested in constructing an alternative space and discourse.