This letter was written in September 1952 by Adamos Adamantos in response to AKEL's accusations following his expulsion from the party. It was published in the Nicosia afternoon newspaper 'Fos', as the AKEL newspaper 'Neos Dimokratis' (to which the letter is addressed) refused to publish it.

This PDF file was created for archiving purposes until the issue of the newspaper “Fos” can be located and scanned.

The Letter of Adamos Adamantos of 1952

To the director of the newspaper ‘Neos Demokratis’, Nicosia.

Sir,

Referring to the announcement of the AKEL Famagusta Provincial Committee, which you published in your newspaper on 31.8.52 concerning my expulsion from the Party, I request you, by virtue of the Press Law, to publish in the same place and in your next Sunday edition of Sunday 7.9.52) the following:

The Provincial Committee says that, in view of my attitude towards the Party and the violation of basic constitutional principles, it has come to the conclusion that I have no place in the Party and has decided to remove me.

The truth is that the Provincial Committee has never been interested in considering such a matter, nor does it appear that it would have been of concern to its plenary if I had not raised the issue myself.

As a matter of fact, I have long since distanced myself from the Party, I have hardly taken part in Party meetings, I have not been involved in the life of the Party and I have not performed anything but my financial Party obligations, and that is why I have recently requested, for reasons of “order and responsibility”, that my effective removal from the Party be sanctioned by a resolution.

I even pointed out, always openly and officially, and never factionally and insidiously, as the communiqué timidly suggests, that my removal did not mean that I was abandoning even a single iota of my socio-political convictions, but was due to the fact that:

1. I did not agree with the line and tactics of the Party.
2. I did not approve of Party methods both inside and outside the Party.
3. I did not tolerate the lack - as I understood it - of internal democracy within the Party, nor the existence of an organised factional imposition of opinions and views from above, and, finally,
4. The Provincial Committee, therefore, ought to say that I myself requested, and it accepted, as final, my removal from the party and approved my expulsion for the reasons I stated, or even for the reasons which, in its own way and for internal party consumption, it included in its document.

In addition to all this I submitted that: The Party, true to its tactics, methods and purposes, ought to find another disciplined person, absolutely loyal to the leadership and absolutely loyal to it, for the office of Mayor and the leadership of the electoral ballot in the coming municipal elections.

The decision reached at a meeting of the Provincial Committee and the Greek members of the city council on this matter was to find a minimum program and cooperation between a delegation of the party and the mayor.

Such a committee, consisting of the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Fantis, Mr. Iakovos Nicolaou and the Deputy Mayor, Mr. Chr. Savvides, had a long consultation with me, and from the discussion it appeared that there might be some basis for co-operation, although it was almost thwarted by the demand of the incumbent secretary that I should retract what I had said against the Central Party Steering Committee. The suggestion, or rather this demand, that I should make a “statement” was indignantly rejected, and my refusal was very emphatic and no less painful to Mr. Fantis.

Nevertheless, the delegation left with the wish, expressed by Mr. Iakovos, that we should meet again on the matter. However, instead of another meeting following, within a few days, the faction of the municipal council (i.e. all the Greek members of the municipal council) was summoned to the AKEL Club to have Mr Diomedes Hajichristou read a lengthy decision on the issue of the Mayor, with the statement that comments could be made, but without expecting any changes to be made to the decision, because this would mean that the Party's leadership was dual.

I personally did not challenge them on this party right. However, I protested against the way the document was worded and declared that my own views, at least, were not being expressed either exactly or adequately and that I detected (from this first reading) an intention and perhaps a deliberate attempt to present myself, for obvious reasons, as the anti-national and anti-enosis. For this reason, I have requested that I be given a copy in order to make my comments and express my opinions as I wanted them and not as the makers of the document wanted them, and thus give the party groups the opportunity to form an objective view of the whole issue.

The answer with which he agreed Mr. Fantis eventually agreed with, was that the Provincial Secretariat should have been consulted, because they had no authority to give me a copy.

When I repeated my request by telephone the next day, I was told that the secretariat had not yet met. When I also asked a third party to send me a copy, I was told that Mr. Fantis had gone to Nicosia for this matter.

I did not renew my effort, nor was I given any answer or excuse for my request, but I learned that the order which Mr. Fantis had received from the Central Committee was that I should not be given a copy of the decision. In what way all this is compatible with the democratic spirit which they claim to have, and the unquestionable right of the individual to have his own side heard, only they themselves know, and I rely on the testimony of my Municipal Councillors for all this.

The announcement that followed justified my fears. Not only were my views and opinions distorted, but the subtitle of the announcement was inserted in such a way that by omitting the word “today” it created the desirable impression among the beneficiaries that the mayor was being written off by the party for his anti-enosis attitude.

But beliefs and opinions are neither wheat nor barley to take a single handedness and offer it as a sample. They are the result of a series of thoughts and considerations, without which they become incomprehensible, and with slight modifications, they become illusory. Nor can you remove a single word and insist that you are not abusing them.

Especially on the enosis question (I pointed this out to the party delegation) I fundamentally disagree with the party's tactics, because due to the American dominance and monarcho-fascism in Greece, those who must take the lead on this matter are not us (as what awaits us is Gyaros and Makronisos) but the ethno-kekarchy [a reference to KEK, a Greek Cypriot nationalist party], which is inextricably linked to this regime, and which presents, and manages to convince part of the masses that even our mere participation corrupts and damages our effort for enosis, attributing our participation for every one of its own failures.

Our position (I said) in this whole struggle, in the face of this passively acting, patriotism-exploiting right-wing, must be a position of non-reaction, but also of non-leading, a position of rather benevolent support, so that our whole attitude is immutable and we are not blamed for failure, and do not turn into a scapegoat every time, with the stereotypical excuse “it's the communists' fault”.

Besides, I pointed out that from the results of the Embassies so often sent, both on the part of the right and the left, on our question, I have formed the conviction that we are losing our money (as Plastiras said to us) because the solution of our question does not depend much on us, but depends much more perhaps, if not exclusively, on Greek and international conditions, which at present do not appear to be at all favourable.

And from the right they are not favourable because the Government of Athens, in order not to displease its foreign patrons, is unable to promote our cause, and this is not only evident from its present policy, but will also be seen from the journey of the despot, who I have no doubt will return more disappointed than ever. (meaning here the last journey of A. M. to Athens). And from the left the conditions are not favourable because, first of all, this stirring up of the question in international organizations has no political basis and correctness. It even lacks basic logic. Because when official Greece, which is present, does not raise the issue, what right does any other country, especially a country to which it is hostile, have to raise it? Then I have the conviction that the Soviet Union will studiously avoid taking up our question, because, among the other reasons I have given, I think it is a very obvious attempt to keep the ties between Britain and America loose, if not to break them. It would be naïve under such circumstances to raise an issue like the Cyprus Question, which would have the exact opposite effect and would give an additional opportunity to put to an international body the question of the North Continent, the Greek-Bulgarian border and I don't know what else.

If, despite this, the party insists on sending its members to militant events (because the present leadership is not in the habit of doing so), I would like to know what the practical benefit will be. Personally I think none, except for imprisonment and fines, with which we have more than filled the government coffers, and reveries and ironies and mockery from the right-wingers, who are used to doing nothing and taking advantage of everything.

Suppose, I said, that I too were to let go of my reservations and join an irrational struggle. What will be the result? Will the monarcho-fascist government of Greece make my bloodstained shirt into a flag and vigorously assert the demand of our people? Of course not (as we know, not even the pronounced and great Venizelos did not do such a thing after the events of 1931. On the contrary, and despite the protests of MP Zavitsianos, if I remember correctly, Venizelos also agreed with the British Government that the question was closed). But will the ethno-kekarchy here be moved? It would be too naive for anyone to believe such a thing. They will merely pass by the place of the bloodshed, they will view him with disgust and spit on the place where an “proxy of Sovietism” polluted their immutable (even if non-existent) struggle and presented it not as national, which it is, but as a link in an chain of unrest which Moscow’s proxies unleashed across the globe.

Under such circumstances (I added) today I am not willing to submit to unfounded and foolish slogans and to sacrifice even my little finger. Such a sacrifice will be made, and must be made, when there is a government in Greece capable of turning such a sacrifice into a banner and of moving the universe to claim our justice.

And the Greek people? The poor Greek democratic people have been crushed today under the blows of the American state and its agents, and I do not see that the international atmosphere will soon allow light to be shed either on the justice of the Greek or the justice of the Cypriot people.

It will probably take 6 and 10 and 15 more years before that day dawns. But until then, what will we do? The extremist and corrupting struggle that you propose? Or will we remain idle, pressured by a vicious appointive regime?

Surely we could accept a satisfactory degree of political rights and self-government, to acquire genuine popular and national representation, which will not only promote the solution of other issues as far as possible (and will certainly promote them more than the war of words of the newspapers and the memo writing of the party offices) but also allow for observing vigilantly and taking advantage, with prudence and art, of every opportunity, Greek or international, which will promote our national restoration.

I firmly believe that the Constitution does not push Enosis one second away. On the contrary, it promotes it and, at the same time, it will free this land from some hoarseness and, in advance, give it an official, popular, representative voice.

They are expelling me (the document says) because I have lost my fighting spirit. But they do not mention even once any case in which I refused to join the struggle. The truth is that I have lost faith in, or rather I have no confidence in what is called the party leadership and I am not at all prepared to carry out the foolish decisions of Pavlakis and Papaioannou from Nicosia or Fantis and Diomedes from Famagusta. And I have made this clear. My character, my education, my petty bourgeois mentality and dignity do not allow me to do so.

Finally, as to the statement that the party raised me three times to the mayoralty and made me a pan-Cyprian figure, if the claim is that it raised me from obscurity and while I had no merit it brought me to the office of mayor and made me a pan-Cyprian figure, I would like, I say, that others speak of it and not I. Let my fellow citizens, the community of Cyprus, those who have known me, speak.

Varosha, 4.9.52

(signed)

A. D. ADAMANTOS