The History of the Communist Party in Cyprus: Colonialism, Class and the Cypriot Left 9780755626342, 9781780761749

Citation preview

To my family of origin, Nicos, Androulla and Alexandros (a person’s roots) To my family of creation, Yiota, Nicos and Stelios (a person’s wings)

ABBREVIATIONS

Agrarian Party (AP) Archives of Contemporary Social History (ASKI) British Labour Party (BLP) Communist International (Comintern) Communist Party of Cyprus (CPC) Communist Party of Greece (CPG) Communist Party of Britain (CPB) Communist Youth of Cyprus (CYC) Cypriot Farmers Union (EAK) Cypriot Farmers Union (EKA) Cyprus Labour Party (CLP) Cyprus Workers’ Confederation (SEK) Greek Builders Union (GBU) Labour – Agrarian Party (LAP) Labour Federation (LF) Limassol Labour Centre (LLC) Pancyprian Federation of Labour (PEO) Pancyprian Federation of Women Organisations (POGO) Pancyprian Organisation of Democratic Women (PODG) Pancyprian Trade Union Committee (PTUC) Popular Cooperative Union (PCU) Popular Party (PP)

ABBREVIATIONS

Progressive Party of the Working People (AKEL) Progressive Youth Organisation (AON) United Democratic Youth Organisation (EDON) Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) Worker – Peasant Party (WPP) Workers’ Communist Youth League (WCYL)

ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The left movement in Cyprus has a long-standing presence on the island, second only to the Greek Orthodox Church. As long ago as the early 1920s, the left institutionalised its presence by establishing Cyprus’s first political party. Since then, the left has revealed itself to be a powerful social and electoral presence in Cyprus. Despite their significant presence, however, the communist left in Cyprus has never been the subject of historical or academic research, leaving a significant gap in the history of modern Cyprus. It was this lack of serious and comprehensive research on the Communist Party of Cyprus (CPC) that led me to undertake such a study. And so I began to investigate the origins, organisation and political discourse of the CPC, the first island-wide political party in Cyprus. This book has its roots in my family tradition. My grandfather was a member of the CPC and (a prominent cadre) of AKEL; my father, too, was a leading figure in AKEL. The book, originally a large part of my doctoral dissertation, is a study of both the CPC and democracy in Cyprus in the British colonial era. In the present book I have explored many of these same areas but more deeply, and the end product is an updated and much richer study and analysis. As was perhaps always likely to be the case, this book has taken rather longer to complete than I had originally anticipated. Given the rather lengthy gestation, I have incurred an extensive array of debts, both personal and intellectual. A number of people have commented at various stages on the ideas and arguments that found their way in

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

xi

some form or another into this text. I would like to acknowledege the following people for their contribution (alphabetically): Alexis Alecou, Andreas Panayiotou, Caesar Mavratsas, Christophoros Tzionis, Christos Kourtellaris (senior), the late Giorgos Christodoulides, Kostas Gouliamos, Maria Hadjipavlou, Michalis Spourdalakis, Nicos Katsourides, Petros Papapolyviou, Robert Holland, Rolandos Katsiaounis, Yiannakis Colokasides. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to the supervisor of my original doctoral dissertation, Professor Kyriakos Demetriou, who provided invaluable feedback and detailed comments on earlier drafts. Our lengthy discussions throughout the years have helped me understand the way in which scholarly research must be planned, structured and presented. This research would not have been possible without the support of several people, to whom I owe many thanks. Elena Petridou-Challouma and Stavroulla Sofroniou, administrative staff of the University of Cyprus’s Department of Social and Political Sciences, for their help during the years of my PhD thesis. Christos Spyrou and Vassilis Constantinou at the Press and Information Office of the Republic of Cyprus for facilitating my study of the press archive. Maria Economidou, head of the library of the Cyprus Archaeological Museum, for allowing me access to the newspapers of the CPC that have been withdrawn from public view due to deterioration caused by the lapse of time. Photographer Andreas Manolis for photographing and digitalising the newspapers of the CPC. Susannah Verney, who took on the difficult task of translating the Greek text of my PhD thesis into English. Kathy Stephanides, who undertook the editing of the book. Tomasz Hoskins at I.B.Tauris for being such an exemplary and patient editor and Allison Walker for her assistance in finalising the book. Financial support for part of the research was provided by the British School at Athens and the A.G. Leventis Foundation to whom I also extend my gratitude. Special thanks are also due to Professor Philip Murphy, Director of the Institute of Commonwealth Studies of the University of London, for awarding me a visiting fellowship at the Institute, which helped my research at the National Archives in London.

xii

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY IN CYPRUS

As I mentioned at the outset, the original inspiration for this book is owed to my family: my father Nicos, my late mother Androulla and my brother Alexandros. Each one has helped and supported my effort in his/her own different way. My gratitude to them is immeasurable. Finally, I must thank my wife Yiota, without whom I would never have been able to complete this book. It is, therefore, rightly and with all my love, that I dedicate the book to her. Yiannos Katsourides

FOREWORD

The history of political parties in Cyprus, their foundation and role within a state of affairs dominated by constant flux, discord and turbulence, has been long an uncharted area of academic research. Dr Yiannos Katsourides’ lucid study on the history of the Communist Party of Cyprus (CPC), the formal predecessor of the existing Progressive Party of the Working People, AKEL, comes as a welcome de´but and promises to fill a multi-fragmented ‘party map’ as well as probe into scattered material related to the emergence and endurance of the Cypriot Left on the island. The study is essentially and unequivocally a major contribution to the field of Cypriot political history, exploring a wide range of factors and ensuing dynamics, often at variance with international norms and practices, which led to the consolidation of the Cypriot Left in the middle of the 1920s. Among its many unique features the CPC emerged in the contest of British imperialist rule and thus could not function within, nor embrace, the spectrum of traditional, party-oriented forms of activism, organisational structure and political discourse. The origins of the CPC and its aftermath are therefore inextricably linked to a variety of extraneous influences, and most notably those of the imperialist hegemon, Greece and Turkey. Despite, or because of, those largely untypical features and contextual parameters, the CPC interestingly permeated Cypriot society and managed to get

xiv

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY IN CYPRUS

integrated into a society then plagued by social conflicts, inequality and poverty, and most importantly by inflated ideological division. In carrying out most of his study, Katsourides utilises an amazingly rich bundle of both archival and secondary sources, diluted into detailed explanatory observations and commentaries along his chosen analytical framework, that help any reader both to get acquainted with pragmatic politics in Cyprus during the first half of the twentieth century and understand and interpret inter alia class dynamics, constitutional arrangements, the ideological mechanisms of anti-colonialism, the role of the Church and the rise of ethnic consciousness and divisions. Katsourides’ study breaks new ground in Cypriological political and historical research. With its unrivalled scholarship, respect of minute detail, observational precision and his sensitivity towards the subject of his research, he managed to produce a work that will provide an essential guide to the professional historian and political scientist, as well as serve as a very useful reference book for students of both history and politics at all levels. Kyriakos Demetriou Professor of Political Science University of Cyprus

INTRODUCTION

Cyprus politics are distinguished by a seminal paradox. Unlike other communist parties in Europe, the Cypriot communist party (AKEL – Progressive Party of the Working People) has followed an exceptional upward course during the years since the collapse of the ‘actually existing socialism’ and is justifiably described as ‘one of the most unusual and interesting parties in Europe’.1 Even more intriguingly, AKEL governed Cyprus from 2008–13 when its leader, Demetris Christofias, was elected president, thus making Cyprus the only European Union member-state to have had a communist president. The party was officially founded in 1926 as the Communist Party of Cyprus (CPC). It was rebranded as AKEL in 1941 in order to escape colonial proscription; at the same time the CPC was making a conscious choice to create a mass party organisation that would be highly integrated in society. Since 1941, the Party has supported the peaceful or electoral ‘road to power’ and used a variety of means to increase its overall influence. This strategy has enabled AKEL to occupy a prominent place in the island’s political landscape throughout the second half of the twentieth century, and even so today. Despite the Party’s endurance and electoral success – a most interesting subject for research – the majority of studies on Cyprus are one-dimensional, such that regardless of the period or topic under study, the focus will always shift to the ‘Cyprus problem’. Very few

2

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

studies have set parties as their principal focus and even fewer have centred on AKEL: Lefkis,2 Adams,3 Christophorou,4 Yiallourides,5 Attalides,6 Papageorgiou,7 Panayiotou,8 Dunphy and Bale,9 Leventis,10 Ioannou,11 Digklis,12 Charalambous13 and Katsourides.14 Some scattered references are found in other writings as well: Katsiaounis,15 Servas,16 Phantis17 and Varnavas;18 although a number of these are personal biographies and depositions of the authors, rather than objective academic research. Social and political studies in Cyprus are characterised by a deficit regarding the study of the CPC, which is the focal point of the book. Research on the CPC suffers from significant lacunae mainly because of the lack of bibliography on the party. There is another important factor, however, that makes research difficult: the greater part of the Party’s archive did not survive the Turkish invasion of 1974 and, even before that, Party records were seized by the British when twice they declared the party illegal in 1931 and 1955. This book seeks to move away from the Cyprus issue, which has been over-examined; nevertheless, the topic will be addressed where or when necessary. The book therefore aims to make a notable contribution to the very minimal bibliography on political parties in Cyprus and the communist left party in particular. Most research on AKEL to date has focused on the years following the dissolution of the Soviet bloc, leaving the early years of the communist movement on the island little examined. This book will focus on the emergence of the CPC (the forerunner of AKEL) in the 1920s. As such, it is investigating the development of a new political movement and organisation in Cyprus, and therefore it must look to the social and political divisions and conflicts in Cyprus during the early decades of the twentieth century that led to the rise of the communist left. The book will examine the ways in which the situation in Cyprus resembled or differed from that in other European countries that had leftist movements and parties, in order to highlight the particularities of the Cypriot communist movement. The social, religious, economic and political environment are key to communist and working class politics, and in Cyprus these

INTRODUCTION

3

factors are inextricably linked to Greece, Turkey and Great Britain. Consequently, the influence of British colonial policy on Cyprus party politics is also addressed where appropriate. The book intends to illuminate the origins and character of the Cypriot communist movement and explain the underlying reasons for the Party’s commanding presence in Cyprus society. In this respect, a number of important themes are examined: .

.

. . . . . . .

The historical absence of a social-democratic party on the island. This is due to the late formation of the working class in Cyprus, which coincided with the establishment in Cyprus of the CPC after the Russian Revolution. The relationship that the Party developed with the working class and the trade unions and the overall control it exercised on their formation and operation. The organisational infrastructure of the Party, both internally and externally; i.e., vis-a`-vis society. The Party’s appeal to the Turkish Cypriot community and how this was incorporated in the Party’s political discourse. The reception of the new Party by the colonial regime and the Greek ruling class. The intra-Party fermentations in the early years that led to the communist line prevailing over the softer labourist one. The issues around which political mobilisation was organised and the various forms of communist activism. The electoral impact of the Party. The internationalisation of the Party, i.e., the relationships it developed with other communist parties and the Communist International (Comintern).

As stated earlier, the focus of this book is on the period between 1922 and 1941; this period is considered decisive in the way the Party shaped its ideology, political discourse and organisational structure; decisive in terms of avoiding sectarian policies that isolated the CPC from the masses in its early years. Furthermore, the period in the

4

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

early twentieth century is key to framing and understanding the course of Cyprus’s political history up to the present. The issues and events of these early and turbulent years influenced the configuration and consolidation of the political and party systems in Cyprus, and the outcome is evident in the years that followed the island’s independence in 1960. The study of this historical period will also provide a fuller understanding of AKEL’s role in Cypriot politics and society today. In this regard, a brief overview of CPC’s transition to AKEL in 1941, and the first turbulent years until 1944 when the CPC was incorporated to AKEL, are also looked into. This allows the reader to fully understand AKEL’s instant and massive expansion that marked the island’s further development. The book’s analysis is based on material from both primary and secondary sources, as follows: . .

.

.

Secondary literature is used to map all the relevant information for the related field of study. Archive research in Cyprus, Greece and Britain. This relates mainly to the archives of AKEL and the left trade union PEO (Pancyprian Federation of Labour), the National Archives in London and the Archives of Contemporary Social History (ASKI) in Athens. Indexing of relevant newspapers of the period. Special emphasis is attached to the Party’s press during these early days. The first socialist newspapers, Pyrsos (Pyrsό6 – Torch) and Neos Anthropos (Nέo6 Άnurvpo6 – New Man), have been thoroughly examined along with an indicative number of nationalist newspapers. Records of unpublished interviews with Party veterans and unpublished documents.

Frame of analysis The analytical framework relies on two pillars: (a) Rokkan’s and Lipset’s cleavage theory19 and, most important, the class cleavage that gave rise to the socialist and communist parties; (b) Marxist literature on class movements and parties.

INTRODUCTION

5

The class cleavage and the mobilisation of the popular strata According to Rokkan’s and Lipset’s cleavage theory, political parties emerge as a result of social cleavages and conflicts that the parties represent at the political level in terms of political– electoral contestations. Social cleavages involve social divisions that distinguish between groups of people on the basis of important social– structural characteristics such as social class, region, religion, ethnicity, etc. They are deep, structural divisions of a durable nature. Social cleavages vary between countries and between polities, and their priorities change according to the specific conditions of each country and across time.20 Lipset and Rokkan argue that nation building (French Revolution) and the Industrial Revolution fundamentally reshaped and divided modern societies, and these social cleavages were politicised by the political parties with the advent of modern democracy. From this perspective, ‘parties are entrepreneurs which transformed social identities into political’.21 The model assumes that the voter identifies his/her interests based on sociological background and chooses the party that can express him/ her in the best possible way. The two revolutions prompted four main lines of cleavage that shaped the development of European party systems in Western Europe’s long march to democracy: (i) the centre – periphery cleavage that gave rise to parties of linguistic, national, or religious minorities (e.g., Basque country); (ii) the state– church cleavage that produced the parties of religious defense (e.g., Christian democratic parties); (iii) the land–industry cleavage from which the conservative and liberal parties emerged; and (iv) the owner–worker cleavage that fashioned the parties of the working class, i.e., socialist and communist parties. The cleavage theory deals primarily with the issue of conflict and the way it is accommodated within modern societies, i.e., ‘the conflict– integration dialectic’.22 According to the theory, conflict is regarded as the most effective institutionalised mechanism to reduce the pressures caused by social inequalities. The only groups with an interest in modifying and reducing inequality are the under-

6

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

privileged, and political parties therefore emerged as a means for these classes to structure their struggle and claim their interests. ‘The only effective restrain on the power of the dominant class is the counter-power of the lower strata and the primary weapons of the exploited classes are the ability to organise, to strike, to demonstrate, and to vote rulers out of office.’23 However, the underprivileged classes can put forward their demands only within a polity that allows them to organise in unions, parties and the like. Therefore, the constitutional and institutional setting in each country must be examined when studying any aspect of party politics. Despite the overall acceptance of the cleavage theory, some points of caution must be noted, especially in terms of the theory’s applicability in dissimilar contexts – most important of which its Western focus (for this, see Chapter 1, section 1.5). In addition, European countries reveal considerable variation in the character and the intensity of the cleavage lines. Factors such as religion and class have been much more exploited in some political systems. These differences are partly due to objective differences in social structure, since certain social cleavages exist in some countries but not in others (e.g., ethnic diversity). There are also important variations in the persistence of cleavage lines in the party system, since some issues have been of only passing importance while others have remained important dividing lines long after their initial impetus has been forgotten.24 Variations within the party systems thus depend on whether cleavages are/were effectively politicised. Not all social cleavages are translated into political ones, and even fewer are those that are translated into political parties.25 Gender divides, however important at the level of society, have scarcely been translated into political parties at all. Cleavage analysis in empirical terms has completely overlooked parties as independent variables, although their activities have also shaped society.26 More recent investigations reject a simple mechanical model whereby cleavages are automatically translated into parties, and focus instead on the process by which political parties mobilise these cleavages and create new political identities.27 The role played by the political subject, i.e., the

INTRODUCTION

7

political party, is considered crucial. In other words, what accounts for this variation is the ‘translator’, the political party.28 The interest of this book is the parties of the working class. Working-class parties emerged in every country of Europe in the wake of the early waves of industrialisation. The organisation of the working class: Left parties and class corporations in Europe Working class parties developed in two distinct historical stages. In the first phase, the various labour associations were mainly defensive in nature, and at the political level were expressed by bourgeois political organisations and parties. They contributed decisively, albeit indirectly, to the liberalisation of the various national political regimes and to the introduction of political rights. In the second stage, using these democratic achievements – mainly the franchise – the labour movement began to establish labour parties that were capable of participating autonomously in the struggle to capture power.29 Throughout the West, the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries were marked by the consolidation, growing consciousness and organisation of the working class, obliging the classes of the ancien regime and the newly created bourgeoisie to take account of the new balance of forces within their societies.30 During the course of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, there had been a rapid growth in ideologies of social and political criticism – anticlerical, republican, socialist, communist and anarchist – which challenged the religious ideologies that until this time had constituted the basic framework of popular thought in Europe. These new ideologies also provided the emerging proletariat with ways and ideas for improving their working and living conditions.31 The growth of the working class, especially the increase in more educated members, the many new pro-labour newspapers and the development of labour unions were all signs of organisational mobilisation.32 Organisation became the most vital principle of the working class, whose power is based on its numerical strength. As Michels noted, ‘the workers would never acquire political strength of resistance and social esteem if they did not join forces and if they did

8

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

not give a structure to their unity through a collective aggregate’.33 The rising masses of workers resented their poor working conditions and lack of security, and felt culturally and socially alienated. This resentment led to the formation of the labour unions and socialist parties in search of a way out. Thus, in all European countries, mass parties representing the popular strata were created before or after World War I – although, they seldom united to form a single working-class party. At the same time, the Russian Revolution further divided the labour parties throughout Europe into communist, socialist and social democratic groupings.34 The working-class parties and organisations that appeared in the nineteenth century constituted the basic force for the extension of political rights and democracy to those sections of the population that were typically excluded from the political process.35 The success of these movements depended on a number of factors, such as the strength of paternalist traditions, the size of the work force, the level of prosperity, the degree of labour security, prospects of professional advancement, etc. Rokkan describes the four institutional thresholds that any rising political movement needs to cross in order to be incorporated into the political system: legitimation, which refers to their treatment by national authorities; incorporation, i.e., the extension of political rights to the party’s supporters; representation, i.e., parliamentary seats; and finally, executive power, i.e., entering the decision-making centres.36 In some countries there were attempts to repress the left-wing parties, which led to their isolation from the rest of society and the development of a separate culture.37 This ‘anti-systemic’ orientation of large parts of the European working class felt alienated from and hostility towards the existing social system. This increased after the Russian Revolution, which left many countries facing the spectre of civil war. These parties shared common characteristics of organisation and origin. They all were created outside the existing institutions, which were dominated by the bourgeoisie and the landowners. The most typical examples of this type of party were the various socialist parties in Europe in the late nineteenth century, and in particular the British Labour Party (BLP) whose birth was the outcome of a decision taken by

INTRODUCTION

9

the Trades Union Congress in 1899.38 Their creation presented a challenge to the dominant groups and prompted a demand for political representation. The majority of these leftist parties was of mass character, favoured the extension of suffrage and secular ideologies, and – in the most developed regions – fought for national and anticolonial movements.39 As these parties mobilised and became incorporated into the body politic groups formerly excluded from the political process, they were described as ‘parties of social incorporation’.40 An important component in the theoretical debate on working-class parties regards the relationship between class and party.

Social class and political party It is inevitable that in any discussion on political parties, and especially working-class parties, the much-debated topic of the relationship between social class and political party arises. This debate revolves around two completely opposing positions. One side considers their correlation non-existent while the other side, usually ascribed to the Marxists, reduces their relationship to the party representing the class. The class voting model is based on a conflictual view of society, according to Mayer, which considers the class struggle as the prime power of history-making and regards the social class as a collective subject with a collective class consciousness and specific party representatives. Class voting is essentially understood as the voting of the working class in favour of the parties of the Left.41 Not all Marxists agree with this interpretation, however, with Molyneux arguing that this is a naive projection. The thesis that political parties represent class interests, he argues, does not mean that they necessarily do so in a straightforward one-to-one relationship. Nor does it mean that at all times one party represents the interests of one class, or that the actions of every party can be explained merely by reference to the class on which it is based.42 Lenin himself made this distinction: The party as the vanguard of the working class must not be confused, after, all, with the entire class [...] precisely because

10

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

there are differences in degree of consciousness and degree of activity, a distinction must be made in degree of proximity to the party [. . .] it would be tailism to think that the entire class, or almost the entire class, can ever rise, under capitalism, to the level of consciousness and activity of its vanguard, of its socialdemocratic party.43 Most scholars agree that there is a relationship between class and party, but they reject the argument that an entire social class is represented by certain parties. This leads to a deterministic sociology of politics.44 Sartori considered it naive and a ‘fantastic irreality’ to argue that an entire class might be represented by a political party.45 There is nothing simple, automatic and straightforward in the process of translating social conflicts into political party alternatives; the most obvious example of this is those workers who vote for bourgeois parties.46 Furthermore, language, religion and morality are important factors, and cut across issues affecting both the poorer and the better-off strata of the population. These deviants from straight class voting suggest that traditions and experiences count as much as economic position in voting/party allegiance.47 Regional divisions, too, have been an important factor in several polities, influencing party support and undermining a homogeneous ethnic or class political behaviour (e.g., Catalonia, Quebec, etc.). An integral theme in this discussion of social class, which we turn to next, concerns the mechanism through which the working class acquires political and class consciousness.

Class consciousness, collective action and the political subject The transition of the working and peasant masses to a state of class consciousness required the acquisition of an organisational culture in the new environment that was taking shape in the formative years of the labour movement, as well as beyond. The link between relatively simple relations, such as the high price of corn (raw material) and the price of bread, could be easily understood. In contrast, the

INTRODUCTION

11

relationship between the loss of landed property or unemployment with a broader programme of political change was, by nature, harder to understand. This link – or how power is structured in a society – required an understanding of the nature of the existing economic and political system. In other words, the transformation of economic complaints into a political response required political information and consciousness stemming from guidance. According to Michels, this process demands some degree of socioeconomic development, in the absence of which no movement could make its appearance.48 Class consciousness was – first and above all – promoted by the dire working and living conditions of the poorer strata that deprived them of their dignity and sometimes their very existence. The lack of opportunities for social advancement available to those regarded as the lower classes – a result of the closed-class societies in Europe that totally excluded these classes – also led to a desire for collective action and social change. The prevailing European class structure in fact placed all workers in a common class such that the first socialists did not need to be taught that they belonged to a different social class. Consequently, labour-related political movements were able to organise the working class with very little effort.49 This was more easily achieved in the big towns, where there was more social interaction among the various economic classes. Indeed, the middle class enhanced the sense of consciousness among the working class, since in its own struggle against the aristocracy, it was forced to seek the help of the working class.50 The workers acquired consciousness not only through class polarisation but also from a common way of life, in which the central role was played by the tavern (the workers’ ‘church’).51 Objective conditions alone, however, do not create class consciousness: a significant prerequisite is the organisational variable, which translates into the political party and the unions.52 ‘The more the workers organise, the stronger their class consciousness becomes.’53 We are referring to the communist party organisation of the working class, so it is the Marxist approach on organisation and the differences between parties and unions that we want to emphasise. The Marxist approach to the party is underpinned by the

12

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

theory of class struggle and the class structure of the society. According to this theory, political parties come into being, gain support, and function primarily as the representatives of class interests. At the Congress of the First Communist International in London in 1871, it was proclaimed that, the proletariat in the struggle against the collective strength of the ruling classes can act as a class only by creating its own independent political party against the parties of the bourgeoisie [. . .]. The ultimate goal of the political movement of the working class is political power for the working class and this presumes the existence of an organisation of the working class which develops first through economic struggles [. . .]. From the separate economic struggles develops in turn a political movement, a movement of the working class which aims at the implementation of its own interests through the conquest of collective forms of compulsory violence.54 As Spourdalakis notes, ‘classes and social strata become active actors in the social formation as soon as they are organised into political institutions and primarily into political parties’.55 Hence, parties become creations of the various classes. As such they undertake, on the one hand, to defend and promote the interests of the classes that created them and, on the other hand, to hinder the opposing interests of other classes. Marx and Engels maintained that the proletariat constituted a class in the full meaning of the term only when it was aware that it constituted a class and formed a political party. Lenin claimed that if the working class were left to itself, it would develop a trade union consciousness rather than a revolutionary one. As the workers remained incorporated into the dominant ideological framework, a vanguard party with a thorough understanding of Marxist theory was necessary to give them an awareness of revolutionary socialism.56 In other words, Lenin rejected the argument that the workers’ class consciousness would develop gradually through an accumulation of

INTRODUCTION

13

economic struggles. He claimed instead that class consciousness could only emerge from a political party, i.e., outside the economic struggle and the sphere of employer– worker relations. It was essential that the working class form a political party if it wanted to confront its fragmentation and safeguard its class independence. However, a significant number of workers neither responded to a class appeal nor voted for parties of the left.57 The success of this aim depended on the closest possible relationship between the party and the mass of working people, through the guidance and leadership of the struggles of the working people. That there was a divergence of consciousness – and hence, of actions and behaviours (e.g., electoral behaviour) – between the leadership of the working class and the workers, is linked to the fact that the average worker’s consciousness is shaped by a mixture of often contradictory elements (e.g., different material needs and changes in the political situation), and it is therefore possible for his consciousness to change very rapidly. The consciousness of the leader, however, is more clearly shaped and coherent and hence, less likely to change.58 In addition to the economic, social and organisational issues, class consciousness was also significantly shaped by the way in which the state and employers dealt with it. In many cases, the appearance of political parties was linked to the possibility of establishing trade unions. In cases where the state violently repressed union activities, these became channelled into political action, usually radical. In countries where the working class gained electoral rights relatively early, they tended to be expressed politically to a great extent through liberal and conservative parties.59 All these above briefly presented issues will be subsequently linked to the Cypriot experience of communist organisation. Each issue will be analysed separately in its own chapter, as explained below.

Book outline Chapters 1 and 2 present an overview of the historical setting within which the CPC emerged, as there were certain social and political preconditions required for party politics to arise. Here, the focus is on

14

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

the particularities of Cyprus, i.e., the island’s late economic development and belated nation building. Thus, Chapter 1 reflects on the social conditions that prevailed in the transitional period from Ottoman to British rule and the early decades of British administration. The class structure of society and the emergence of the bourgeoisie and the working classes are highlighted. The impact of nationalist ideology on bourgeoisie politics is also addressed, since nationalism’s major premise, union with Greece (enosis), provided the context for much of the political activity on the island and influenced political competition with the CPC. Chapter 2 examines the political preconditions required for the emergence of party politics in any given country, focusing on those relevant to Cyprus: political institutions and the franchise. Political institutions and the electoral system are seen as important institutional engineering tools that affect the party structure and competition; however, they do not operate in a social and political vacuum – in Cyprus’s case, this involved the British authorities. The political actors’ decisions are crucial. The chapter concludes with a reference to clientelistic relationships, a dominant feature of party politics in Cyprus at the time. Chapter 3 investigates the earliest forms of mobilisation among the lower classes in Cyprus, i.e., what one might call the political origins of the CPC. These comprised peasant protest, social banditry and various classless unions. The emergence of the CPC was inspired by the communist ideology in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution and the first socialist circles within the context of the language question (the use of the Romaic language as opposed to the puristic Greek) that led to the Cyprus Labour Party (CLP) in 1922. Chapter 4 deals with the official establishment of the Communist Party: its strategy in the Cyprus context and the major tenets of its political programme. The chapter concentrates on the Party discourse regarding several key issues that shaped its political identity and its perceptions of social and political alliances with other political forces as well as the island’s Turkish community. Chapter 5 analyses the methods and structures of Party organisation, both in relation to society and internally. In this

INTRODUCTION

15

respect, the concept of the ‘parallel society’ is introduced and a number of issues are examined: party press, internal structure, members and leadership, relations with the trade unions and with other communist centres abroad. Essentially, the chapter discusses the various ‘repertoires of working class mobilisation’ that the communists employed. Here we examine the forms and tactics the Party used in the effort to organise the working and agrarian classes: the establishment of working centres and trade unions, strikes, Mayday celebrations, etc. Chapter 6 focuses on the political integration of the Communist Party in a discussion of the openness/closure of the political system and the opportunities for political alliances offered to the CPC in the context of the early party system of Cyprus. Two important issues are examined in this chapter: first, the way the party was received by the colonial authorities; and, second, its treatment by the nationalist politicians and the Church, which both represented right-wing politics at the time. All these reflected on its electoral fortunes. Chapter 7 explores the period of the Party’s illegality (1931– 41) and focuses on two themes: the persecution of the CPC by the colonial authorities and the methods of penetrating the trade union movement. The latter constituted the tool through which the CPC channelled its activity, and it was extremely beneficial for the Party’s growth and political integration in the years that followed its legalisation in 1941. The chapter concludes with a discussion on the decision to launch AKEL as the successor of the CPC in order to escape colonial proscription; a decision that changed the setting of the Cypriot political system in the years that followed. Finally, the conclusions reflect on the discussions of the previous chapters and brings the different threads of the argument together, identifying the main reasons for the emergence of the Cypriot communist movement as a result of particular preconditions, historical sequences and crucial junctures. Most importantly, the chapter tries to draw some conclusions on the nature of the Cypriot Communist Party, focusing on the characteristics that differentiate it from other sister parties and movements in Europe.

CHAPTER 1 THE PARTICULARITIES OF CYPRUS: LATE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND BELATED NATION BUILDING

The particularities of Cyprus were largely dictated by its late economic development and nation-state building which, in turn, were principally related to the island’s Ottoman absolutist past (1589– 1878) and British colonialism (1878– 1960). These two factors hindered the smooth development of Cyprus’ economy, thus retarding the development of the working class. This chapter will examine the characteristics of the Cyprus economic and social (under) development that are directly linked to the delayed rise of the bourgeoisie and middle class as well as the working class. The living and working conditions of the agrarian masses are of critical concern in this regard, given their size within the Cypriot economy and society, and because they provided the raw material for the working class. The formation of the working class, which was key to the establishment of the Communist Party in Cyprus, is mainly attributed to the process of farmers’ proletarianisation. We must therefore examine the major developments and mechanisms that led to the emergence of a new class structure and the respective ideologies of these new classes. The bourgeois and working classes constituted the cornerstone of mobilisation efforts.

18

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

1.1 A rural, pre-modern society Traditional, pre-modern societies are characterised by a large and overriding agrarian sector in relation to an industrial one.1 In the transitional era from Ottoman to British rule and also during the period of British colonialism, this was the state of Cypriot society according to the British censuses and economic reports of the time. Agriculture in Cyprus was characterised by small-hold peasantry, rendering the island a nation of land proprietors.2 Despite the extensive small ownership, however, in the mid-1840s it was estimated that large estates (Church, Evkaf,3 ciftlik4 land) comprised 23.3 per cent of a total of 180,000 acres of cultivated land.5 There was also only a small degree of urbanisation, another indicator of the traditional character of Cypriot society. In 1881 there were a total of 699 inhabited places – cities, towns, villages – of which 37 were villages populated by fewer than ten people, with the average number of inhabitants being 281 persons.6 Administratively, Cyprus was run according to the millet system, as were all areas subject to the Ottoman Empire.7 Under the millet system, political power was mediated by the religious communities, who enjoyed considerable autonomy within the empire. The Ottoman government allowed the Greeks to run their own affairs and encouraged the Orthodox Church to assume both secular and spiritual authority within the Greek community. This resulted in the religious institutions having a leading political role and much wealth.8 The archbishop was called the Ethnarh (literally, leader of the nation), a term denoting a person with spiritual, secular and political leadership. This meant that his position was highly enviable; as a result, his election was marked by a serious internal struggle of the Greeks of Cyprus. Following the Greek Revolution in 1821, the Ottoman rulers of Cyprus decided to weaken the Church by giving over tax collection rights to influential lay members of the Greek community. This act led to the rise to a new sector of the Greek Cypriot elite, the taxfarmers,9 rich Greeks from whom the government demanded a fixed amount of tax but who were in turn assigned to collect taxes from the

THE PARTICULARITIES OF CYPRUS

19

rest of the population, and allowed to retain the proceeds. This practice brought about networks of intermediaries – merchants and moneylenders – who controlled the production activities of the economically-active population and instigated clientelistic relations.10 The small size of the Cypriot society, with its numerous small villages, encouraged and facilitated the development of patron– client relations (for clientelism see Chapter 2). Given the extensive poverty of most Cypriots and the lack of any administrative social care under a feudal regime, the politics of paternalism played an integral role in all social activity. The wealthy and their various monetary and other donations to the society helped to sustain the political and social status quo. These unrepayable gifts led to individual subordination and dependence upon the donors.11 Social inequality became embedded in the social structure, and charity became an effective means of social control as it imposed an obligation on the receiver to behave in accordance with his master’s will. Within this social context, politics became a commodity that could be purchased, rather than a function that could be exercised. On the eve of British colonialism, Cypriot society was marked by structural inefficiencies due primarily to its predominantly agricultural economy.12 In addition, nepotism, briberies and corruption were endemic.13 Indicative of the country’s underdevelopment was the extremely low literacy rate 26.8 per cent even after 30 years of British occupation.14

1.2 British colonialism The year 1878 is considered seminal in the political history of Cyprus. The ownership of the island was transferred to the British Crown from the deteriorating Ottoman Empire – an event that signalled important transformations in the Cyprus social and political milieu. It was a period in which the leading capitalist economies sought to expand their market opportunities and find new raw material.15 Within this context one could perhaps rationalise the British purchase of Cyprus. On the one hand, Cyprus was a new market for British products; on the other, it was a strategic

20

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

acquisition for the promotion of the Empire’s military and commercial interests in the Middle East. The latter was probably the main reason, since Cyprus’ small size and lack of any industrial base gave little else to the Empire.16 The Greeks of Cyprus were pleased at the British occupation, as they believed that Britain would soon turn over Cyprus to Greece – as it had done with the Eptanisa islands,17 while the Turks seemed indifferent.18 However, the British did not involve themselves substantially in the everyday running of the island in the first years of occupation.19 In fact, they deliberately avoided implementing significant reforms for two reasons: first, with their occupation of Egypt in 1882 they gained an important military and naval base with control of the Suez Canal; and second, because of the initial uncertainty of permanence.20 The British did, however, try to become involved was reflected in its lack of interest in the country’s future prosperity.21 The British did, however, try to make Cyprus a market for its products by amending legislation in the direction of rationalising various aspects of administration, and by promoting the development of certain industrial sectors, primarily the mining industry. This was not exceptional, as colonial expansion often led to the commercialisation of at least some economic sectors of the colonised countries.22 In this way, a small proto-industrial sector operating on a capitalist base, emerged in Cyprus. Despite its early shortcomings, however, the administration of the island improved significantly after 1878. This was partially due to the traditionally liberal British administration,23 but more important were certain improvements – albeit undertaken primarily in the effort to facilitate the implementation of British policy. The British attached particular emphasis on improving the island’s roads, whose primitive condition was an obstacle to economic development. The improved transportation system facilitated the expansion of economic activities and the transfer of people and merchandise in the towns, and also promoted the development of the middle and labour classes.24 The British laissez faire rule in Cyprus,25 the new economic relations, and the improved living standards were soon reflected in

THE PARTICULARITIES OF CYPRUS

21

the island’s demography. The population grew from 186,173 persons in 1881,26 to 347,959 in 193127 (186 per cent), with Greeks comprising approximately 80 per cent of the total population. During the same period, internal migration led to a population increase in the urban centres28 – a sign of the worldwide trend toward urbanisation after the emergence of capitalism. 1.2.1 The tax system The Ottoman tax system that the British inherited and initially preserved almost untouched was complicated and distasteful to the majority of the population. It was a comprehensive revenue system that covered almost all aspects of production, consumption and exchange.29 The most important tax for political reasons was the vergi tax, because it became the basis upon which the electoral law rested (see Chapter 2). The verghi tax was imposed on all, regardless of nationality or religion, and was divided into three classes: a tax of 4 per thousand on the registered value of land, houses and other immovable property; a tax of 4 per cent on the rent of all property not occupied by its owner and; a tax of 3 per cent on trade profits and salaries.30 The tax amount was determined by the British district commissioner on a communal basis in the first years of occupation. Collection of the verghi taxes was assigned to the village mukhtars,31 who were therefore easily able to freely practice favouritism. The most important fiscal reform of the British was the elimination in the mid-1880s of communal responsibility for tax payments, making it an individual obligation. This change effectively amounted to private ownership of the land, such that the proprietors were henceforward able to manage their holdings with regard to alienation and mortgage. This change also meant that the poorest and least enterprising persons were at risk of debt and loss of that property.32 In 1885, the British introduced legislation for the forced sale of land, substantially changing the Ottoman practice that forbade moneylenders to sell off the peasants’ properties.33 Land ownership in Cyprus was quite extensive at the time, so any breach of the terms of the system would inflict important social problems for the masses.

22

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

While the new system meant that the tax burden was more fairly distributed, the tax collection methods led to negative relations between the British and the population. Under the new more efficient system the people paid more for the same taxes, since the British were keen to collect them. The British resolve on collecting the taxes regardless of the economic situation of the taxpayer caused intense resentment among the Cypriots.34 Consequently, anti-British feelings grew steadily among the population, who even began to feel nostalgic for the Ottoman period.35 ‘What was more disturbing for the Cypriots was the fact that the increase in public revenue was not compensated by a corresponding increase in public expenditure.’36 The annual amount of revenue through taxation accrued to £160,000– 180,000; however, only 3 per cent was invested back in infrastructure and in the education system.37 Public expenditure was very limited mainly because of the Tribute38 that stripped the wealth of Cyprus until it was finally abolished in 1927.39 In response to the Cypriots’ constant and intense complaints, the British in the late 1920s set up a special committee to study the tax system and recommend improvements. While the committee concluded that Cypriots were taxed at approximately 17.5 per cent of their income, the Greek deputies claimed that this tax was actually 25 per cent.40 The tax system was inherently class biased, which was due to the method of tax assessment. The then High Commissioner, HaynesSmith, admitted: ‘The whole difficulty lies in the fact that the large properties are under-assessed and the smallholdings are over assessed.’41 The British were not willing to impose legislation for the sake of greater equitability in taxation; in fact, they were prepared to tolerate shortcomings so long as the Tribute obligation was met.42 The class inequality of the tax system was also reflected in the fact that 67 per cent of the total revenue was collected through indirect taxation and a mere 12 per cent from direct taxation, while entire economic activities were exempted from taxation, e.g., bank deposits. Neither businessmen nor higher state officials were taxed. In contrast, peasants were taxed for possessing animals, and most consumer commodities were subject to indirect taxation.43 This essentially exempted the richest members of society

THE PARTICULARITIES OF CYPRUS

23

from tax obligations, and shifted the tax burden onto the agrarian and working classes.44

1.3 The peasant issue The Cypriot people were primarily farmers (more than 80 per cent). Consequently, the peasant issue was of paramount importance and featured often in the political agenda. The agrarian class in Cyprus was comprised of two large segments: the agricultural labourers, on the one hand, and the smallholding peasantry, on the other. Agricultural labourers worked in large estates owned by the Church or other land barons, and they also included tenant farmers who rented a small piece of land for which they paid rent in the form a few days labour per year. Their job insecurity was intense, since they could be deprived of their land at any time. Their numbers increased from 8,476 in 1891,45 to 31,422 in 1929.46 The huge rise in population after British occupation and the new (proto)capitalist relationships that were ushered in (e.g., the new tax system) put enormous pressure on the agricultural system and the peasantry. The harsh terms of the system impoverished much of the peasantry, many of whom who lost their land and/or were forced into migration. While some migration was temporal and seasonal in nature, there was also permanent movement from the countryside to the towns. Those who immigrated to the towns offered their labour at lower prices than the standard, thus depreciating the value of labour. Immigration abroad was also a popular option for those who had lost their land due to the changing social and economic conditions.47 In the absence of a social welfare system and any sort of legal protection, the many smallholders in the countryside were the most affected by the changes. The repercussions of an inequitable tax system were more far-reaching for the peasant population: heavy duties, usury and economic recessions turned a large part of the smallholding peasantry into landless farmers and day labourers. The efficiency of the British tax system and its resolution to collect overdue taxes, added to the other problems of the peasant population, led to outbursts of rage and despair, mostly in the forms of mass

24

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

rallies all over the island.48 The local press blamed the British administration and the usurious practices of the Cypriot moneylenders.49 The colonial government was condemned for: its indifference and unwillingness to establish a public welfare system to help free peasants from the patron– client networks; for the very high interest rate it charged the farmers (25 per cent); for not promoting Cyprus’ agricultural products in foreign markets; and for not creating an agricultural bank.50 Usurious practices were a grave threat to the agrarian population and deserve close attention since they constituted the basis of political competition. 1.3.1 Usury Usury was a product of the class structure of Cypriot society, whose population overwhelmingly consisted of peasants and smallholders.51 The peasants, being small-scale producers, needed capital to fund their basic necessities and activities: to buy animals and tools, to buy food for their family and their livestock, to build their houses, to make the necessary improvements to their lands, and, often, to repay old debts. The lack of a reliable and extensive banking system forced the peasants to resort for their credit needs to various moneylenders. The latter provided loans to the peasants on very harsh terms. The only existing bank at the time, the Ottoman Bank, loaned money strictly to the merchants because the farmers were not considered credit-worthy. On several occasions these loans were sub-loaned to the farmers at higher interest rates. This was allowed by law since the legislation passed in 1882 provided for a maximum interest rate of 9 per cent unless there was a different and explicitly stated agreement between the contracted parties; the exception, however, proved to be the rule.52 The interest rate, on some occasions, reached a massive 30 per cent, as debts passed from father to son.53 Failing to pay the installments on the due date resulted in loss of the peasant/debtor’s land. Consequently, the moneylender profited from this situation both by extracting money from the farmers and/or from taking possession of their land.54 The majority of the moneylenders gradually turned to influential and respectable merchants who exploited the peasantry.55

THE PARTICULARITIES OF CYPRUS

25

During World War I Cyprus remained at the margin of military clashes, given its relatively distant location from the main theatres of war, and so its agricultural economy was left untouched. In fact, Cypriot agricultural products were easily marketed and exported, since the warring countries faced serious shortfalls. This was a profitable state of affairs for the peasantry, although to meet the excess demand, Cypriot peasants took on large loans to buy land to increase their productive capacity, and accordingly their profits. The various moneylenders profited from the peasantry’s inexperience and their urgent need to borrow by charging very high interest rates, or selling at inflated prices.56 The recession that followed the conclusion of the war brought a rapid decline in prices of the various agricultural products and drove most of the peasants, who could not repay their debts, to bankruptcy. The value of their land was depreciated to such an extent that they were forced to mortgage other pieces of property to finance their obligations. Eventually, they lost ownership of their land, which reverted to their creditors.57 The 1920s was a period of intense economic and political (structural) crisis, brought on by the expropriation of peasant ownership. Although the crisis was essentially agricultural, the importance of the agricultural sector in the overall economic activity in Cyprus swept along the entire economy. According to a British memorandum, in 1929 a staggering 80 per cent of peasants were indebted to moneylenders.58 It was also a period that saw the beginnings of wealth concentration in the hands of the emerging Cypriot bourgeoisie. In 1924 the crisis reached a climax. The number of forced sales totaled 3,304 (as opposed to 2,470 in 1923) including 56,862 donums of land, compared to 36,752 in 1923, and 665 houses and buildings with a registered value of £170,323 that were sold for £158,030 (as opposed to £106,688 in 1923).59 The same course of events continued for two more years, with 6,024 forced sales amounting to a total registered value of £274,793, sold for £249,747. There are numerous examples of forced sales at unfair prices. In the village of Achna in the district of Famagusta, a piece of cultivable land of 100,000 m2 was forcibly sold for a mere £5.60

26

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

Another example is in the village of Trikomo, again in the Famagusta district, where a farmer sold land worth £1,200 for only £250 in order to cover a debt of £214.61 The CPC press notes the case of a peasant who mortgaged his estate worth £8,000 in order to secure a loan of £400, which he eventually lost because he could not meet his obligations.62 Until this time, big land ownership was the exception in Cyprus. Owing to the economic crisis, however, the structure of land ownership was substantially distorted. The majority of small owners lost their land, which lapsed to the hands of moneylenders and usurers. To address this dire state of affairs, the Cypriot political representatives in the Legislative Council called for the creation of an Agricultural Bank. This bank was eventually launched in 1925 but was ill equipped to manage the problem.63 It was vested with a starting capital of only £50,000 by the Ottoman Bank – too small an amount of money to meet the enormous exigencies of the population. According to the colonial government, rural debts totalled as high as £2,000,000. The Agricultural Bank would charge 8 per cent interest on loans backed by mortgages and 9 per cent on other loans. The cooperative credit societies, which would borrow from the Agricultural Bank, would make an additional charge on the loans to their members. On the face of things, the establishment of the Agricultural Bank met the demand and the hopes of the Cypriot farmers. A closer look, however, discloses the shortcomings of the system: the start-up capital was grossly inadequate, the interest rates were too high in relation to the peasantry’s economic condition, and the five-year term imposed on the loans was too short.64 Moreover, by the time the bank was established, a great many peasants had already lost their properties.65 Then, because the farmers were considered by the bank to be insolvent, they had to organise themselves into cooperative societies – an unfamiliar and complicated practice for the Cypriot farmer. This was illustrated by the fact that by the end of 1926 only 49 cooperative credit and 13 cooperative societies had been established.66 Although these cooperatives were a means of fighting off agrarian exploitation and usury, it took many years for the

THE PARTICULARITIES OF CYPRUS

27

peasants to become familiar with and accept these new structures. Finally, at the end of the 1920s there was a significant growth in the cooperative movement such that by 1930 there were cooperatives operating in 402 villages throughout the island.67 Throughout the 1920s, the rural economic situation was a topic of continuous public discussion. In the spring of 1927, the governor of Cyprus, Ronald Storrs, ordered a survey on rural economic and social life under the instructions of the British commissioner of Limassol, Surridge, who delivered his report in 1930. In brief, the survey found that the peasants lived in miserable conditions. Their income fluctuated according to weather conditions and the exploitation of the moneylenders. Without the working contribution of the women, and on many occasions of their children, the peasant family was reduced to a state of poverty. Looking at the financial circumstances of the villagers, the survey divided the rural population into several categories. The agricultural labourers, who owned no land, comprised approximately 16 per cent of the total rural population, and lived in extreme poverty. Of the land-owning villagers, approximately one-quarter lived almost as poorly as the workers on about 16 shillings a week per family of five persons, while 50 per cent lived somewhat better on approximately £1 per week per family, and the remaining one-quarter were prosperous.68 Rural debts were reviewed in a special part of the survey. Their incidence was widespread, affecting 82 per cent of all famers. The total value of rural debts was estimated at £1,800,000. According to the findings of the survey, investment in agricultural machinery or other infrastructure represented the smallest part of this amount. One-third of the debts were due to harvest failures and to the inheritance of parents’ obligations; other reasons included exploitation by usurers, inefficiency and careless financial management by the farmers, while some farmers had taken loans for dowry purposes, or to cover the expenses for educating their children.69 Surridge’s report proved a self-evident reality: the vast majority of Cyprus’ rural population, throughout the period of British occupation, was having a very hard time making a living. The peasant question remained the most important social issue in the

28

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

Cypriot society. The huge international financial crisis (1929– 33), along with the structural deficiencies of Cyprus’ economy and the inadequate British investment in the island’s infrastructure further aggravated the problem during the 1930s. Despite their reluctance to finance large projects of infrastructure, the British were keen to improve the peasantry’s living and working conditions. However, their intentions must be examined against their interests as a colonial power. In this respect, two points must be taken into account. The first is that their primary concern was to increase the island’s production capacities, which would generate wealth that they also would profit from. Their secondary target was to weaken the peasantry’s political and economic dependency on the nationalist elites and the clergy, who controlled the patron– client relationships and consequently political representation. These efforts did not produce immediate results, but little by little the dominance of the moneylenders and the brokers in the agricultural market began to be undermined.70

1.4 The new social order: new classes in the spotlight The changes in Cyprus’ agrarian economy gave rise to the emergence of new social groups. Cyprus underwent enormous economic and social changes, so that by the end of the 1920s a new class structure was in place. The development of the economy had diversified the various interests within society, and as elsewhere in the world these new interests sought protection and self-preservation through political representation.71 The Greek bourgeoisie and middle classes were the first to emerge, as they had already begun to form within the Ottoman regime, acquiring impetus after the British occupation. These classes first arose in the two ports of Cyprus, Limassol and Larnaca, owing to the presence of the foreign consulates, their prote´ge´es and their employees, as well foreign merchants in these two towns.72 The late emergence of the Greek Cypriot bourgeoisie can be attributed to the belated development of capitalism, which, in turn, can be credited to the utter indifference of the Ottoman government to

THE PARTICULARITIES OF CYPRUS

29

developing the island’s infrastructure. Social and cultural development were inhibited by numerous deficiencies: small towns, low levels of urbanisation, lack of commercial communication and transportation between towns and rural areas, and high levels of illiteracy among the population (see section 1.1). The improved transportation and communication systems introduced by the British greatly facilitated the expansion of internal economic activity, which was largely guided by private enterprise. It also widened the geographical reach of the emerging bourgeois class, which grew and gradually acquired political and economic power. The members of this class were engaged primarily in commercial, usurious and small-scale manufacturing activities. Apart from the established merchants and owners of major workshops and manufacturing firms, considerable economic benefit accrued to increasingly larger numbers of petty craftsmen and retailers in imported and home-produced commodities.73 Small industrial units were also established in wine and tobacco production, which were not considered competitive with the metropolitan industries. It was the various agricultural crises that spurred the accumulation of wealth in the emerging bourgeoisie, especially the crisis after World War I (see section 1.3.1). These crises enabled merchants and moneylenders to foreclose on the land that the farmers had mortgaged at very high interest rates during the war. In addition, during the periods of economic growth, merchants sold the agricultural products at very high prices.74 Greek Cypriot capital was almost exclusively of commercial and usurious nature, at least until the end of World War I.75 The island’s heavy industry sectors (mines) were owned by foreign companies,76 against whom Greek politicians occasionally riled77 – and not without reason: the mining companies found ideal conditions in Cyprus as the British administration granted them extraterritorial rights so that they had a free hand to exploit their workers at random.78 Although there were a few incidences of major capital investment, mainly related to the Savings Bank of Nicosia in 1899 (renamed the Bank of Cyprus in 1913),79 it was not until after World War I that local Greek capital really started to grow.80

30

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

By the early 1920s the number of people involved in commercial activities grew from 405 in 189181 to 3,220 in 1921,82 while a 1923 Greek Cypriot deputy memo registered 107 lawyers, 117 medical doctors, 1,178 teachers, 5,929 merchants and thousands of employees in commercial houses.83 The number of government employees also rose significantly in this period, reflecting the different mentality of a Western industrialised nation in managing the affairs of its colonies: in 1891 the census registered 500 public officials84 while in the census of 1931 the respective figure was 2,204.85 Simultaneously, the middle classes of craftsmen and artisans (shoemakers, carpenters, tailors, blacksmiths, etc.) also grew in significant numbers.86 These strata soon became the basis for modern party politics in Cyprus (see section 1.6.1). Cyprus society was changing. The emergence of the bourgeoisie and the middle class was soon followed by a similar growth in the working class. 1.4.1 The emergence and composition of the working class Like the middle class, the working class of Cyprus emerged as a result of changes in the social and political landscape. The seeds of change had already been firmly planted during the latter decades of Ottoman rule87 but were given a real boost after the arrival of the British. Those processes created the preconditions for refashioning a significant portion of the peasantry to workers and reflected changes in legislation, economic and tax reforms, and the forced sales of the peasants’ land on account of the usurious practices. In relation to the West, the working class was late to develop in Cyprus – as was the case in most southern European and Balkan states. In Cyprus the working class developed almost entirely because of the gradual decay of the agrarian class, which was due to most farmers having lost their land through its forced sale by usurious moneylenders. These farmers provided the ‘raw material’ for the new class. They switched from farming to employment in small factories, construction, commerce, and the mines. This move carried important social and political implications, since the farmers were now incorporated into a new framework of social relations, that of the employer–employee. The working class of Cyprus was born out of the proletarisation of the peasantry.

THE PARTICULARITIES OF CYPRUS

31

The usurers and moneylenders profited from the severe economic crisis that affected most of Europe after World War I. These profiteers easily built up surplus capital, which they invested into building small factories and commercial enterprises in the towns. These new ventures, as well as the established mining industry, needed unskilled labour that the now landless peasants were happy to take on. However, the number of farmers who migrated to the cities was much greater than the labour market could handle. Consequently a new social phenomenon emerged in Cyprus: unemployment. This new unemployment was aggravated due to competition from foreign products, and affected other strata of the population as well, including the educated.88 The population censuses reflected the changes in class composition: the 1911 census registered 16,080 agricultural workers, while the 1931 census recorded a total of 22,654 such workers.89 The category of day labourers first emerged in the 1911 census, numbering 2,078 persons.90 The class of industrial workers did not emerge until the end of the war and even until the mid-1920s their number was relatively small: only 1,539 industrial workers were reported in the press, with the majority working in the various distilleries and another 697 employed in the tobacco factories.91 That there were so few industrial workers is explained by the direction of the Greek Cypriot capital investment. These investors chose to put their monies into commercial and small-scale industrial activities, which inhibited the formation of a large industrial working class. As the working class in the early days of the British administration was so small, the social issue was not part of the political agenda. The situation would change, though, after the war and due to the prolonged period of economic recession that followed.92 During the years between the two world wars, the redistribution of private property continued unrestrained and against the interests of farmers of small- and medium-sized holdings: 40 per cent of the cultivated land of Cyprus changed ownership during these years.93 A new wave of landless peasants emerged that, together with the poor labourers in the towns, comprised a considerable and vital mass of people that could be referred to as a working class. This new class was

32

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

reflected in the division of labour among professions. In 1929, the working class numbered 66,088 people who were classified in a few major categories: agricultural labourers numbered 31,422, while 17,901 persons were employed in the manufacturing sector; 3,181 worked in the construction industry either as stonemasons or labourers; 8,573 worked in the mines and quarries; 5,011 were domestic servants; and another 3,249 people were employed in the various sectors of the government.94 The structure of the working class is important because certain professions are more inclined to organisation, e.g. miners and stonemasons. Despite this, the working class was still a small fraction of the total population of Cyprus in the late 1920s, comprising only approximately 19 per cent, and it was not yet very organised. The mining industry played a decisive role in the formation and class consciousness of the working class in Cyprus.95 Prior to the advent and consolidation of the mining companies, the working class constituted a mere 6 per cent of the total population.96 The influx of foreign capital and the incentives given to its representatives by the British administration created the preconditions for the mining industry to develop. The miners comprised a distinct yet compact group within the working class since they were employed in the sole heavy industry of the island. The mining industry – in terms of Cyprus’ economy and gross domestic product – exceeded both in percentage and value every other production activity. Thus, at the same time, the number of miners grew to reach as many as 8,000 people.97 Besides the workers themselves, their families also shifted residence to the mining areas so that the entire family might live together and they were housed in specially built hutments near the mines. Consequently, the number of people dependent on this economic sector increased significantly.98 The miners lived and worked in primitive conditions. There was no labour legislation at all, and workers had no rights whatsoever (e.g., specified working hours, medical care, etc.).99 The colonial administration did nothing to introduce any legal regulation of the working relations that would protect the workers. In addition, when the matter was brought before the Legislative Council, the colonial

THE PARTICULARITIES OF CYPRUS

33

secretary dismissed the idea of legislation, which he considered both unnecessary and undesirable.100 He believed that no formal legislation was required, but that rulings would be made when disputes arose. Furthermore, he felt that because there were no other industrial units or large factories in Cyprus, legislation was inappropriate. This rationale indicated both an unwillingness to protect the interests of a significant portion of the population and favouritism towards foreign companies. The social context was conducive to impassivity for most of the working class. Lack of political expertise kept it from forming its own organisations (e.g., trade unions, agricultural associations, etc.) to defend and promote its interests. Because most of the working class was culturally unsophisticated and had little formal education, so it did not understand how participation in political and social organisations could be of benefit.101 In addition, the small industrial units and other small factories were unable to accommodate the rising number of workers, which led to greater levels of unemployment. Employers recognised this situation as being advantageous to their interests and also as a lever to contain wage increases and detain the trade union movement.102 At this point the working class was still in the infant stages of political mobilisation. Put otherwise, the Cypriot working class in the early twentieth century lacked class consciousness.103 Besides lack of education and cultural sensitivity, the heterogeneous composition of the working class also inhibited collective class consciousness. Most of the working class consisted of artisans and craftsmen who enjoyed a particular level of independence in their profession, the workers in the manufacturing sector, the miners, the agricultural labourers, the clerks in various commercial houses, etc. Internal diversity hindered unity among them and coherence in political representation.104 The workers’ political awareness came about gradually, and was strengthened by certain events that affected their living conditions (see section 1.6.2). Chief among these were the severe increase in the cost of living and the consequent drastic drop in living standards during the periods of economic recession, mainly after World War I and the concentration of labour in specific worksites (e.g., the mines).

34

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

This situation increased the sense of unity and common fate of the working class regardless of internal variation. Katsiaounis adds that in the long run the government schemes of employing unskilled workers contributed significantly toward the independence of the labouring poor.105 A large number of landless peasants were employed in public works under hideous working conditions and at very low wages.106 Another factor conducive to increased political awareness among the workers was the tavern, which represented a meeting point for discussions. The CPC newspaper relates how, after work many workers gathered in taverns, where over a glass of wine they discussed the privations of their lives and their difficult struggle for survival.107 While the objective conditions for class consciousness and action were present, there was not yet the political subject that would articulate them: the political party of the working class. The newlycreated social stratification system soon manifested itself in the political sphere. The first to mobilise was the bourgeoisie, utilising the ideology of nationalism.

1.5 Belated nation-building The cleavage model of party appearance was built on the study of advanced Western societies; any relevance it has for developing countries is qualified. The principal shortcoming of the theory is the omission of the extremely significant cleavage in the developing world of oppressed nations’ imperial power. Many of the largest and most powerful parties in the developing world have grown out of the movement for national liberation.108 Political parties emerged in ex-colonial countries to cope with problems that were unique to them. Such problems included national emancipation and identity, the creation of legitimate government institutions, the management of conflicts, and the accommodation of conflicting ideologies. Most of these issues were largely due to these countries’ inexperience with representative government and the memories of colonial rule that had inculcated a propensity for conflict rather than compromise.109

THE PARTICULARITIES OF CYPRUS

35

Scholars realised early on that it would be wrong to anticipate a smooth development of democratic institutions in these countries, because their economy and culture could not sustain the tensions of party conflict. In fact there are numerous studies suggesting a link between a country’s level of economic development and literacy, and the existence of a stable democratic polity.110 Another factor that impeded the development of competitive party systems was the greater cultural and historical diversity of colonial and other underdeveloped countries. This argument is especially apt for Cyprus, which at the time was both a colony and an underdeveloped country. Typical of underdeveloped countries, Cyprus and many other colonies lacked modern industry and – as a result – a class structure reflecting it. Tribal, national, religious, regional and cultural divisions were therefore more important than class divisions. State and nation-building processes were seriously delayed in Cyprus, owing to its Ottoman absolutist past and colonial status. Whereas Greek nationalism had given rise to a nation-state-building revolution as early as 1821, the same impetus did not mobilise Greek Cypriots until the end of the nineteenth century. Greek Cypriot nationalism was largely imported from Greece as part of the Megali Idea (Grand Idea) project but was soon refashioned to become a truly indigenous force.111 Union with Greece (enosis) was nationalism’s fundamental premise, and its two major proponents were the clergy and the bourgeoisie. The clergy took a leading role in sustaining the country’s national traditions and shaped the enosis struggle, because at the time – and even now – the Church constituted an integral part of Cypriot life and society.112 Nationalism attracted a large following, owing to improved education of the population and the active and organised engagement of the Church, with the education system,113 the press and other institutions (e.g. Boy Scouts) spreading their doctrines. The Archiepiscopal Question (1900– 9) and the Balkan Wars (1912–13) were landmark events in turning nationalist rhetoric into a popular movement.114 The peasantry and working class’ material deprivation was what lured the masses toward enosis. We might describe the period between the beginning of the twentieth century and the Asia Minor disaster (1922) as the ‘golden

36

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

era’ of Greek nationalism in Cyprus. As a political demand, enosis clearly called for an end to the existing colonial status of Cyprus. However, Greek Cypriot nationalism was distinguished by its moderate approach towards the British. While demanding their freedom from the British Empire, Greek Cypriots were not antiBritish: ‘We have blind faith in the British nation, its traditions, its principles and its just feelings.’115 The British were aware of this and believed that ‘the comparatively harmless manifestations of Greek nationalism in Cyprus should continue to be tolerated’.116 Another reason to tolerate Greek Cypriot nationalism was that it asked to be joined with another state and not become a state of its own. There are two schools of thought on the particularity of Greek Cypriot nationalism. First, the Greek Cypriot political leaders idolised the English, their status, and their liberal ideals, considering social intercourse with English officers and gentlemen as an important social and political asset.117 As a result, the Greek Cypriot ruling class had, for the most part, conceptualised political protest in a law-abiding context. The members of the 1929 Greek Cypriot deputation to Lord Passfield stated that ‘they fully understand that they were a small people and could therefore only hope for the achievement of their aspirations through the generosity of Great Britain’.118 This ‘soft’ form of anti-British activity was also influenced by British introduction of the Legislative Council (see Chapter 2), which became the principal forum for debates and resolution of disputes. The British cleverly trapped the Cypriots in this constitutional form of conflict resolution, which not only absorbed the tensions in political life but also ensured there would be no revolutionary action. On top of this, Greece was heavily dependent upon Britain, and therefore actively encouraged the Greek Cypriots’ compliancy.119 Second, the belated development of local capitalism attached a section of the rising Greek Cypriot bourgeoisie to the British capital despite its political affection towards Greece; a policy consciously pursued by the British who established a trade commissioner in London in the mid-1920s to concretise this loyalty.120 In fact, the sole important industrial sector of Cyprus, the mining industry, was totally under foreign ownership. Moreover,

THE PARTICULARITIES OF CYPRUS

37

during the 1920s Cyprus traded primarily with Britain, Egypt and other British dominions and colonies (exports 63 per cent and imports 78 per cent), while its exports to Greece represented only approximately 10.5 per cent.121 These particularities influenced the development of the cleavage lines that, in turn, gave rise to political conflicts.

1.6 The cleavage lines in colonial Cyprus The foregoing discussion provides a framework for the way in which political competition was structured in Cyprus, which was largely along three cleavage lines. The first and most important divisive element was ethnic. This cleavage between the Greeks and the Turks was institutionally engineered by the British authorities (see Chapter 2), who encouraged the members of the two ethnic communities to support the demands and the interests of their own ethnic group. The British embedded ethnic division in a number of ways, including the electoral law, separate polls and polling stations, and consequently different political representation. It was on purpose that the British did not provide institutional mechanisms that would unite and integrate the two communities. These arrangements underscore the importance of ethnicity as a source of conflict within society and, at the same time, the organisational and programmatic dependence of the parties on ethnicity as a mobilising tool. Nevertheless, this cleavage falls outside the spectrum of the current investigation mainly due to the late politicisation of ethnicity among the Turkish Cypriot community, which rendered party politics until the 1940s essentially an intra-ethnic affair.122 1.6.1 The quest for enosis and political rivalries The second cleavage was anti-colonial. Within the Greek community this was translated into the political demand for enosis and provided the cornerstone of mobilisation efforts. The way in which individuals and/or collectives approached the issue of colonialism constituted the most salient and divisive issue of political organisation. Numerous organisations were set up that entertained conflicting approaches

38

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

towards the most appropriate tactic against British colonialism. There were, however, essentially two opposing camps: the hard-core nationalists (adiallahtoi), and the ‘moderates’ (diallahtikoi). The rising middle class of lawyers, merchants, medical doctors, etc., had existed with the traditional class of the landed gentry and the clergy for some time. However, what commonly occurs is that as the bourgeoisie and middle classes gain in numbers, the unified elite will be weakened, if not destroyed.123 The increasing economic power and influence of the new classes gave them access to political power – a common process in all European societies. In Cyprus this process produced a long-lasting multiformity within the then ruling class of Greek Cypriots that represented nationalist (right-wing) politics. Due to its composition, especially its lack of internal homogeneity, and also its emphasis on personalities rather than mass politics, the Right did not succeed in establishing a stable and inclusive party in this first phase of party politics. This confirmed Duverger’s theory that it is the Left that first adopts the most complete and bureaucratic forms of organisation; the Right responds then by reproducing them.124 To understand the multiformity of the Greek Cypriot Right we must look to factors related to its composition and mobilisation. The ruling class at this time was far from homogeneous, comprising notable families from the emergent bourgeoisie and the upper middle class, on the one hand, and the remnants of the old ruling class of merchants, land owners, moneylenders and clergy, on the other. These were two very distinct groups and they adhered to two different reference points. The older, more established class had its roots in the Ottoman system of administration, while the rising bourgeoisie took shape after British occupation and was fashioned within a more liberal regime. Most of its members had studied in Greece and were exposed to the springs of nationalism; as such, they were keener to entertain radical views on the political future of Cyprus. Nationalism was instrumental in the Greek Cypriot bourgeoisie’s effort to play a greater political role, and focused on ethnicity for this purpose. As early as 1881 a Greek Committee was encouraging

THE PARTICULARITIES OF CYPRUS

39

members of the legislature to resign in order to create difficulties and instability.125 By the turn of the first decade of British rule, the nationalists had developed a resilient political and organisational network that overcame local and regional linkages using the cult of freemasonry and the power of the press.126 However, these mobilisation efforts produced a long-lasting division within the nationalist political force, informed by two main factors: the approach to British colonialism and the internal balance of power in the Greek Cypriot community which gave birth to endless personal rivalries. Notwithstanding the stance of each person or collectivity toward British colonialism, the drive for personal power was the primary motive for this division. Consequently, political, religious and other significant institutions were the principal loci of this continuous contestation: the Church, the Legislative and Executive Councils, the various ethnic organisations, school boards, the newspapers, the municipalities, etc. The most important benefit to winning any election of the period was access to the power mechanisms, whether within the Greek Cypriot community or the British administration. Election to the Legislative Council was associated with the power to appoint village councils, nominate teachers, etc. Therefore, the nationalist movement in Cyprus was far from homogeneous – despite the conventional accounts of the party– ethnicity relationship as such.127 Consequently, political conflict in Cyprus at the time was primarily an intra-ethnic affair. As the middle class and the bourgeoisie grew in importance in the late nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries, they began to question the all-embracing control of the Church and the powerful landed gentry and merchant families over the island’s political life. Consequently, the Right accommodated both tendencies: the hardcore nationalists (adiallahtoi) and the ‘moderates’ (diallahtikoi). The moderates were content to accept political and economic reforms until enosis was achieved, and accepted a law-abiding policy toward the British authorities. The nationalists, in contrast, called for immediate enosis, and promoted more radical ways of achieving their aim.128 The intense rivalry between the two groups permeated all

40

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

efforts of mobilisation, and was first manifest during the fierce fight over the Archiepiscopal Question.129 From this point on, this rivalry was the overarching context of party politics. 1.6.2 The class cleavage The third cleavage – which is of major importance in our discussion – was the class cleavage. The class cleavage gave birth to the various schemes of lower strata mobilisation, and most importantly to the emergence of the CPC. It is also related to the various ways that society and the political system coped with the introduction of the new social groups into politics. Historically, according to Rokkan, one crucial issue in the process of democratisation in any country is the way in which the lower classes are brought into the system.130 He proposed two fundamental ways: the extension of suffrage, engineered primarily by the existing parties and power-holders; and the lower classes’ organisation of their own parties and power centres in opposition to the inherited system. Lipset argues that a group’s degree of access to the legitimate political institutions determines their level of loyalty to the system.131 Like the Balkans, the labour movement in Cyprus developed rather late compared to its Western European counterparts, despite the indigence of the lower classes. Trade unionism remained at an embryonic stage and the political organisations of the workers mainly developed under the influence of the Russian Revolution, with the result that the communist variant became particularly strong.132 The late development of labour organisations meant that their emergence coincided with the Russian Revolution, which had a significant influence on the nature and orientation of Cypriot working class organisations and on the type of political competition in which they engaged. In addition, the Cypriot labour movement differed from its European counterparts in that in Europe the workers protested within and against sovereign states, while in Cyprus, a British colony, the nature of the confrontation was different. In Cyprus, demands (not only by the workers) for social and political rights against the existing system were inevitably linked with the struggle for enosis or, in the case of the CPC, independence and the concession of political

THE PARTICULARITIES OF CYPRUS

41

rights. Thus, the struggle of the Cypriot working class against the colonial power had both national and class content. The literature offers several reasons to explain why sections of the popular strata were attracted to the communist parties. In economically less developed regions and countries, and in periods of sudden or rapid social change, communism has appealed to individuals who have been uprooted from a traditional social order but who are not incorporated into the new social landscape. In addition, for countries like Cyprus lacking socialist traditions, it was easier for the communist ideology to gain ground. According to this line of interpretation, the rise of the communist movement is associated with insecurity, social change and migration as well as with the weakening of traditional values, such as religion.133 Others note with caution the major chronological and political differences in the labour movements of various countries, as well as the time lag between migration from traditional agrarian homes and organised collective action.134 These differences cannot be attributed solely to economic changes. Hence, there are other factors that should be investigated, such as the perceptions and reactions of other social classes and of the state towards organised labour movement. Those who express reservations relating to the theory that there is a direct correlation between living standards, labour protest and political radicalism and communist parties, cite the fact that similar conditions elsewhere did not lead to a popular communist movement. Another argument is that the first groups of workers who organised themselves in unions and joined socialist parties came in the majority from the ‘well-paid’ strata of artisans. Hence, a combination of ideological, economic and social factors must also be taken into account, as well as other factors, as every country has unique features. The establishment and subsequent rise of communist parties (as with any party) presuppose a political position on salient issues that are not represented by the other parties; this scenario means there is a place for new players in the party system.135 In Cyprus, one such issue was the major social question, which involved a large number of Cypriots. Growing interaction and communication among local communities, and particularly in the towns, as well as the process of social mobilisation,

42

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

created the appropriate conditions for organised representation of the popular strata. These conditions alone, however, were not sufficient. The interaction of ideology and organisational network is key for any movement to become rooted in society. As Sartori notes, ‘no idea has ever made much headway without an organisation behind it. Wherever ideologies seem to be important in politics, they have a firm organisational basis.’136 In Cyprus, the communist movement was the first form of organisation of the popular masses to prove durable. At the same time, it was ideologically autonomous and independent from the dominant political forces and the colonial administration. Nevertheless, the formulation of the Cyprus Communist Party was neither straightforward nor automatic. For the greater part of the period under examination, the Cypriot working (and agrarian) class had a very minimal organisation due to ideological and political immaturity and lack of leadership. Moreover, the working class was not sufficiently strong numerically, at least until the end of World War I. The Cypriot labour movement grew due to the proletarisation of the peasantry, but the absence in Cyprus of large-scale enterprises with a concentrated labour force hindered the awareness of the need for organisation. Also impeding awareness of the need for lower class organisation was the fact that the ruling bourgeoisie and the clergy remained totally dominant until the early 1930s. They controlled every aspect of organised social life within the Greek Cypriot community: educational committees, school boards, the appointment of teachers and government employees, newspapers, political representation in the Legislative Council and local government. This left no margin for the workers and peasants to shape a different policy against the colonial power or even against their exploiters.137 There were several factors that led the working class to realise the need for its own political representation. First, there were important international events that influenced the collective experience of the working class, i.e., the Russian Revolution and World War I. The appearance of the first socialist ideas encouraged the development of political autonomy. The socialist ideology gave the working class a tool for analysis and helped shape a political programme and increase political awareness. Second, the working class was large enough to

THE PARTICULARITIES OF CYPRUS

43

create a political party that would be an autonomous political force. The growth in waged labour and the greater urbanisation created a new context for collective action. The number of unionised workers increased continually and they began to realise both their solidarity and power. However, the property qualifications attached to the franchise (see Chapter 2) had not yet created a numerically significant electorate from the lower strata; in practice, the majority of workers and peasants were excluded from voting. Third, the dispossession of peasants from their lands led to a concentration of working masses in the towns and in larger units of production, such as factories, mines, large workshops and government works. In these relatively large units of production, there were sufficient numbers for the workers to develop solidarity and common stances. Finally, a highly decisive contribution to the workers’ solidarity and the broadening of the spiritual horizons of the lower classes was the formation of the CPC, the material it published and the lectures given by its cadres at the Limassol Labour Centre (LLC). The newspapers of the Cypriot Left called on the workers to realise that they constituted a class with completely different interests from the bourgeoisie and exhorted them to cease acting as the ‘electoral rabble of the various unreliable bourgeois politicians’.138 The publications of the communist press recognised not only the weak class consciousness of the working class, but also the need to develop it through organised political education. They also pointed to the need for workers and peasants to ‘acquire class consciousness, to feel the class struggle and to recognise the common enemy’ in the face of the bourgeoisie.139 All these are examined in subsequent chapters. A new system of social stratification was developing alongside new political structures. Political structures constitute a fundamental condition in the process of party forming. Although these two factors were developing autonomously, they eventually interacted and structured political competition. It is therefore important to examine the new political structure that the British gave to Cyprus.

CHAPTER 2 POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

This chapter will map and analyse the political developments underlying the emergence of party politics in Cyprus during the first period of the British colonial era. In this regard two important developments are examined. First, the political institutions within which the political parties emerged as representatives and organisers of specific interests (i.e., the executive and the parliament). The emphasis here lies with the Legislative Council (parliament), the major representative institution provided to Cypriots under colonial rule, within which electoral politics took place. Second, the provisions for the franchise. The extension of the franchise signals the introduction of mass politics in every country. This section analyses the voting criteria, the formal and informal provisions for elections and their role, and the levels of mass participation; it also draws comparisons with other states in similar stages of development. An analysis of Cyprus’ politics in the early twentieth century must give special attention to the development of political clientelism and the sources of patron–client relationships, since they not only constituted the basis of political representation but they also distorted it. While not directly related to the emergence of the CPC, the aforementioned unfold the context within which the CPC’s politics took place. They must therefore be analysed in order to place the emergence of the Party in context and comprehend the environment in which it operated.

POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 45

2.1 Representative institutions Political institutions are considered a crucial prerequisite for the development of any form of democratic and representative politics.1 According to the modern liberal model of democracy, governments and legislatures are directly or indirectly elected in general elections with equal voting rights among citizens. It also assumes a certain degree of civil liberties to guarantee the right to choose, and formal equality before the law.2 This model must be placed in context, however, since it will always be qualified by the prevailing social and cultural norms and conditions, and these will vary according to time period and country. It is therefore anticipated that the situation of representative institutions and the extent of the franchise in colonial Cyprus at the verge of the twentieth century will marked by limited and restricted access, consistent with international practice in similar periods of state development.3 The British organisation and control of the institutional setting are also key, since colonial policy was the most influential factor in shaping political arrangements on the island, and reveals the extent to which democratic principles were intended to be applied. In 1883 there was a new political structure set up in Cyprus, after an Order in Council on 30 November 1882 adopted the constitution.4 The new constitution largely overruled the Ottoman institutions and style of governing, reflecting the spirit of the new masters. It also marked the beginning of modern Cypriot politics, although it did not immediately alter all polity provisions.5 The high commissioner, who was renamed governor in 1925 when Cyprus became an official colony of the British Crown, was placed at the head of government. He was appointed by the minister of the colonies in Britain, to whom he was solely accountable. The British also established an Executive Council, holding only advisory powers and composed exclusively of British officials until 1897, when membership was widened to include three Cypriots (two Christians and one Muslim) who were appointed by the high commissioner. The two most important changes in the political structure, however, refer to the introduction of representative institutions, those at the local

46

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

level as well as the Legislative Council, both of which required elections. The Legislative Council was established in 1882, a vestige parliament that the British granted to the Cypriots. 2.1.1 The Legislative Council The Ministry of Colonies and the British officials in Cyprus disagreed over the type of regime and the extent of participation that should be yielded to the islanders.6 Of primary concern was the establishment of a government that would facilitate the implementation of the official British policy. Two issues were important in this regard. First, it was seen as crucial to develop participatory feelings among the Cypriots by incorporating them in the political process, as this would minimise their opposition. This was a common British practice, since in this way, ‘local notables [. . .] were awarded more power in managing their internal affairs, provided they would adopt the social and economic projects outsourced to them; that is, taxing their countrymen’.7 Second, it was important to take advantage of the disparate composition of the local population, i.e., two different ethno-religious groups (Greeks and Turks). The British decided to structure all institutions along these ethno-religious lines (see below) – again, a common practice of the British in colonial times. The founding of the Council under these terms led to permanent tension and confrontation between the two communities and marked the ultimate political development of the island. The conflict became institutionalised and ‘the system relied for its efficiency upon keeping alive the racial hostilities between the two sections of the population’,8 i.e., the ‘divide and rule system’. The Legislative Council was partially elected and partially appointed. The Council comprised 12 elected members (nine Greeks and three Turks) and another six official members (British) appointed by the British government. The Legislative Council seats were distributed so as to offset the votes of the official members and the Turkish members, on the one hand, and Greek legislators, on the other. Furthermore, the British chairman of the Council (the high commissioner, and after 1925 the governor) was equipped with a

POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

47

casting vote in cases of parity in votes. Incumbency was set at five years with the exception of the first term, which was limited to three years. The electoral provisions were based on separate electoral lists for the two communities. The composition of the Council remained in effect until 1925 when Cyprus was declared a colony of the Crown and minor changes were introduced. These reflected the need to adjust to population changes, and particularly the increase of the Greek community. Britain therefore allotted three more seats in the Council to the Greeks, which was at the same time cancelled by the increase in the official (British) members from six to nine. The number of the Turkish members remained the same (three).9 At the same time the Greek constituencies were increased from three to 12, making elections single-seated contestations. The Legislative Council could be sidelined whenever the high commissioner/governor faced difficulties in promoting the colonial policies, thus rendering the Council practically powerless. In addition, the scope of issues delegated to the Council was very limited. The legislation relevant to the island’s budget or any other expenses was in line with British parliamentary practice, where absolute authority lay with the executive power (governor).10 Cypriot participation was therefore restricted to issues of secondary nature. Floor debate constituted the Council’s core activity and it was the arena where all major issues were addressed. The Council, however, was not equipped with a committee system to help carry out its work. One of the most crucial aspects of the new institutional setting was how it affected the authority of the Church of Cyprus, the most powerful local institution of the Greeks: The establishment of the Legislative Council signalled the abolition of the political role of the Church and undermined its authority over the Christians, taking into account that the political power rested henceforth with the elected members of the body. The new scenery made it possible for secular mechanisms of organisation and mobilisation of the masses to emerge. This in turn, points to the rising of popular political forces legitimised by the body politic.11

48

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

This above-quoted assessment is not entirely correct, as the Church of Cyprus continued to maintain its hegemonic political role despite the greater number of laymen involved in political and public life. Moreover, the new system introduced by the British was actually contradictory: while the institutional changes put in place by the British contained elements favourable to the modernisation of Cypriot society as well as the dynamics for radical transformation (i.e., elections), they also retained elements of continuity with the Ottoman past: political life and electoral processes were structured solely along religious lines: Christians versus Muslims. This creation of political divisions along ethnic and religious lines was a common practice of colonial powers to provide ‘institutional incentives for constructing and politicising ethnic groups and identities’.12 The confessional nature of the electoral system encouraged the Greeks and the Turks to maintain their traditional ethnic and religious identities and adopt a communal perspective in addressing the political opportunities offered by the British. The demarcation of the conflict on purely ethno-religious grounds actually encouraged and enabled the prolongation of the Church’s dominance. It also provided the British with a permanent influence over the island’s politics and with mediating capabilities over the two communities. The legislation regarding elected offices was another important feature of the new institutional setting. Usually political systems stipulate a separation between offices, while in Cyprus for most of the period, membership in the Legislative Council did not preclude membership on the Mayoral Council and, likewise, one could be a member of both the municipal and the village councils. At times, therefore, a (small) number of dignitaries held two offices simultaneously. In 1930, a proposal to separate the offices was put before the Legislative Council.13 The proposal was accepted in part: the offices of deputy and mayor were declared incompatible but it was ruled that a member of parliament could also hold the post of city councillor. The underlying rationale here touches on the issue of political elite composition and circulation. The members of the ruling class entertained conservative views on both issues and did not want to be deprived their offices and the concurrent opportunities for

POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 49

using power to their own benefit. This is amply illustrated by the very limited number of people who served these offices (see section 2.2.2). The period under consideration ended with the October riots in 1931, which resulted in an oppressive and authoritarian form of government. The Legislative Council was abolished and all civil rights were terminated. The constitution was suspended, gatherings of more than five persons (with the exception of church-goers) were forbidden and the press was censored.14 To understand the 1931 Greek rebellion against British rule, we must consider again and in a broader context the changes introduced by the British. These changes reflected the need for a liberal political setting that would differentiate the new masters from the old, on the one hand, and the need to introduce safety valves that would guarantee the smooth administration of Cyprus, on the other. Safety valves included the casting vote of the governor and his right to dissolve the parliament at any time; most important, however, they were manifested in the colonial rulers’ tactic of siding with the Turkish minority against the Greeks. Haynes Smith, high commissioner of Cyprus at the time, clearly demonstrates this line of thought: ‘The Constitution of the Legislative Council was based on the idea that there would be a proper balance of parties in the Island, because when the Turkish members agreed with the Government the two would form a majority.’15

2.2 Franchise and mass participation The extension of the franchise occurred throughout Europe during the first decades of the twentieth century, although its particularities varied from country to country. It was also dependent on a complex bargaining process between major power groups in each polity.16 Suffrage democratisation was inherently related to the act of political participation. In Cyprus, the franchise was introduced in the late Ottoman period for the election of the mukhtars. The British modified the electoral laws on four occasions during the period under examination.

50

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

First, in 1882, they established the Legislative Council and enacted laws governing the election of its members. Second, in 1906, they ruled for voting by secret ballot. When Cyprus was officially declared a Crown colony in 1925, the laws on voting were again amended to increase the number of constituencies. Lastly, in 1931, they abolished all electoral and civil rights. Throughout this period, voting was always voluntary despite the plea of the Greek press to make voting compulsory in order to enhance popular sovereignty and discourage corruption.17 The issue of voting and the composition of the electorate in Cyprus were determined by the Colonial Office and the British officials assigned to Cyprus. Initially, it was decided to legislate crossvoting between Greek and Turkish electors for a prescribed number of seats in the Legislative Council. The high commissioner of Cyprus, Biddulph, however, immediately rejected this provision on the grounds that this would jeopardise the sufficient representation of the Muslim minority.18 According to the constitution of 30 November 1882, the franchise was conferred to all male British or Ottoman citizens above the age of 21 with a permanent residence on the island during the five years prior to the election date, provided they had paid any of the three verghi taxes19 of the previous year or rent on a house or a shop. During the period under consideration, the franchise was never extended to include women, which compromised the legitimisation of the electoral process and the democratisation of the political system. The only time the issue was raised, within the parliamentary context, was in May 1930 during the deliberations for amending the legislation on municipalities. One of the members of the Legislative Council, K. Rossides, suggested that women should be entitled to vote and therefore be included in the register of voters. His suggestion was voted down.20 Another key feature of the electoral process in Cyprus was the property qualification attached to the franchise. This was common practice throughout the West and beyond, especially in the early phases of mass mobilisation. The landed nobility were typically considered the only claimants of social and political privileges.21

POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

51

Political citizenship was inconceivable without land ownership. The British took a conservative approach, based on their belief that the popular strata lacked the maturity to take part in the political process.22 In effect, this meant that those eligible to vote were limited to economically successful individuals as measured by the possession of property or business dexterity. In a society marked by heavy debt, this condition was equivalent to political rights being denied to the majority of the population. Failure to pay the verghi taxes every year was not subject to penalty, unlike the payment of the tithe. As a result, verghi debtors were not motivated to fulfil their obligation and thus acquire the right to vote. This led to the de facto exclusion of the lower strata and large parts of the rest of the population from voting. The rising Greek Cypriot bourgeoisie opposed the British view on the franchise for various reasons. For some, the problem lay with the collection of the verghi taxes as early as 13 January because this would preclude an important section of the middle classes from the electoral process.23 Others addressed the issue in a wider perspective, believing that the electorate should include all male citizens regardless of their financial and property position.24 This camp felt that social and economic prerequisites for membership in the electorate were unjust, and pushed for the franchise to represent the majority of the population. This position was related to the pressing demand of the Greek Cypriots for union with Greece: an enlarged electorate would provide significant legitimacy to the unionist claim. The bourgeois press did not, however, raise the issue of equal citizenship rights in an inclusive way. Women were never considered entitled to vote, nor were the rights of peasants and labourers part of the arguments presented for the extension of the suffrage. One exception to this was Laiki (Popular), a newspaper published by a populist politician in the mid-1920s, which demanded universal suffrage for all men regardless of their economic or property status.25 The CPC was the sole official political force demanding universal suffrage for all citizens above the age of 18, with no restrictions.26 The electoral law stipulated open balloting. Voting would last three (working) days and the voter was entitled to vote for as many

52

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

candidates as the number of seats allotted in his district (three for each for the Greeks and one for the Turks).27 At each polling station, there would be the presiding officer, one clerk, one interpreter, a number of mukhtars for the purpose of identifying the voter, and an agent whom each candidate might want to appoint. The voter, once allowed into the polling station, would declare his candidates of choice.28 Balloting was open due to the high percentage of illiteracy.29 Voting was, under conditions of lack of secrecy, at least suspicious, although it seemed unavoidable. ‘The extension of the suffrage to vast numbers of illiterates made it impossible to stick to a strict rule of secrecy.’30 Open balloting presented the biggest challenge to the fairness of the elections. The regulation that voters had to cast their vote within view of the candidates or their agents entailed the danger for the voter (client) to be caught voting against the will of the candidate (patron). In a system where candidates needed very few votes to be elected, the influence exerted by the clergy and affluent individuals was decisive. It was very easy to pressure the voters, and particularly those whose properties were mortgaged, into voting for the candidates of influential notables. The act of voting could not be isolated from its daily contexts: social, economic and cultural and ‘was more frequently an expression of loyal deference than of political protest’.31 Before long, it became necessary to finally introduce the secret ballot. Two factors were key to the decision: the population was becoming more educated and there was a high level of tension regarding the election of the Archbishopric Question (1900–9). Thus, on 18 August 1906, the secret ballot was introduced by the then high commissioner, King-Harman.32 The campaign for the post of the archbishop, the most influential office within the Greek community, was underway and was rife with bias.33 For the elections, there were separate ballot boxes for each candidate; each box had two compartments, one painted white to represent a yes vote and the other painted black to signal a no vote. The colour differentiation was to allow illiterate voters to participate. Winning was by a simple majority, i.e., whoever received the most white votes. This system still left a great deal of leeway for the exertion of social pressure. Social

POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 53

relationships were far-reaching and intricate and the possibilities of observation and control were too great to allow voters a really independent choice. In addition, a large part of the electorate was accustomed to allegiance and to accepting the social and economic elites as their political leaders. This was reflected in the social and economic characteristics of political representation (see below). Further amendments to the electoral law were the result of political variables (international and/or national) that surfaced in the early 1920s. The Greek nationalists successfully boycotted the workings of the Legislative Council in 1921–2 and the elections of 1922–3 as a first climax of the growing movement for enosis. Amidst strife and conflict, Stevenson, then high commissioner of the island, suggested restructuring the constituencies and introducing changes to the franchise as a means to subdue the Greek nationalist movement. He submitted a number of suggestions to the Ministry of Colonies in 1923, which were accepted two years later, in May 1925, with the introduction of the new constitution.34 Similar proposals had been made earlier, but were never incorporated into legislation.35 The new electoral law increased the constituencies of the Greek population from three to 12 and the number of deputies from 9 to 12, making all districts single-member, under a plurality electoral system. In contrast, the Turkish constituencies were left intact. The franchise was limited to British citizens in an effort to prevent a number of Greek citizens living in Cyprus for more than five years from running in the elections. Some of these Greek citizens were leading figures of the nationalist movement in Cyprus. Candidates were required to be permanent residents of the district in which they wanted to run for election. Suggestions that ballot papers be introduced were dismissed on the ground that the illiterate would be unable to vote. The system with ballot boxes remained in place.36 The underlying purpose of these changes was to strengthen the local candidates against the increasingly powerful network of urban nationalist elites and moneylenders. Although the British were keen to exclude clergymen from elected office, they did not pursue this idea. The new system was heavily criticised by the nationalist camp, who found it to be inherently vulnerable to corruption, since the

54

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

small size of the constituencies offered a wide margin for interference by the local notables.37 Underlying the criticism, though, was the established elite’s fear of losing their preferential access to the Legislative Council, and the concern that their authority within the Greek community might be undermined. Their fears were realised in the elections of 1925, where all candidates elected fell outside the influence of the ethnarchy38 for the first time. 2.2.1 Mass political participation The constitution granted by the British brought about a major overhaul in the social and political set-up on the island. Theoretically, it provided for democracy and equality before the law; in practice, however, it mirrored the economic inequalities of the society. In other words, the Legislative Council was a significant advance, but only for those who could involve themselves in electoral politics. Political participation was still associated with social and economic variables and backgrounds. The majority of the population, whose main concern was their daily survival, lacked the necessary resources, time and education to effectively engage in politics. Table 1 presents the data on the Greek Cypriot electoral participation in the elections for the Legislative Council from 1883 to 1930. In gauging the data in Table 1, one can identify a gradual but minimal increase in the electorate, while electoral participation tended to fluctuate. The process of electoral decision-making brought the individual voter face-to-face with pressures stemming from a variety of sources, including: economic conditions; the candidates themselves and the client network they commanded; the political context, as this was determined by the Greek Cypriot demand for enosis; the increasingly decisive role of the press; internal conflicts and divisions among the Greeks of Cyprus that stimulated participation (e.g., the elections of 1901 and 1906 during the fierce fight over the Archiepiscopal Question) or developments that signalled indifference (e.g., the conclusion of the Archiepiscopal Question in 1909 and the abstention from the election in 1922– 3). Throughout the period of legislative politics (1883– 1931) the electorate consistently comprised less than 20 per cent of the total

137,631 137,631 158,585 158,585 182,739 182,739 214,480 214,480 244,887 244,887 (6) 244,887 283,721 (9)

Greek Cypriot population

21,073 15,408 10,029 12,093 24,952 33,229 34,331 42,071 49,109 49,109 45,342 49,831

Registered voters (1) – 226.88 234.91 20.58 106.33 33.17 3.31 22.54 16.72 4.00 (7) 27.67 9.90

Variation in the number of registered voters (%) 15.31% 11.19% 6.32% 7.62% 13.65% 18.18% 16.00% 19.61% 20.05% 20.05% 18.51% 17.40%

Registered voters as a percentage of the total population 43.52% – – 37.83% 71.4% 51.65% – 43.68% – 66.08% 52.70%

29,966 26,024

Turnout as a percentage of the registered voters

9,172 607 (2) 2,176 (3) 4,575 17,816 17,166 8,241 (4) 18,380 – (5)

Turnout

Greek Cypriot electoral participation in legislative council elections, 1883 – 1930

12.23% 9.17%

6.66% – – 2.88% 9.74% 9.39% – 8.56% –

Turnout as a percentage of the total population

Source: Author’s compilation of data based on the population censuses of 1881, 1891, 1901, 1911, 1921 and 1931 and the Cyprus Blue Books. 1. Registered voters were recorded based on the payment of one of the vergi taxes. 2. Voting took place only in one of the three electoral districts (Nicosia–Kyrenia); in the other two the candidates matched (or were less than) the number of seats. 3. Voting took place only in one of the three electoral districts (Larnaca–Famagusta); in the other two the candidates matched (or were less than) the number of seats. 4. Voting took place in two of the three electoral districts; the other (Limassol–Paphos) the candidates matched the number of seats. 5. Voting did not occur in any district. 6. In December 1922 and January 1923 supplementary elections took place in order to replace the Greek Cypriots deputies who abstained from the workings of the Legislative Council. 7. The figure is based on the number of voters (2000) mentioned by the politician Spyros Araouzos in a memo he submitted to the minister of colonies in London on behalf of the Greek National Council in 1923. 8. The first elections that took place under the new constitution after the official declaration of Cyprus as a colony of the Crown. According to the new constitution the Greek Cypriot seats increased from nine to 12. The number of electoral districts also increased from three to 12. 9. The figure is based on the population census of 1931.

1883 1886 1891 1896 1901 1906 1911 1916 1921 1922– 3 1925 (8) 1930

Year of election

Table 1

POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 55

56

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

Greek population. While this was a very low percentage, even smaller was the percentage of those eligible to vote who actually voted, which remained (with only one exception in 1916) below 10 per cent. This state of affairs demonstrates a distinctive feature of Greek Cypriot politics at the time: only a minority of the people actually engaged in politics. Low levels of electoral participation and political indifference among the lower classes were inevitable, given the various (economic) conditions attached to the franchise and the absence of ideological debates. This was further aggravated by the fact that voting was not obligatory. The main feature of the institutional setting and the electoral process was its oligarchic nature. True mass participation was still unattainable. The lower strata did not behave electorally according to their social and class position. The choices they made were shaped by ideological and economic manipulation and control that inhibited their free expression. The low turnout of workers, peasants and other low-income groups also reflected the relative indirectness and invisibility of crucial economic relationships.39 When economic relationships are not easily visible to those affected, the importance of going to the polls and supporting candidates of their own class is not obvious or even understood. Insight into complex social problems can result from education, which explains the increased political participation of the educated classes. The lower classes’ participation in the electoral contests of this period involved no more than electing members of the traditional political class as members of parliament. Lack of participation and representation also reflects lack of effective citizenship and consequent lack of loyalty to the system as a whole.40 2.2.2 Social synthesis of the Legislative Council: oligarchic parliamentarism The Archiepiscopal Question led to a change in the patterns of political representation, although the clientistic nature of representation remained essentially the same. The change was reflected in the sociological characteristics of the deputies – many of those whose politics were more traditionalist in time became nationalists.41 This new category of representatives (i.e., nationalists) comprised a

POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

57

younger and more educated class of people, who during their higher education – in Athens primarily – were exposed to and greatly influenced by the ideology of Greek nationalism. The more traditional political group, which comprised somewhat older members, had not been exposed to modern ideologies and was overall less educated. For both groups, however, mobilising capacities and mechanisms (patron– client relationships) remained the same: both groups were part of the same social establishment, which did not change. During the period under study there were 11 legislative periods; or put otherwise, 11 elections took place that saw 61 deputies coming to office (with the exception of the supplementary election of 1922– 3). If every member were elected once, the total number of members would be 105. As only 61 persons served in this post, however, this means that each of those elected members had a 50 per cent chance of being re-elected. We should bear in mind, though, that some deputies elected served the post as many as four times while others were only elected once. Therefore, the actual possibility was even smaller. Analysis of the deputies’ curriculum vitae42 indicates a strong relationship between Council membership and certain socioeconomic variables: level of education, personal wealth, occupation, and family relationships. The only exception to this typical picture occurred during the supplementary elections of 1922 – 3 where another type of candidate and deputy prevailed (farmers and peasants) due to the special circumstances of those elections (i.e., the abstention of the nationalists). The biographies of the deputies signify relationships of kinship either of direct nature (i.e., father and son, brothers, etc.) or indirect (i.e., through marriage). Lyssiotis notes that if one considers only the relationship groups ‘father– son’ and ‘brothers’, seven political families constituted 25 per cent of the total deputies’ population.43 In addition, the phenomenon of electing or appointing the same persons to multiple offices (recycling) was widespread. Those elected to the Legislative Council were, in the majority of cases, the same people who took part in other institutions and bodies or held offices

58

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

vested with authority over the Greek Cypriot community. Those institutions and bodies included: the municipal councils (i.e., the posts of the mayor and municipal councilors); members of the central or district educational boards; members of the ecclesiastical committees; managers of financial institutions; and school directors. Some people were also appointed as members of the Executive Council of Cyprus while holding the office of the deputy. The pattern of representation in the political elite dictated how one would ‘climb the office ladder’; i.e., going from lower prestige offices to higher. The pattern of political representation reflected class and gender inequalities; this was to be expected given the legal provisions for the franchise. The peasantry lacked any representation in the Legislative Council despite their numbers. Political representation in Cyprus was consistent with a very specific conceptualisation of politics: politicians were expected to be financially well-off, with no need of the income provided by their political occupation. Based on this approach, the only person who can actually participate in politics is the man of independent means.44 This is evidenced by the social background and composition of the Cypriot political elite. In 47 years of electoral politics (1883– 1931) no labourer or female was ever elected, indicating a very low degree of social mobility in the ranks of the political elite. The elected members of the Legislative Council were drawn from the small-sized but more educated or better-off class of citizens that included merchants, lawyers, moneylenders and Church prelates, while the masses remained sidelined and denied access to the power structure. Consequently, the social and political spheres overlapped to such a degree that 88 per cent of Legislative Council members practiced alone or simultaneously the occupations of lawyer, merchant and/or landowner.45 There were two leading groups in the Greek Cypriot community during the first decades of British rule: the Orthodox Church on the one hand, and the politicians who controlled client networks, on the other.46 Unsurprisingly, then, there was a huge gap between the people elected to the parliament and the interests of the vast majority of the Greek population.47 Given its social composition, the Legislative Council was unlikely to take any radical action when dealing with the

POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 59

intense social problems on the island. It was an oligarchic society and an oligarchic parliament;48 electoral politics were the domain of only a small minority of better-off families and Church prelates. The popular strata were excluded from politics. The model of representation that best describes the period under study is the administrative model,49 in which the elected person is not bound by his/her constituency’s mandate, but may decide issues as he/she wishes since he/she is considered the better judge of their interests. The masses are uneducated so they cannot understand what is in their best interests and therefore the educated representative can act on his/ her behalf. The people’s representatives in the Legislative Council were considered independent actors and differences in opinion were expected and accepted.50

2.3 Clientelism as a defining feature of politics in Cyprus Clientelism is not new: it had been present in a variety of contemporary and historical settings, both Western and non-Western and regardless of the degree of development.51 Therefore, the study of political clientelism must be placed into historical, economic, cultural and political context, as each society is unique. Asymmetry is inherent in this type of relationship and the transactions involved penetrate all social sectors. The peasant and his family (clients) provide votes for a politician (patron), who in return is expected to provide for their material needs. There appears to be more pervasive clientelism in the developing world,52 which, with special reference to the countries of late development in the Balkans and southern Europe, Mouzelis attributes to their ‘pre-independence despotic heritage’.53 Cyprus fits this category: its Ottoman past was characterised by the total subservience of the nobility and high state officials to the sultan. Patron–client relationships developed in the Ottoman period and penetrated all aspects of life in Cyprus, exercising defining control over the nature of political representation well into the British era.54 The institutional structure of politics in Cyprus is ineluctably linked to the social, economic and class antitheses prevailing at the time. The class structure on the island mirrored the imbalance in the

60

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

distribution of ownership and the lack of equality and justice of the tax system. Clientelism developed out of the misery of the majority of the population and the lack of any social welfare system or reliable lending/banking mechanisms. Widespread poverty among the masses led to a clientage network involving landowners, merchants, brokers, moneylenders and lawyers. The Orthodox Church was an integral part of this network as it owned huge tracts of land, which it leased directly to the peasants or to wealthy people who in turn sublet them to small cultivators.55 Within this context, patronage was vital to the basic survival of the poorer strata. Using their voting right as a commodity for exchange was only natural since it improved their chances of survival. Meynaud is speaking of Greece in the quote that follows, but he could well be referring to Cyprus: ‘For an independent observer this practice would seem as “an act of amoralism”. However, this would be the perspective of someone whose life is not dependent on material needs.’56 Social conditions in Cyprus nurtured clientelism. Patron–client relationships constituted a part of both the social fabric and the political culture of Cypriots. The mechanisms of dependency worked at many levels and were interlinked. The peasants were totally dependent on their creditors (merchants and lawyers) to whom they were heavily indebted, while the teachers exercised control over their electoral conduct. The teacher was usually the only literate person in the context of the villages and therefore was vested with respect. In turn, the teachers were dependent on the Greek Educational Council and the District Educational Committees, whose composition depended partially on the Greek members of the Legislative Council and the Church. Thus, the teacher was forced to act as an agent for ambitious politicians who lived in the cities. A teacher’s appointment, promotion, payment and transfer to a better working environment were fully dependent on how well he served his patrons.57 Clientelism, therefore, was not restricted to the relationships between members of the ruling class and the lower strata. Client relations penetrated social and political interactions among members of the elite as well. The Greek newspapers provided the arena for these dealings. Editors and columnists were also linked to ambitious politicians and parliamentarians in a relation of dependency and

POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

61

mutual benefit. The newspapers supported politicians and policies in return for payment, usually in the form of advertisements.58 Favouritism and corruption are endemic to the client system, and in Cyprus constituted a serious barrier to the free expression of the electorate’s will. Naturally it was easier to exercise pressure on the poorer strata, and especially on the indebted smallholders. Papademetris describes how rampant bribery (130 occasions) was during the elections of 1906,59 citing the chief justice’s report, following a petition: ‘In the poorest villages the voter seems practically under the complete control of his creditor.’60 Lefkis reports a case in the town of Limassol, in 1925, where 18 people offered to christen someone’s child in view of the forthcoming elections.61 Open balloting further aggravated the problem since it provided fertile ground for the formation of patron– client relationships between the candidates and the electorate. The introduction of secret ballot in 1906 did not improve things. The total lack of ideological lines of division in the electoral contests facilitated the further development of vertical relationships and the founding of a political system based on clientelism. Richter has a different perspective, however, and contests the paradigm of patronage politics in Cyprus beyond the early years of British rule.62 His reading puts into question the extent of clientelism on the basis of the significant internal development on the island due to the initiatives taken by the British on several levels. His perspective, however, is not shared by the majority of scholars and even the actors of the time themselves.63 Patron– client relationships may have been rooted in the Ottoman era but they were perpetuated and grew deep in the British era. Nevertheless, there were a number of factors that laid the groundwork for changing or at least mitigating the effect of patronage. These factors included: the measures taken by the British to improve the farmer’s lot; the influence of the ideology of nationalism; better education; improved patterns and forms of organisation; and emergence of a strong trade union movement under the tutelage of the Communist Party. Political life in Cyprus was still going through a transitional phase where a number of processes were evolving. The nexus of social and

62

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

institutional factors described above were gradually leading to increased political awareness and participation, in spite of instances of regression. The traditional patron– client relationships and personal commitments that kept the voter obligated and easily manipulated were starting to crumble but they remained strong throughout this period. In fact, patronage has never died out in Cyprus and has always constituted a defining feature of Cypriot politics.

2.4 Incomplete political integration Politicisation and electoral participation are not tantamount to political integration. Integration presupposes the general willingness of a society to offer and accept full-fledged political partnership of all citizens without reservation.64 Political integration of those left out of the political process due to sociopolitical arrangements is associated with the development of socioeconomic relations, the development of more universalistic loyalties (i.e., the nation) and the advent of modern social and political organisations.65 The diffusion of civil, political and social rights among the lower strata signals the inclusion of the mass of the population into the nation-state. In late development societies the distribution of these basic rights has been more uneven and restricted than in western and northern Europe. The lower strata were denied even the basic rights that would give them a reasonable share in the political power and wealth. The process of inclusion took a more vertical, authoritarian turn, so that inclusion took place through patron– client networks controlled by bourgeois politicians. This type of network cuts across the more horizontal forms of political organisation like the (class-based) trade unions and political parties. Due to the structural barriers to institutionalising more integrative modes of inclusion, in these countries patronage networks become widespread and adapt to modern environments.66 Mouzelis cites Greece as a good example of this type of political modernisation, and the situation in Cyprus is very similar – especially regarding the cultural inclusion of the lower strata through religion and nationalistic ideology, which preceded the economic and political

POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 63

incorporation. This sequence facilitated the perpetuation of clientelistic relations and strengthened their role as mechanisms of integration. Political integration of the lower classes was never fully achieved during the period under study. The vast majority of the population was not enfranchised and their organisations were underdeveloped. Their basic individual and social rights were never fully put in place. Consequently, their political rights were also impaired.

2.5 The limits of colonialism The abolition of the constitution in 1931 signalled the termination of all electoral processes. Thereafter, all public offices were directly appointed by the British governor of Cyprus. The only criterion for appointment was the willingness to implement British policies on internal affairs. It is important to assess the provisions for the franchise and the Legislative Council in the context of British colonialism as well as that of liberalism. Assemblies are not governing bodies, yet they constitute the cornerstone of both liberal and democratic politics. It is along these two dimensions that the institutions of representation ceded to Cyprus by Britain should be evaluated, together with the key functions usually assigned to assemblies: representation, deliberation and legislation. Liberalism is usually judged according to the provisions for power separation and the weight assigned to the assemblies, while representativeness is asserted through the powers vested in representative institutions, the functions they perform and the extent to which popular sovereignty is established or qualified. Looking at these criteria in terms of the British in Cyprus, two features stand out: the democratic deficit of the institutions provided, and the use of elections as a means to legitimise the colonial regime. 2.5.1 Democratic deficit The institutional setting imposed by Britain was above all devised to facilitate the colonial rule. Consequently, the executive arm of the government (the British governor) retained its power throughout the period despite certain modifications and regardless of the good will of some governors; while ‘the Legislative Council has always been an

64

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

impotent parliament given to the Cypriots in order to confer the suppressive regime a democratic dressing’.67 The governor’s authority was virtually unlimited, which rendered the polity’s liberal and democratic credentials false. The press decried the Council as a ‘rampant and crippled body whose composition constituted a parody and a mockery of liberalism’.68 The parliament remained under the firm control of the executive, meaning there was absolutely no separation of power. The Legislative Council had the right to accept or reject government bills, but had no power to amend them. Moreover, in the rare cases where the Greek and the Turkish representatives took the same stance, the governor still had the authority to issue a decree or in some fashion impose the legislation he wanted. The Legislative Council could not propose its own budget; it could only approve or reject the budget proposed by the government. The primary work of the Council was the deliberation of issues: public discussion on national issues, questions on general policy issues, examination of proposals initiated by the executive, issuance of reports and memorandums. The form of representative politics in Cyprus was, therefore, little more than a ‘discussion club’. The inherent democratic deficit reduced the Legislative Council and at the same time limited it to an arena for the expression of its members’ grievances and protests against British policies. For a government to be truly representative, it must comprise a viable set of institutions that offer a balance between popular participation and efficient decision making. The operating rule for decision making must be the simple norm of majority rule.69 This and the aforementioned premises of a libertarian constitutional tradition were brutally violated. The British divided electoral provisions, failed to safeguard the rights of the majority, imposed limitations on the franchise and restricted the scope of the Legislative Council’s activities, rendering the latter inefficient and practically delegitimised. In addition, any democratic ‘principles’ put into place by the British were primarily, and above all, targeted to benefit the colonial interests – not the proper and fair administration of the island. The British rulers’ ability to manipulate processes and

POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 65

institutions to fit their policy is typical of the colonial system and represents one of the paradoxes of capitalist (colonial) democracy: ‘Democracy within one country does not exclude despotic oppression and inequality with respect to other countries.’70 Although the constitutional setting imposed serious limitations on Cypriots’ political and civil rights, the relative freedom of the press, the separation of the executive from the judiciary, the right to petition and criticise the regime, provided a context of elementary democratisation. We cannot understand assemblies solely through institutional analysis, however; of equal importance are the unwritten laws and customs of the society. In developing and colonised nations one such ‘unwritten law’ was clientelism, which proved to be a decisive feature of electoral politics in many nations, Cyprus not excluded, thus weakening the democratic credentials of the system. Furthermore, the electoral system was riddled with class and gender discriminations and open balloting was one of the biggest misrepresentations of democracy. The Legislative Council members were primarily the clergy, the landowners and the urban elites (lawyers, doctors, merchants). These classes monopolised political representation. This meant that the issues which were important for the lower strata were not taken up in the Legislative Council and were scarcely covered in the press. When analysing a country’s electoral system, it is important to look at: the range of offices that are filled through election; who is entitled to vote; the electoral rules for transforming votes to seats (plurality or proportional systems); and the number of alternatives presented to the voters.71 Arguably, the two most problematic areas of the British colonial structure were the weakened electoral system and the total lack of accountability. Analysis of elections and the electoral system in Cyprus during this period reveals a huge democratic deficit. Most offices were not elected positions but were appointed: the British high commissioner (governor after 1925), the Executive Council, district commissioners and almost half members of the Legislative Council.

66

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

2.5.2 Elections and participation as tools for regime legitimisation Elections are considered the bedrock of the liberal/representative model of democracy. They also serve to stabilise semi-competitive regimes, since they allow for some degree of participation.72 In this way, they help to absorb the tensions within societies.73 Rokkan likened elections to ‘locks in a canal: they allow the rising sociocultural forces to flow further through the established channels of the system but also make it possible to stem the tide, to keep back the flood’.74 Thus, elections serve as a means to discipline and control the masses and work against any radical and subversive demands because they channel conflict either between groups in society, or against the government, and not the system itself. Competition is less intense in this way: it excludes systemic variables. This could describe Cyprus in this period. Elections for the Legislative Council and the local authorities provided an important tool in the process of legitimising the colonial rule over Cyprus. The political setting incorporated the Cypriot elite in the administration of the island, which served to reinforce the existing political system and discouraged more radical demands and mobilisation to overthrow the system. Any anti-British protests were generally ‘soft’ – due not only to the Greek Cypriot elite’s positive feelings for the British but also to the introduction of the Legislative Council as a forum for debate and resolution of disputes. The British cleverly trapped the Cypriots in this constitutional form of conflict resolution, which absorbed the tensions in political life. In addition, the inclusion of the Cypriot economic and social elite in the administrative system through the Executive and the Legislative Councils provided the British not only with the loyalty of the elites but also with vital inside information useful for their administration.75 The constitutions of 1882 and 1925 and the overall British policy in Cyprus all primarily aimed to incorporate Cypriots into a broader context of governing in which Cypriot (limited) participation would legitimate the new order. Whereas the changes introduced by the British contained the rudiments of a modern political system, there

POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 67

were also provisions that in effect nullified the (supposedly granted) constitutional principle of the separation of powers. The capability of the British governors to impose their will at any time, the right to dispense with the Legislative Council altogether and the Council’s actual limited scope of activity point to the shrinking representative role of the Cyprus parliament and its limited political significance. Arbitrary government by governmental or queenly decrees was the last resort of the British rulers in a political system lacking any institutional form of checks and balances. The lack of liberal provisions in the constitution, and the actual abolishment of the constitution in 1931 attested to an authoritarian British regime in Cyprus. Despite these shortcomings, the introduction of the first-ever institutions of representation and rudimentary political liberties facilitated the gradual development of the societal infrastructure required for representative and party politics. The political process incorporated increasing numbers of citizens in the context of an embryonic parliamentarism. Political arrangements were put in place in a country with no parliamentary or democratic traditions. Cyprus, at the time, was a country characterised as a latecomer to capitalist development and marked by a lack of inclusion of the masses in the political system. The Cyprus parliament was given very a false authority: it was only partially representative (given the deficits in democratic representation) and it was not really a legislature as it had no sovereign right to pass laws. In sum, the colonial government’s imposition of a system in which there was an absence of democratic representation and a false legislative power rendered their ‘legitimisation’ of government in Cyprus essentially non-existent.

CHAPTER 3 POLITICAL ORIGINS

The Cypriot Communist Party was the ‘product’ of a series of processes, and must be examined in light of several factors; especially the economic and social problems of Cyprus in the first decades of the twentieth century (see Chapter 1). Also important are the role, activities and impact of the protest groups that preceded the communist movement as well as certain international events. This chapter will focus on the political origins of the CPC and in this regard two issues are important: the groups and traditions that preceded its formation and provided the necessary preconditions and mores for the party to build on; and the beginning of socialist activity and ideology on the island that gave the Party a guiding framework. In the second half of the nineteenth century, the social and economic norms of the community usually determined the form of mobilisation. In Cyprus at this time, mobilisation took the form of peasant protests and social banditry. These actions were spontaneous outbreaks among the poorer strata, in response to heavy taxation and hardship due to drought. These economic grievances did not result in any kind of political response, however, because the masses were politically unaware. In Cyprus it was other influences that shaped popular response to hardship, such as deference to paternalism. Nevertheless, at this time there were the beginnings of a political consciousness among the lower classes, and the factors responsible

POLITICAL ORIGINS

69

were: the craft guilds of the nineteenth century, which were more politically conscious; the various classless unions of the early twentieth century; and the short-lived Agrarian and Popular parties. The latter associations were founded by individual politicians of the ruling class in an effort to promote their political careers and ensure their re-election. As part of their political efforts, however, they also educated some of the lower strata in mobilising techniques. Most importantly, however, through their political campaigning, they made the lower classes aware of their interests. The origins of the communist movement can thus be traced, in part, to these factors. Crucial to this process of party-building were the first socialist ideas that were ushered into Cyprus after the Russian Revolution in 1917. These can be traced to Limassol, the major port of Cyprus, initially as a cultural movement for the modernisation of the Greek language. The socialists established small circles within this movement and organised several public lectures. The development of the socialist spheres gradually led to the formation of the Cyprus Labour Party (CLP) in 1922, within which labourites and communists coexisted. The continuous strife between these two factions saw the communists prevailing, setting the tempo and pace for the working class movement on the island for the decades that followed. This chapter will provide a detailed examination of the above organisations, and then follow with a discussion and analysis of two important issues differentiating Cyprus from Western Europe. The first concerns the order in which the trade unions and the working class party emerged: in Cyprus, these appeared in reverse order compared to the rest of Western Europe: i.e., the Party preceded the unions. The second issue relates to the historical absence of a socialist party on the island and the establishment of a communist one instead.

3.1 Lower strata mobilisation schemes In the mid-eighteenth century the lower classes organised numerous mobilisations and uprisings, which they abandoned in 1833 when a class compromise of small ownership was agreed.1 Britain’s take-over

70

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

of the island in 1878 marked the revival of intense social contrasts, as the British economic and social changes overturned the achieved compromise (see Chapter 1). Usury and the horrendous working and living conditions of the popular masses were problems ignored by the political elite but were becoming increasingly worse. The local leadership was unwilling to promote policies that were detrimental to the interests of the upper classes. This reluctance was evident in the negative stance of the Greek parliamentarians towards proposed British legislation that aimed to limit usury and improve the conditions of the indebted peasantry.2 The early 1920s saw the lower classes (peasants, wage-labourers, etc.) challenge the traditional perception that politics was the sole concern of the privileged. This was subserved by a leadership crisis in the Greek ruling class due to the failure of the policy of abstention from the Legislative Council they pursued thus far;3 as a result, the working class, who by then had acquired a significant numerical base, and the poorer agrarian strata were able to make their demands known.4 Despite constituting the overwhelming majority of the Cypriot population, the poorer strata trailed behind the ruling class, following the lead of the educated bourgeoisie and the longestablished landowning classes. Their minimal education and lack of political experience were the primary reasons that they did not develop their own organisations to promote and protect their interests. The entire network of relations prevailing in Cypriot society was defined by factors over which the lower strata had no access or influence (for more detail, see Chapters 1 and 2). The existing legislative framework allowed merchants to fix the interest rates for loans with no controls, while the employers had total control over the terms of employment. The education system was geared to the children of the upper classes. The majority of teachers acted as the mouthpieces of the political candidates. The Church was more interested in accumulating capital and land than addressing the major social problems of its flock. Even worse, the Church was the main instigator of prejudice. The newspapers reproduced the social and political establishment, assisting in the election and re-election of parliamentarians and focusing solely on the issue of enosis.5

POLITICAL ORIGINS

71

It took 50 years of British occupation before the first signs of a working/peasant class social movement appeared. When this finally emerged it assumed three forms, which will be analysed below: (a) short-lived attempts by bourgeois politicians to organise parties that seemingly addressed the interests of the lower strata but in essence merely advanced their founders’ political careers (Agrarian and Popular parties); (b) attempts to organise the working class in trade unions; and (c) a working class political party. The conditions that gradually brought about these movements can be traced to three forms of social unrest: social banditry and rural discontent; labour associations with no class nature created by bourgeois politicians; and the organisational traditions of the artisans and the craftsmen of the pre-capitalist, pre-British period. 3.1.1 Rural unrest and social banditry The classic example of rural unrest was food riots. In most cases, this form of protest was characterised by immediate and violent action and tended to be sporadic. As these protests lacked strong organisation they were limited geographically to the local level, and participation in them was distinguished by a mixed social base.6 According to Hobsbawm, these groups viewed demonstrations, intimidation and violence as a form of collective negotiation in the effort to advance their interests and demands.7 In Cyprus, peasant resistance was manifested in agrarian rallies, disorders and nighttime raids against the property of moneylenders and representatives of the colonial authorities. The first demonstrations occurred in the major towns of Cyprus – Nicosia, Larnaca and Limassol – during the period 1887 – 99. These were protests against the repressive measures imposed by the British as well as against their lack of any social concern for the particularly hard situation of the rural masses in a period of major drought and an explosion of usurious practices. The first such demonstrations were organised in all the major towns in Cyprus in December 1887.8 According to the newspaper reports at the time, a demonstration that took place in Nicosia in January 1888 involved more than 10,000 participants, both urban-dwellers and villagers, who travelled on foot

72

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

all night to take part.9 This phenomenon was repeated in 1895.10 These demonstrations were led by the higher clergy and parliamentarians of Nicosia district, and not only voiced agrarian demands but also raised issues of political freedoms and national rehabilitation. The fact that the initiative to organise these demonstrations was undertaken by the Church and the politicians, who were also the main speakers, indicates that paternalism continued to pervade the lower classes. The most characteristic form of popular reaction, however, was social brigandage, which appeared in Cyprus for the first time at the end of the 1880s and flowered in the mid-1890s. The phenomenon of banditry was rooted in the abject poverty that plagued the population. It appeared during the transition from the traditional Ottoman to modern society, a period during which traditional forms of solidarity were destroyed and society underwent a significant transformation. In many cases, the bandits became popular heroes and were particularly popular among the poorer strata. The brigands’ crimes were committed in the context of a ‘moral code’, as they were directed against policemen, informers and creditors: in other words, against those who represented either the authorities or wealth and for whom there was no sympathy among the population.11 Brigandage and agrarian protests were a very primitive form of organised social reaction and protest, reflecting the embryonic level of organisational and educational development of the lower social strata and groups. Social banditry and peasant demonstrations were the only way that the pre-industrial and pre-political lower strata could respond to the new forms of economic relations that had upset their traditional way of life. We might consider them as a substitute for a social movement or a pre-social movement.12 3.1.2 The organisational traditions of craftsmen Throughout Europe the earliest leaders of the labour movement were the skilled craftsmen and independent artisans, because they were in a better material position than the unskilled workers.13 The threat to their livelihood posed by a free market regime led them to protest and put forward demands in the name of the working class. Their

POLITICAL ORIGINS

73

protest was directed against the new values of the free market and expressed their problems of adaptation to the initial stages of industralisation and the advent of capitalism.14 Artisans were more politicised than the rest of the workers because they were better educated and enjoyed more independence in their professions, which in turn led them to have greater contact with the popular masses, putting them in a position to take on a leadership role.15 In Cyprus, the only type of organisation among the popular strata was the artisan guilds of the Ottoman period. These guilds were professional structures that controlled commerce and manufacturing in the towns of Cyprus. They supervised the quality of the products and advised the authorities on commodities’ pricing. Their most important function was the regulation of entry into the trade. As in other Ottoman provinces, Muslims of Cyprus preferred land ownership and left trade and the crafts to the Christians; thus, the majority of craftsmen and merchants were Greeks.16 The Greek master craftsmen’s support for the guild system was only natural given that these corporate structures were conducive to maintaining the existing class stratification within the Greek society of Cyprus and consequently keeping the distribution of power in their favour.17 The crux of their power lay in the fact that the economy was based on manual skills – which they exclusively held. The decline of the guild system was due to two factors: the breakdown of Ottoman society and commercial development. The latter was accelerated by administrative measures taken by the British (e.g., the import of European machine-made products) and the introduction of elements of an economy based on commercial activities.18 This in turn weakened the Ottoman corporatist economy in which the guilds were a structural component. 3.1.3 Non-class guilds and labour clubs In the early years of British rule there, the working class began to organise, and we can observe two distinct phases of this mobilisation. In the first phase there was the attempt to revive the guilds of the Ottoman period, as evidenced by the artisans’ and craftsmen’s efforts to form voluntary organisations, which took many different

74

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

names, such as brotherhoods, savings clubs and guilds.19 This specific form of working class organisation was the only one acceptable to the ruling political class. Most of these associations abstained from any political activity. Membership in these guilds was limited to what could be described as ‘the aristocracy of labour’ because its members were mainly master-craftsmen. The lack of real associational experience quickly led the guilds to disintegrate or turn into card-playing clubs. The centre of these movements was primarily Limassol and secondarily Nicosia.20 They were dominated by individual economic interests, intense personal rivalries and conflicts, and lacked class consciousness. Although these emerged during a period marked by social and economic upheaval, they made no effort to protest the situation of their members. In addition, although the national movement was already developing, there is no reference to any antigovernmental activity on their part. Their apolitical stance was consolidated when they gradually became associated with the Church, like the guilds of the Ottoman period. They all had a patron saint, whose name day they celebrated.21 In the second phase there was the establishment of labour clubs by various bourgeois politicians, with the aim of electorally exploiting those workers who had the right to vote.22 The various guilds and labour centres of this period were founded in accordance with the Law on Clubs because there was no labour legislation. The majority of these clubs appeared only in election periods and served as mechanisms for supporting specific candidates – they were used as campaign centres for these candidates and were usually dissolved or became inactive after the elections. They did not present a specific programme in terms of an organised attempt to improve working conditions or put forward demands on behalf of the workers. By the end of World War I the landscape was changing. Associations of particular professions emerged (e.g., construction workers and dockers), in which workers and owners both participated.23 At that time, Cypriot workers constituted a preindustrial, undisciplined work force with an underdeveloped division of labour and therefore could not dissociate between the divergent

POLITICAL ORIGINS

75

interests of workers and owners.24 However, the dissatisfaction of the popular strata was gradually expressed through more modern forms of political reaction, thanks to the general rise in the Cypriots’ educational level and also to other social and political factors (see Chapters 1 and 2). Before we turn to examine the processes and actions of working class organisation, we will examine a corresponding attempt to organise an agrarian movement and a populist party by aspiring bourgeois politicians. Although essentially part of the ruling class party politics, both parties addressed the interests of the lower strata even in a demagogic manner and therefore they deserve some attention. They also constituted opponents to the newly-emerged CPC.

3.2 The Agrarian Party The dividing line between rural and urban populations may sometimes constitute the basis of political cleavage. The agrarian class is distinguished by certain common economic and social characteristics. The agrarian class is aware of its difference and its oppression by non-agrarian groups (e.g., feudal lords and merchants), but its internal divisions and the personalisation of social relations (e.g., through clientelistic relations or forms of kinship) hinder the development of class consciousness. Although the peasants’ potential strength and influence may be considerable, in practice it is limited by their own sense of weakness and inferiority as well as by the nature of agrarian economy, which isolates individuals, and whose physical demands (e.g., harvest periods) impede sustained mobilisation. Electoral politics does not influence the peasants as a class. In contrast to a single ‘party of the working class’, a single ‘agrarian party’ does not constitute a natural extension of class consciousness in politics, but a rather rare phenomenon.25 The nature of farming, i.e., the mode of production that isolates peasants instead of bringing them together to interact as industrial workers do, leads to an inability to organise politically. As a result, peasants are unable to promote their interests as a class, and tend to be represented by others rather than representing themselves.26 Thus, in some countries, the agrarian

76

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

population has provided the base of an independent agrarian party, while in others the peasants are usually represented through other parties, mainly conservative or Christian democratic. In most Western countries, agrarian lists have participated in some elections, but only in the five Scandinavian states have separate agrarian parties become a stable element of the political system.27 In Cyprus there was an attempt by bourgeois politicians to organise peasants into a party. While this effort aimed to include both ethnic (Greeks and Turks) groups, it proved unsuccessful and short-lived. This movement arose due to the peasants’ resentment over the deterioration in their living conditions after World War I, the low prices of agricultural products and – mainly – their inability to pay their debts. This led to the emergence of the so-called socialreformist group, commonly regarded as a descendant of the early 1900 ‘moderates’. This group introduced Cypriot society to the serious consideration of socioeconomic demands and claims.28 They accepted collaboration with the British authorities, and their demands focused on improving the lives of the peasants. The main demands included freezing of farmers’ debts, the establishment of an agrarian bank and granting trade union rights to the farmers. Although this movement was led by non-peasant politicians, and especially by the demagogic lawyer and parliamentarian Kyriakos Rossides, it offered some of the peasantry a way of escaping the political patronage of the merchants and middlemen who traditionally represented the farmers in the political arena.29 The reformist politicians favoured cooperation with the government in order to solve social problems, and pursued constitutional reforms insofar as they helped them achieve the ultimate goal of enosis. Attalides suggests another way of looking at this enterprise: it is an explicit attempt by the British authorities to establish tutelage over the peasants. He suggests that the British, exploiting the resentment generated by the economic and social situation, tried to create a kind of alliance between the colonial government and the peasants against the bourgeois pro-union leaders. Before the 1923 elections, in which the bourgeois leaders abstained, the colonial government promised the farmers that if seats

POLITICAL ORIGINS

77

on the Legislative colonial were filled by parliamentarians friendly to the government, there would be favourable administrative reforms. Although during the interwar period, the colonial government took various measures aimed at improving the living conditions of the peasants, their primary aim was to weaken the bourgeois nationalist leaders (see Chapter 1). This policy, however, made things difficult for those Cypriot political forces that supported the extension of constitutional freedoms, as it linked social reform with colonialism, and its rejection with the demand for national liberation.30 Prior to the establishment of the Agrarian Party (AP), there were some isolated and fragmented attempts to organise the peasant population. In August 1920 an agrarian meeting took place in the village of Lefkoniko, at which a ten-member committee was elected to formulate the peasants’ demands and forward them to the government. The committee was chaired by the bishop of Kition; the other members included K. Rossides and three Muslims.31 Two years later, a large group of peasants held a meeting in Limassol with the aim of improving their living and working conditions. In April 1924, on the initiative of Rossides, the first agricultural congress was organised, once again in Lefkoniko, with the participation of both Greek and Turk peasants. In an open letter to the press, Rossides called on the peasants to participate en masse in the meeting.32 Aided by some Muslim religious leaders from the Famagusta district, Rossides succeeded in gathering 150 Greek and 65 Turkish representatives from all over Cyprus. The final proclamation of the congress demanded the abolition of the tithe and the immediate establishment of an Agricultural Bank with a capital of £500,000 sterling. The congress refused to debate any political issues and rejected the National Council’s policy of confrontation33 towards the British, both in reaction against the traditional nationalist leadership and also because the congress included the Turkish farmers as well.34 Despite the congress’ celebratory character, there were some conflicts centred on the question of taxes on imported wheat and flour. While the representatives from the mountain regions were against taxation, those from the plains were in favour, a conflict linked to the particular interests of the two groups of farmers.

78

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

As both commodities were cultivated in the plains, import duties would have favoured the interests of the plains farmers. A second issue that led to tension and disagreement concerned the ‘debt moratorium’ (the temporary freezing of the obligation to pay loan installments) on agrarian debts. This was proposed by a Turkish delegate, and was met with objections from Rossides and others, who argued that creditors might be exposed and left without guarantees for the money that they had lent. Rossides’ view was supported by other non-agrarian participants, who eventually persuaded the delegates that a debt moratorium was not in their best interests and that they should insist instead on the foundation of an Agricultural Bank. Rossides’ position on this issue revealed both the limitations of this venture as well as his personal limitations: not only was he not a farmer, but also as a lawyer he represented many moneylenders in lawsuits against peasants and could not accept something that would substantially hurt his financial interests. The congress approved decisions on two issues, which became a focal point of criticism from the intransigent nationalist politicians and the newspapers supporting them. The first was a proposal for a reduction in legal and lawyer fees, which included costs for bailiffs’ warrants, and a demand that the law courts cease pointless postponements of cases as this led to high costs for the defendants. The second concerned the congress’ decision that there was a need for farmers to be represented in both the legislative and executive branches of government. These two points challenged the distribution of power within the Greek community, as they touched on the interests of the lawyers and the merchants, from whose ranks the great majority of political leaders were drafted. This resulted in a polemic against Rossides as the ringleader of the agricultural congress, arguing that he was politically exploiting the peasants to support his own political career. Moreover, the congress organisers were accused of inexperience and naivete´, both regarding the measures they had proposed and the hopes they placed in the British government. At the same time, in an attempt to appeal to the agrarian population and improve their image, some of the nationalist

POLITICAL ORIGINS

79

press devoted a series of articles to the government’s heartlessness towards the peasants and their dire economic position.35 The congress elected an Agrarian Council of mixed and conflicting membership. Following a proposal submitted by Rossides, the Executive Committee consisted of 12 Greeks and six Turks.36 Their social composition, however, included a small number of individuals with no relationship whatsoever with the peasants, such as Rossides himself, who were elected to further the peasants’ demands. The disparate origins of the representatives produced a predictable inconsistency. Odysseas Evridiades, a member of the Legislative Council and himself a trading house commercial clerk, confessed during the congress that the Council constituted a ‘hoax’, a ‘conventional falsehood’ which stifled and falsified the will of the Cypriot people and whose demands could not be met by the Legislative Council.37 This admission conflicted with his own presence on the Council (he resigned a little later), during a period of intense conflict with the nationalist camp concerning participation in the elections and the workings of the Legislative Council and also with the AP’s participation in the elections a year later. Fairly soon, the newly-formed leadership of this movement became aware of the indifference and contempt with which they were regarded by the British authorities and decided to end the attempt to reach an understanding. At the same time, they denounced the British as being responsible for the country’s ‘deplorable’ economic and administrative position and announced their intention of organising protest demonstrations.38 Shortly after this congress, a Greek – Turkish meeting took place in which representatives from the two main ethnic groups on the island participated. The meeting was held at the offices of the Turkish newspaper, Soz, and present were the editors of the four Turkish newspapers in Nicosia, four Ottoman members of the Executive Committee of the Agricultural Council, and Rossides. At the meeting it was concluded that there was need for a political party that represented both communities. This party would act on the basis of the perception that the Legislative Council could only discuss economic issues. It was further decided that the AP would abstain

80

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

from any religious or nationalist actions. At the meeting, preparations also began for the second pancyprian agricultural congress, which was eventually held in June 1925.39 According to the press, a second meeting of the Agrarian Executive Committee took place at the Commercial Club with the presence of ten (out of its 15 active) members: six Greeks and four Turks.40 At the beginning of the meeting, three new members were elected, including Efthivoulos Paraskevaidis, the mayor of Lapithos. Subsequently, the Committee discussed the proclamation of the founding of the AP according to the above views. The Committee issued a resolution according to which ‘it regards the uniting of the agrarian population into an Agrarian Party as contributing to serving the former’s varied interests’. Subsequently, it was decided to call a second pancyprian agrarian congress in Nicosia after a period of three months had passed. The president (Rossides) was authorised to undertake all actions required for the preparation and success of the congress. According to Rossides himself, participation in this congress was very limited.41 The CPC newspaper confirmed this appraisal, attesting to only 25 participants (ten of whom were Turks) in comparison to the total of 237 participants in the first pancyprian congress.42 The organisers stated that 80 delegates took part in the congress, of whom 15 were Ottomans; but even this higher estimate the organisers themselves did not regard as satisfactory.43 The congress criticised both the colonial government and the bourgeois politicians for their indifference to the plight of the farmers. Rossides felt that this indicated the urgent need to establish a Pancyprian Agrarian Party. An intense polemic was directed against the bourgeois politicians, who were denounced as a non-productive profession growing rich from the hard work of others. They were also colourfully described as ‘crows nourished on corpses’ and ‘drones living off the worker bees’.44 At the second congress, in contrast to the first, political issues were raised, including that of sending of a deputation to London. This deputation was to be made up of representatives from both communities, but the congress did not specify the demands to be

POLITICAL ORIGINS

81

submitted. The Cyprus Question was defined as an international issue and for this reason it was claimed that the Legislative Council was not set up to be a forum for the promotion of ‘national aims’ but for the promotion of the social and economic prosperity of the people through cooperation with the government. Rossides believed that the two ethnic communities in Cyprus could successfully work together on the basis of their common economic and social interests.45 The congress also proposed an organisational structure wherein it would elect a higher organisational authority (made up of only few members), which in turn would elect the provincial agrarian councils; following these would be the sectoral agrarian councils with jurisdiction over 10–15 villages each and, finally, the village-level agrarian councils, which would be responsible for registering members. Membership dues were set at 3 piastres a year.46 If we analyse the speech that Rossides made at this congress, we can see that it appears to justify the criticism made both by the CPC and by the nationalist camp, i.e., that the AP mainly served Rossides’ personal political ambitions and those of certain other bourgeois politicians. In his speech, in fact, Rossides admitted that the Party, whose establishment was unanimously agreed by the congress, should have developed slowly and methodically, but because elections were held early in 1925 rather than 1926, they were obliged to act more quickly. The congress also decided to support candidates with ‘pro-agrarian positions and programmes’ in the parliamentary elections,47 thus favouring themselves. Due to its short-lived political presence, the AP did not play a significant role in social and political developments.48 The Party leadership largely consisted of individuals with no direct links with agrarian problems – this was also a source of criticism, beyond the bourgeois world and by the CPC, which characterised the party as ‘a mishmash of landowners, usurers and lawyers, who play the pro-peasant card in order to fish for votes’.49 Despite this criticism, the appearance of this party signalled a reaction among at least some in the agrarian class to their existing political and economic situation and to the policy of electoral abstention, which was pursued by the National Council from 1921 to 1925. By the end of the 1920s, when there was a

82

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

revival of nationalism, the peasants had been reincorporated into the old traditional party formations. Hence, the agrarian movement at this period must be seen as an attempt by some bourgeois politicians to exploit the peasants’ very real resentment at their poor living conditions. This dissatisfaction with their lives led them to switch from an uncompromising, hardunionist stance to cooperation with the government, thinking that it might be a better solution to their problems. The British administration responded, and in its exploitation of the agrarian movement’s failure, appealed to the peasants’ political demands hoping to gain the favour of the people. To this end, legislation such as the repeal of the tithe and measures against usury were enforced. Nevertheless, their efforts were unsuccessful. The agrarian movement did not prove to be lasting and could not represent the agrarian interests politically, as it was completely identified with the interests of bourgeois politicians who led the party, and who could not give up the benefits afforded by their professional and social background. A characteristic example is the negative position on a legislative proposal to transform agrarian debts into long-term loans and to reduce the interest rate to 7 per cent that Rossides took after his election in 1925 to the Legislative Council.50 The actions of Rossides and other such politicians – championing the farmers’ rights – must be seen as their self-interested attempt to acquire electoral influence before the 1925 elections.

3.3 The Popular Party The establishment of another party in the same period, the Popular Party (PP), followed a similar pattern. This party was also a product of the long-lasting controversy within the nationalist camp between the intransigents and the moderates, which resurfaced over the abstention policy from the workings of the Legislative Council. The policy of abstention was finally abolished in view of the 1925 elections.51 Once again, though, the nationalist camp was divided. Populist politicians who favoured cooperation with the government contested the elections (e.g., Rossides). Another important

POLITICAL ORIGINS

83

representative of the populist, pro-government trend was the teacher and lawyer George Hadjipavlou, who went on to found his own political party. Hadjipavlou was also president of Panergatikos Syllogos, a club founded with the purpose of penetrating the enfranchised working class and which was mobilised mainly for electioneering and by utilising Hadjipavlou’s clientelistic networks. In July 1925 the (PP) issued its own newspaper, Laiki. The paper was later renamed Nea Laiki (New Popular) in June 1926. The PP’s declared aim was to offer protection to the popular strata. It also called for universal suffrage and political liberties until union with Greece was achieved. The PP assumed a polemic stance against the Church because the Holy Synod controlled the National Council, the Party’s main opposition. The PP therefore called for separation of religious and secular offices and for asked that the Church’s estates be placed under popular tutelage.52 The 1925 elections confirmed the Greek Cypriot change in behaviour, which advocated a moderate line of demands and handed both the PP and the AP an electoral success. The vast majority of the Greek deputies were elected on a gradualist, constitutional programme. The PP’s success was also aided by the quarrels and divisions within the nationalist camp.53 Nea Laiki54 characterised the National Council as ‘dopy’ and emphasised that the Legislative Council was legitimised by the people’s choice of its members while the National Council’s members were appointed. Despite its success, the PP, like the AP, failed in the long run to threaten the nationalists and the Church’s supremacy within the nationalist bloc. Reformist politicians were supplanted because of the colonial government’s negative stance on the demand for enosis and political liberties, and towards internal affairs. The PP’s position within its community consequently suffered and the Party was unable to check the mounting pressures for radicalisation. Georghallides believes that an opportunity was lost in the late 1920s for a ‘compromise between British imperialism and Greek nationalism’.55 The majority of the moderate politicians who came into office in 1925 were gradually incorporated in the nationalist camp, and took part in the formation of the National Organisation in

84

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

1930 that succeeded the Political Organisation of Cyprus (1921). In the elections of October 1930, Hadjipavlou failed to win a seat. He attributed his failure to briberies and the buying off of voters by his opponents (Nea Laiki, 24 October 1930).

3.4 Socialist circles It’s interesting to note that perhaps the first reference to ‘Bolshevism’ in Cyprus was in relation to a group of seven Jews in the Margo village in Nicosia province, where there was a Jewish settlement at the time.56 The reference was in a newspaper article relating how a fellow villager had denounced these individuals to the police for their propagation of Marxism. The group of seven was arrested on charges of disturbing the peace and the family tranquility of their accuser, whom they had also threatened with violence according to the charge.57 There has, however, never been any link established between these Jewish Marxists and their Cypriot brothers, nor is there any other reference to these Marxists in the press or publications of the period, even those of the Party itself. The Cypriot socialist movement emerged some time at the end of the 1910s and was strengthened in the early 1920s.58 To precisely pinpoint the exact date that socialist cells and ideas first appeared is difficult, although it is acknowledeged that the first Cypriot Marxists drew their ideological inspiration from the Russian Revolution of 1917, and these Marxian ideas reached Cyprus via a small group of intellectuals and sailors on Greek ships (which docked in Limassol), who spread propaganda among the workers.59 The Cypriot socialists appeared among the ranks of the Limassol demoticists, in the context of the Language Question in Greece.60 The leaders of the socialist group were Giagkos Iliades, who had been exposed to socialist ideas while studying law in Athens, and Panos Fassouliotis, a self-taught lawyer who mixed regularly with workers and artisans.61 Around 1919, this socialist group gained control of the Popular Cooperative Union (PCU), a Limassol corporation originally founded by bourgeois politicians. Within the PCU a small socialist group emerged; the evidence concerning this first socialist cell in Cyprus

POLITICAL ORIGINS

85

refers to a three-man group, which was regularly supplied from abroad with manuals of Marxist thought, particularly from the Greek language publications of the Communist Party of Greece (CPG).62 In 1919, this group contributed significantly to the foundation of the first class union in Cyprus, that of the construction workers; shortly thereafter many other groups established unions – the tobacco workers, the bakery workers, the tailors, the barber workers, the carpenters.63 Later this group came into contact with Fassouliotis and reached agreement on publishing a newspaper. It was in the framework of the PCU that the first lectures on labour associations and socialism were organised.64 Initially, the socialist cells limited their activity to establishing Marxist clubs, where lectures were given on Marxist theory,65 and where communist books, magazines and newspapers from Athens and Alexandria were sold to the workers at low prices.66 In 1925, in Limassol, Cyprus’ first communist bookshop Astro (Star) was established, which further promoted and circulated the communist literature. The socialist cells focused much of their activity on their own publications – the magazine Avgi (Dawn) and the newspaper Pyrsos (Torch).67 During the period 1920– 2 the first communists appeared within the Marxist societies.68 According to Stringos, the first communist cell was comprised of seven persons.69 They were mainly young people who worked as commercial clerks or craftsmen, and whose militancy and enthusiasm made them influential among a part of the working class.70 The strike of the Limassol tailors, which was directed by the communists, reflected this influence. The communists are also attributed with the creation of the first leftist cooperative, which they established when a group of bakery workers were dismissed from their jobs. The composition of this leading group of first Cypriot communists concurs with the view that the most militant and politically conscious of the labouring poor were the skilled craftsmen and the independent artisans, who were also more receptive to political ideas, especially socialist theories.71 The communists operated in small groups of two to three people who were unaware of the other groups’ existence. This was a safety precaution,72 and was an organisational pattern typical of radical

86

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

groups. According to Hobsbawm, wherever such forms of organisation appeared, they tended to adopt the same type of revolutionary organisation – a secret brotherhood – to avoid exposure leading to persecution and arrest.73 This form of organisation is reminiscent of the Leninist approach during the pre-revolutionary period, which centred on a party with a limited number of members, strong organisation and conspiratorial activity based around newspaper.74 The secrecy characterising the activity of these first communists is evident in the editorial policy of Pyrsos, which guaranteed anonymity to those publishing letters in its pages.75

3.5 The Cypriot Labour Party When the PCU was gradually dissolved due to internal disagreements, the Cyprus Labour Party (CLP) appeared in its place. The CLP comprised five professional organisations and around 330 organised workers,76 both socialists and Marxists. The Party was strengthened by a crisis among the nationalist leaders, who favoured the development of other ideas within Cypriot society.77 The new party opposed the pro-union positions of the ethnarchy and the established political leaders, whom it accused of ‘exploiting the innocent enthusiasm of the Cypriots for their own benefit’.78 The anti-enosis position defined the Party’s subsequent course throughout the period under examination, largely confirming the view that the generic factors of a party, that is the conditions under which a party is founded, have a considerable and determining influence for sometime afterwards.79 The CLP’s organ was the newspaper Pyrsos, which described itself as a socialist newspaper, and carried the slogan ‘Cypriot farmers and workers unite’.80 The first issue of Pyrsos was published on 15 November 1922 and appeared fortnightly. An annual subscription was only 6 shillings. Its circulation was approximately 100 copies in both 1923 and 1924.81 Pyrsos introduced a new and different position on the social and political problems of Cypriot society. Despite its utopianism, the newspaper met the needs of some members of

POLITICAL ORIGINS

87

Cypriot society, especially those who hoped that the paper would broaden their spiritual horizons.82 Pyrsos often faced problems, as right-wing individuals exercised pressure on the printing offices not to publish it, with the result that the issues were often delayed.83 Pyrsos also carried information on progressive books, both in Greek and in translation (into Greek). The influence of the new movement extended to Athens and Egypt, as indicated by the letters the paper received from readers living there. In Egypt, a group of Cypriot immigrants founded the Party of Cypriot Workers, hoping that it could function as an annex of the party in Cyprus.84 Although the newspaper published an article about the imminent foundation of a Labour Party in Nicosia, a party that would also have its own newspaper, Anthropotis (Humanity), this never materialised and there are no further references to this party in the literature. This does, however, indicate that there was an attempt to extend the Party to other provinces.85 From the outset, Pyrsos proclaimed that the CLP aimed to organise the working class so as to lay the foundations for a socialist polity. And while Pyrsos also emphasised that the Party was part of the BLP,86 there is nothing in the literature to support this statement. Lefkis believes that Fassouliotis’ attempt to align the CLP with the BLP was based on his own self-deception that the British party, when coming to power, would adopt a socialist stance.87 In fact, Fassouliotis himself believed that the rise of the BLP would signal a regime change from bourgeois to labour, thus actualising the ideology it professed.88 Fassouliotis’ attempt to incorporate the CLP into the BLP was a source of tension and the cause of the first internal conflict and split, as the communists within the party did not agree with this position. There were also disagreements over the party name, as the communists wanted the word ‘communist’ included in the title. At a meeting in autumn 1923, the members of the communist groups operating within the CLP decided to name their organisation the Communist Party of Cyprus and attempted to join the Communist Third International (Comintern).89 During this period, the communist

88

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

group totaled 35 members.90 Amidst internal disagreements, on 25 June 1923 the party changed its name to the Cypriot Labour and Peasant Party, while on 26 November 1923 the word ‘Communist’ was added in brackets to its title, becoming the Cypriot Labour and Peasant Party (Communist) and thus reflecting the gradual prevalence of the communists.91 Hence, although the CPC was officially established on 15 August 1926 in Limassol, it had actually been in existence since late 1923. The addition of the word ‘Agrarian’ to the Party’s name was preceded by the announcement that an agrarian section had been founded exclusively for peasant members, as so many had asked to join the Party.92 In a report sent to the UK Labour government in February 1924, the party presented itself officially as the CPC for the first time. Among other demands, it called for a general three-year debt moratorium, the immediate creation of an Agricultural Bank, the abolition of the tithe, and the establishment of an eight-hour day. Previously, it had raised issues of income tax93 and expropriation of the land belonging to the Church and the big landowners in favour of the peasants.94 On the national question, the report included the following: Regarding the national question, i.e., Union with Greece, which for a long time has been the demand of the bourgeoisie, it leaves us partially indifferent because it has a united front with the capitalists against our movement and our struggle for the salvation of the workers. If the British Labour Party were to give Cyprus to Greece as it has promised, the Cypriot Communists would join hands with the Greek proletariat in the struggle against Greek and international capitalism. If the Labour Government were to keep Cyprus, we would enjoy the socialist regime and celebrate the liberation of the working and agrarian population of the Island.95 The letter was signed by D. Chryssostomides as secretary general of the Executive Committee of the CPC, a fact confirmed by a veteran AKEL member, Theoris Zambas, citing a letter from the Communist

POLITICAL ORIGINS

89

Party of the Soviet Union in 1924.96 The content of the letter reveals the confusion in the ranks of the CPC, reflecting the divergent approaches entertained among its members. On the one hand, although the Party opposed the policy of enosis, it seemed it would accept a gesture from a British Labour government to cede Cyprus to Greece; on the other hand, the party seemed naive in regard to the BLP’s policy in relation to Cyprus, which Fassouliotis believed would change drastically to favour the national aims of the Cypriots. When the BLP came to power, however, it did not differentiate itself from the country’s colonial policy and the letter remained unanswered.97 In the summer of 1924, there were new disagreements between the CPC and Fassouliotis. In March of the same year, Fassouliotis had been expelled from the construction workers’ union (of which he was president) because they found that he had committed electoral fraud in an attempt to control the union.98 Another conflict was due to a libel suit brought against Pyrsos. The lawsuit resulted in Fassouliotis’ conviction, with a penalty of three months’ imprisonment and a fine, driving Fassouliotis to a public recantation of his beliefs. This was regarded as an act of betrayal by the Party, which disowned him, and led to the suspension of the publication of Pyrsos. With the loss of the Party organ, the CPC, in January 1925, began to publish another newspaper, Neos Anthropos (see Chapter 5). This was accompanied by a statement stressing that it no longer had any relationship with Pyrsos or its publisher, Panos Fassouliotis.99 After his expulsion, Fassouliotis founded his own party, the Labour-Agrarian Party (LAP), in autumn 1925, which published the newspaper Paratiritis (Observer) as its organ.100 The founding of this party reflected a conflict where the stakes were no longer who should prevail within the party, but domination over the broad Left and the nature and direction of the labour movement as a whole. Fassouliotis’ party maintained that it was in contact with the BLP, and at the same time tried to set up its own trade unions in competition with the communist-dominated unions of the LLC. The contact with the BLP, if it really existed, may simply reflect an attempt by the LAP to acquire external legitimation in order to appeal to the labouring

90

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

masses. The LAP attempted to set up a federation of unions in Limassol. As was subsequently proved in practice, this party did not succeed in laying organisational foundations and never acquired significant access to the workers or the farmers. From the CPC newspaper, it is evident that there was intense conflict with Fassouliotis’ party on a series of ideological and organisational issues, including claims that Fassouliotis was an informer for the British101 and that the LAP was a ‘hermaphrodite’ party.102 The last part of 1924 was a period of CPC reorganisation. The cells functioning as an embryonic party had lost some of their basic cadres that had emigrated, mainly to Greece (Stringos, Christodoulides and Chrysostomides); these however, were soon replaced by others. A number of references are made to the medical doctor, Nikos Yiavopoulos (uncle of Giorgos Vassiliou, President of Cyprus 1988 – 93), who came from Greece and undertook a leading role in the Party’s organisational reconstruction and expansion.103 Following the organisation of the first communist cells in Limassol, others were set up in the mining towns of Amiantos and Skouriotissa, where there was a substantial concentration of the working class. In the last quarter of 1924, the CPC also succeeded in reorganising and unifying the labour associations that had previously been dissolved, with common statutes and the common title of ‘union’, under the roof of the LLC. The statutes of these unions were based on those of the labour organisations of Athens,104 so the roles allocated to Party members included monitoring the unions and the LLC.105 This indicates the Party’s strong relationship with the unions and reveals a significant difference in the organisation of the Cypriot labour movement compared to many other European countries, where class-oriented unions, demanding an improvement in the working and living conditions of the working people, preceded the foundation of the working class parties, the majority of which were socialist. In Cyprus, the reverse occurred. The CPC founded the unions, monitored their development, and intervened actively in all aspects of their activity (see also Chapter 5).

POLITICAL ORIGINS

91

There was another difference between Cyprus and the rest of Europe: the island’s failure to establish a socialist or labour party, despite numerous attempts, particularly that of Fassouliotis after his expulsion from the CPC. There are two possible explanations for this. First, in societies like Cyprus with delayed industrialisation, there were unique opportunities available to communist parties to incorporate the working class into its ranks.106 Second, the internal struggles within the infant CPC saw the communists prevail from the start, which gave the Party its ideological direction. The first socialist and communist cells that led to the creation of a political party (CPC) were a new feature in Cypriot political life after World War I. The Party arose in response to the consequences of urbanisation and proletarianisation in a society that nevertheless remained intensely agrarian. The institutionalisation of the cells into a party took place when the Marxists gradually decided in favour of an independent party of the working class. This represented a qualitative break with earlier forms of representation of the popular strata, and especially the working people in Cyprus.

CHAPTER 4 THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CYPRUS

When the communist movement first appeared in Cyprus during the early 1920s, the colonial regime was experiencing a systemic crisis that affected political, social, and economic areas. The social unrest that followed the economic crisis at the end of World War I was channeled into political activity, which for the first time challenged the existing institutions, not only those of the colonial power but also those within the Greek community of Cyprus. On a political level, the CPC expressed the popular strata’s reaction against the system of economic and social dependence and repression, and there are scholars who argue that the CPC represented a mature reaction of the popular strata. The political party was a new way for the working class to mobilise1 and demand better living and working conditions. The CPC call for social and political equality was a direct attack on the glaring social inequalities and the existing political organisations. At the same time, there was a split within the dominant class, which meant they could no longer present themselves as a vehicle of unified political discourse – this helped the CPC organise into a viable party. This chapter analyses the major tenets of the Party’s political programme, which was broadly structured in line with a Marxist – Leninist philosophy, and whose basis was Marx’s theory of class struggle. The CPC was defined politically by the way it responded to the two major problems of Cypriot society: the social and the national

THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CYPRUS

93

issues. Until 1940, both the nationalist bourgeois politicians and the Church marginalised the Social Question in their political discourse, which allowed the Left (expressed by the CPC) to infiltrate a small but continually growing part of society (the working class). In addition, the Left took a different approach to the form and goal of the anti-colonial struggle, and to a significant extent this position determined its subsequent course.

4.1 The founding congress The process of organising the various communist groups into a party was accomplished at the first CPC congress on 14 – 16 August 1926 in Limassol. This had been preceded in February 1926 by a meeting of cadres – a small circle, for security reasons – where the preparatory documents for the congress and the programme of action were decided. For this purpose, Yiannis Lefkis travelled to Athens, in April 1926, where he made contact with the CPG and asked for help in organising the congress as well as funds for a printing press and to support salaried cadres. He also asked for an experienced CPG cadre to help the CPC during the congress. The CPG responded by sending a Cypriot, Charalambos Vatyliotis (Vatis), but was unable to meet the Cypriot request for financial support. Vatyliotis came to Cyprus secretly in July 1926, without a passport, and helped his comrades prepare the positions for the CPC congress.2 Participants in the CPC congress included Kostas Christodoulides (Skeleas), the Party’s secretary general since 1925, and around 20 others, as well as representatives of the Communist Youth and the Communist Women’s Club.3 The congress took place on 15 August, a religious holiday in Cyprus, to avoid arousing the suspicions of the colonial authorities. The congress approved the Party statute and discussed a series of economic, organisational and political issues, youth issues, matters relating to women’s organisation and Party publications. It also approved a protest to the government and the Ministry of the Colonies at the polemic directed against the Party.4 The range of issues addressed by the new party marked an important point of

94

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

difference from the single-issue bourgeois organisations, which were almost exclusively concerned with the national issue of enosis. The concern for a variety of issues – rather than one single issue – is considered one of the crucial elements differentiating political parties from other types of organisations. This is what we will examine next: the ideological and political parameters of the CPC, including strategy, the constituency it was addressing, its basic political programme and the core issues along which it mobilised.

4.2 Ideological orientation and radicalism A political party’s origins, i.e., the way in which it is created and the sector to which it appeals, usually have a significant and long-term effect on its nature, organisation and political positions. Duverger, in his classic distinction between parties of parliamentary and extra-parliamentary origin, notes that the majority of parties of the lower classes were created outside a parliament by social groups and leaders that hitherto had not been involved in the political process and did not participate in their countries’ legislatures.5 Extraparliamentary parties, therefore, are likely to adopt a radical political identity. The CPC is a classic example, as evidenced by its class and inter-ethnic appeal. The CPC was created to champion the lower class struggle, and called on the workers to stand up and protest against their artificial divisions, and unite against the rich.6 The Party press stressed that Cyprus, like all societies, was divided into two classes on the basis of economic position; this was the starting point for their party policy.7 From the outset, the Party was guided by the idea that it constituted the political vehicle of the underprivileged social strata and was a tool of social progress. Its positions, as expressed in the first edition of the Party newspaper and the decisions of the first congress, reveal a perception that the political and social struggles of the Cypriot people ‘required’ the leadership of the CPC.8 The Party’s appeal was specific and targeted only a certain sector of the population. In its first issue, the CPC newspaper wrote that ‘we

THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CYPRUS

95

are not addressing ourselves to the plutocratic bourgeoisie. . . we are appealing to workers and villagers’.9 This appeal was repeated in the CPC’s manifesto for the Pan-Hellenic Games (held annually in Cyprus to promote the cause of enosis), in which the Party defined itself as ‘the only genuine representative of the working and agrarian masses of the island’.10 The Party’s extraordinary congress convened in August 1927 noted: ‘the need for all class conscious agrarians and workers who feel the oppression suffered by their class to join the party and work for their own interests’.11 Hence, from the very beginning the new party had a distinct class character. Its programme appealed to the Cypriot workers and peasants exclusively, ruling out any prospect of making common cause with the bourgeoisie or the old politicians. At its founding congress, it explained this strategy and especially the partnership with the peasants, stressing that the agrarian class (landless peasantry and small landowners) must be regarded as an ally, given that it constituted the overwhelming majority of the people.12 The CPC’s class strategy is also evident in the new party’s targeting of the urban workers, whose living conditions were dire.13 The social changes following the war – mass migration from the villages and the rural areas to the towns, from small agrarian units to factories, mines and large handicraft units – worked in the Party’s favour. This new situation, in combination with the CPC’s gradual infiltration of society, resulted in individuals moving away from the influence of the Church to support the unions and the Left. A second important difference between the CPC and the existing Cypriot organisations – beyond and emanating from its class appeal – was the CPC’s appeal to both Cypriot ethnic groups, despite the fact that no Turkish Cypriots took part in its founding congress.14 In its programme, the Party clarified that it was opposed to nationalism of any kind (i.e., Turkish or Greek) and opposed to ‘the big merchants, the big landowners and the pseudo-political nationalists’.15 At the Party’s second congress in August 1928, the CPC confirmed this ‘bicommunal’ appeal, while it also recognised its inability to intervene and attract Turkish Cypriots. For this reason, it

96

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

decided to take measures ‘for systematic propaganda among the Turkish working masses’.16 The appeal to the Turks of Cyprus was a radical innovation in the Cypriot political context. The CPC would not exclude any Cypriot from its ranks on the basis of ethnic origin, unlike the various national organisations that were promoting enosis. The CPC was the first political organisation that tried to establish itself on an islandwide basis, targeting its appeal to both communities. It argued that no matter how small the Turkish minority was, it should take part in the attempt to acquire political freedoms.17 The ethnically mixed population of Cyprus and the internationalist ideology of the CPC were factors that determined the Party’s stance towards the Turks of Cyprus. The CPC understood relations between the two ethnic communities in a completely different way: Our first concern is to eliminate all the racial hatred that exists among the inhabitants of our island, for the masses to learn that the people are no longer separated into Greeks and Turks engaged in devouring each other for the glory of their fatherlands, but into the poor and the plutocrats. We will be the messengers of love and of the union of all the poor into the collective pursuit of their interests.18 The class nature of the CPC’s approach is also reflected in its strong criticism of the Turkish Cypriot parliamentarians, who supported the colonial administration on most issues, a stance the CPC regarded as treacherous.19 The CPC combined its political positions with organisational mobilisation. The CPC made a number of attempts to bring Turkish Cypriots into the Party and the Party-controlled trade unions. This was different, however, as the Turkish Cypriots were deterred both by the Greek Cypriots’ demands for enosis and by the danger of police surveillance (see Chapter 6 for more details on the issue of organisation of the Turks).20 Despite the polemic directed against the leadership of the unionist movement and the Church, the CPC realised that at times it was necessary to cooperate with the bourgeoisie and nationalist politicians

THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CYPRUS

97

in the fight against the British occupation. These are issues that touch upon the strategy of a communist party, discussed below.

4.3 Strategy Communist party strategy is traditionally defined and analysed according to the theory of ‘stages of struggle’. The communist literature uses this term to describe a country’s historical phases, as these will influence how the party prioritises its goals and the alliances it seeks to achieve them; the types of appeal, action and organisation that the party adopts and the programme it proposes; and the party’s basic direction, chief goals and the entity they define as the class enemy, etc. Strategic choices are also determined by the decision on whether to use parliamentary or extra-parliamentary action or a combination of the two.21 This strategy is transformed into operational tactics through daily political and economic struggles, policies for unified national fronts, infiltration of the trade unions, and the defence of democratic rights. These demands must be considered as only partial, as this will extend, deepen and unify the struggle to change the system and also broaden the party’s influence among the masses. In the context of the theory of the ‘stages of struggle’, communist parties accept the logic of reform as part of a process: it will raise the workers’ class consciousness, while also helping the party acquire practical knowledge of the mechanisms and relationships among social groups and classes and thus ready itself to take power. Consequently, the need to continue to act within bourgeois institutions, such as parliament and the unions, is part of an overall strategy and must be pursued.22 All the above elements are found in the CPC’s political programme, organisation and activities that will be analysed in what follows as well in subsequent chapters. 4.3.1 Social and political alliances: the policy of the united front A logical consequence of the stages of struggle approach was the tactic of the united front. The united front strategy found a practical application in communist parties’ policies in the attempt to form alliances with other political forces. This policy was proposed by the

98

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

CPC in the Cyprus context in 1925 and was repeated in a number of cases.23 The CPC believed that opposition to colonialism provided the necessary basis to form a united front among all Cypriot political forces. The CPC polemic directed against the representatives of the nationalist movement did not concern the anti-British struggle, but the goal of enosis. This party stance on the issue was theorised accordingly. In its analysis of communist party tactics in colonial countries, the CPC argued that the development of capitalism in the colonies created anti-colonial petty-bourgeois movements directed against Western imperialism, thus permitting the creation of alliances with the communist parties.24 Crucially, the CPC felt that if the united front were to have a real chance of success, it had to include both the Greek and Turks of Cyprus. This clearly could never happen if the party’s political goal was union with Greece, which ignored the needs of the Turks and had already provoked an ethnic split.25 Examination of the official Party newspaper reveals many articles promoting the need for a united front with the goal of independence (or autonomy) for Cyprus.26 The CPC believed that it could join with other political forces around the issue of independence, regardless of their other aims – on the condition, however, that it maintained its own independence.27 The CPC’s demand for a united front went through numerous iterations, both verbal and substantive. The initial position was to include only the worker– peasant masses, and exclude the middle strata and the nationalist bourgeoisie. Subsequently, however, this changed to a broader approach. When the Greek and Turkish Cypriot parliamentarians jointly rejected the 1927 budget, which was then imposed by the governor, the CPC appealed to all forces to join ‘a united anti-British front’ and called for the creation of a united front not only from above (i.e., by the parliamentarians) but also from below (by the people).28 In 1928 it further extended its perception of the united front, appealing to all the ‘bourgeois MPs, petty bourgeois politicians and the nationalists’ to create a united camp with a common programme and demands.29 Despite these efforts, however, the proposal for a united front never materialised, either because it was not positively received by

THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CYPRUS

99

the nationalist camp and the ethnarchy, or because the Party’s own stances and views proved obstacles to this aim. In practice, the CPC’s rejection of enosis and denunciation of the pro-union leaders left the Party in a political ghetto, as there were no other political forces with which it could join to form this united front. 4.3.2 Modes of communist activism Party strategy also included activism; the CPC attempted this in the public political struggle through, participation in the elections for the Legislative Council (see Chapter 6) and through penetrating and organising the working class (Chapter 5). Sometimes, however circumstances required that this be an underground activity (Chapter 7). Clandestine activity had its roots in the Leninist legacy: Lenin formulated the view of an ‘army’ party, which would be necessary in a specific phase of party development under conditions of illegality.30 Under absolutist rule, the goal of an open party functioning on the principles of internal elections and accountability was, for Lenin, utopian: ‘Under these conditions, broad democracy only makes things easy for the police. The only serious organisational principle for the cadres of the movement should be the strictest conspiratorialism, the strictest choice of members and the development of professional revolutionaries.’31 In their decisions on the organisational structure of the Party, the founding congress of the CPC noted the importance of combining illegal and legal action. They stressed that this notion should not push the Party into ‘over-secret illegality, which will turn it into a harmless underground organisation without contact with the masses’, but neither should it lead the Party into fully open activity. Also noted was the need for the Party to struggle for full legal activity.32 It was, however, definitely affected by the colonial authorities (see Chapter 6), who pushed the young party into what Lenin described as ‘infantile disorder of the communist movement’. In practice, in the period until its proscription following the October events of 1931, the CPC operated under conditions of semi-illegality. Indeed, on one occasion, in January 1929, the Party voluntarily

100

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

resorted to secrecy and illegality without concrete justification for its action, indicating a confused understanding of Marxist theory.33 The 1931– 41 period constitutes an entirely different era for the Party since it was officially declared illegal; as a consequence it had no choice but to act in secrecy.

4.4 Political programme Prior to the convening of its founding congress in 1926, the CPC lacked a cohesive political programme. The congress determined the Party’s political and organisational principles of operation and agreed that the most significant issue of the Party programme was the British occupation of Cyprus. Cyprus had colonial status, so the Party decided to wage a two-front struggle – one for social change and another for national liberation. The Party press described the antiimperialist struggle against the British, as ‘an essential transitional stage for the achievement of the CPC’s ultimate goals’.34 It also considered it imperative to fight within the system to improve the working and living conditions of the masses: The independence of Cyprus will of course offer a way out of this situation, but in the meantime, it would be foolish to sit back with our arms folded and not try through struggle to achieve certain concessions and not seek the solution of specific measures to protect the working class.35 At the same time, however, it raised a point of caution against limiting itself to the struggle to improve the position of the workers in the context of the bourgeois system, as this ‘will improve the workers’ position only relatively and not definitively’. The CPC proved to be a transformative force in politics in Cyprus, introducing fresh ideas into political discourse. While on the one hand, these ideas became focal points of tension and debate, on the other hand, they also gave the Party a way to approach the working and agrarian classes. Cypriot society was very conservative at the time the CPC emerged, and in this context

THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CYPRUS

101

its political discourse was especially ‘provocative’.36 The Party polemic raised issues that were previously regarded as of minor importance (the Social Question) while it approached others from a completely different analytical viewpoint (the National Question). Perhaps the most disturbing element of CPC politics was the challenge it presented both to the British, and – even more importantly – to the Greek bourgeois politicians of the period. The CPC believed that British colonialism and the Greek plutocrats were equally to blame for the problems of the lower classes (workers and peasants). Marxist ideology constituted the defining framework for the Party’s political positions.37 As such, it provoked a strong reaction from the rising bourgeoisie and the old ruling class, since it was an ideology addressed to the non-privileged strata of Cypriot society asking them to abandon their self-deception and try to change fundamental aspects of a system that favoured the plutocrats and the Church.38 We do not appeal to our plutocratic bourgeoisie because their interests conflict totally with our views, they will never agree that what we say is correct, they will never say that we are right. How can they not oppose us when our aim, poor worker and dispossessed villager, is your liberation from economic enslavement? How can they not be concerned and how can they not shout against us at the tops of their voices when our ultimate goal in to end the exploitation of man by man? Many analysts attribute the Party’s innovative and diversified political discourse to the internationalist character of Marxist ideology and to its focus on class struggle.39 From the first moment it appeared, the CPC openly professed Marxist– Leninist ideology, which is not only inscribed in its statute and the Party declaration but also in subsequent Party documents. Below we will focus on certain basic aspects of the CPC’s positions, which reveal this Party’s unique identity.

102

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

4.4.1 Social issue To a great extent, and for a number of reasons, the bourgeois organisations and politicians tended to marginalise the Social Question. First and foremost, the politicians of the period regarded politics as an activity of and for the elite, who believed that the Social Question should be addressed in the context of charity or after enosis was achieved. They felt that social struggles and demands were divisional to the national cause of enosis and therefore ought to be avoided and sidelined.40 A second reason was that the franchise was still very limited, meaning that it was impossible for the (mainly) disenfranchised lower strata to exert any effective pressure on the British administration, the bourgeois organisations and the parliamentarians. Finally, the popular strata had no tradition or familiarity with making demands in a collective and organised manner. In Cyprus of the period, the Social Question concerned the very unfavourable social and economic situation of the non-privileged strata of society. This situation was further aggravated by the lack of any state provision, the heavy indebtedness of most households and the conditions of exploitation. The CPC believed that the Social Question comprised two related aspects: the Agrarian and Labour Questions. As the dispossessed peasants moved to the towns, they created a surplus labour force, which allowed employers to keep wages down. The Party also believed that the social issue could not and would not be definitively resolved by the British, so the Party linked the social issue to the resolution of the political issue of Cyprus,41 which also reflected Party strategy to distance the peasants from the influence of the bourgeois politicians.42 The alliance between the two social classes was deemed imperative for the Party strategy and goals. The text from the first congress of the CPC notes characteristically that ‘in its struggle against the bourgeoisie, the working class should ally with all the oppressed classes [. . .]. In today’s society and especially in colonial countries, such a class is the rural landless labourers or smallholders.’43 Cyprus’ late development meant that inclusion of the peasant issue was imperative for any party of the working class. Since the earliest days, communists had debated the policy to be adopted regarding the

THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CYPRUS

103

peasantry, but agreed that the policy must depend greatly on the size of this social group. In Cyprus the agrarian class constituted over 80 per cent of the population in the early decades of the twentieth century, while the working class constituted a very small fraction of the total population. The sheer numbers of this class meant they had to be included; but it was also relevant that the agricultural workers and other agricultural groups were economically and socially in a position similar to that of the of the working class. The CPC’s concern with the Agrarian Question was unavoidable given the class composition of the Cypriot population, which made it infeasible for the Party to appeal exclusively workers, even though ‘the peasantry’s appreciation of property, its love of the native soil makes it into the “natural enemy” of urban revolutionary ideas and a firm bulwark against socialism’.44 As early as 1924, an initiative had been undertaken and a meeting held in Nicosia between the communists, peasants and two Turkish Cypriots on the subject of the agrarian problem. At the meeting it was decided that the villagers should be mobilised to make a number of demands, including the call for a five-year moratorium on the debts incurred during World War I.45 Later, the party demanded a three-year freeze of agrarian debts, the establishment of an Agricultural Bank, the abolition of the tribute and the land tax, the reduction of indirect taxes and the taxation of capital, the paying back of the budget surplus in the form of cheap loans for villagers, writing off debts or turning them into long-term amortised loans at low interest, the expropriation of monastery and Church lands and the large estates for the benefit of the landless villagers, backdating of income tax, and the luxury tax.46 The Party positions included a recommendation for peasant education, which could be accomplished by establishing agricultural training schools that would also offer elementary education.47 The CPC attacked the entire spectrum of the ruling class, charging it with indifference to the needs and interests of the peasantry. It criticised the old bourgeois politicians on the grounds that they continued to spread propaganda in favour of enosis with no regard for the economic crisis affecting the peasant class. It also accused the

104

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

‘new’ politicians, elected in 1925, of quickly forgetting the promises they had made to the villagers.48 The Party argued that the bourgeoisie was only trying to distract the peasants’ attention to other issues, citing the examples of the bitter archiepiscopal conflict in the first decade of the twentieth century and the abstention from the elections to the Legislative Council in the early 1920s.49 These positions provoked the reaction of the Church and the very rich. The social changes that had taken place in Cypriot society in the first two decades of the twentieth century aggravated the situation of the agrarian masses, fomenting discontent. This, in combination with their disappointment in the politicians, created new political opportunities for the Left. As the agrarian masses became more aware of their political status (lack of, actually), and it did so at the first congress. To appeal to the peasants, however, the Party had to mitigate some of its positions, and they did so at the First Congress. At this time the Party decided in favour of protection of small ownership and compensation of the landless, perhaps in an attempt to moderate the negative impressions that the bourgeois politicians and newspapers had cultivated among the agrarian population against the Party and as a means of attracting agrarian support.50 The majority of the peasants, however, kept their distance, as they did not accept the Left’s positions on ownership, the Church and religion. The CPC took extremely radical positions on the abolition of private property, the expropriation of Church property for the benefit of the landless and the establishment of a socialist society, provoked an intense reaction that continued for many years after these positions were reversed.51 The second aspect of the social issue was related to the living and working conditions of the rising working class. One of the first issues that the CPC raised concerned the absence of labour legislation to safeguard various aspects of labour relations. It castigated the British for ignoring this issue, leaving employers to act with impunity.52 The Party publications regularly carried reports from the mines and quarries, pointing out that the workers should demand the right to organise and have their unions recognised by the government, an eight-hour working day, humane housing, the management of union

THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CYPRUS

105

funds by elected workers, medical and pharmaceutical care, and the establishment of shops selling food at cheaper prices to the workers.53 The Party was also aware of the danger that the workers could succumb to alcohol and gambling. For this purpose it organised campaigns against gambling and drinking.54 4.4.2 National issue In the 1880s a huge debate broke out among and within socialist parties around the world regarding the most appropriate party line on the national issue. The conflict was intense, as the political impact of national slogans on the masses of potential or actual voters and supporters of the various mass political movements became a question of immediate practical concern.55 Those discussions influenced the first Cypriot socialists as well, since they were ideologically educated by cadres that had studied in Moscow (e.g., Vatis) or by CPC publications – and the CPC by now was part of the Comintern. The manner in which the CPC framed the National Question was completely different from the position of the Church and the national organisations: it incorporated the Cyprus issue into the broader national question that many peoples in the Eastern Mediterranean were experiencing at the time. The Party recognised a similarity with these other anti-colonial movements except for one difference: the predominantly Greek population on the island (80 per cent), which the CPC felt linked the Cypriot national movement with the (mainland) Greek bourgeoisie’s expansionist policy – a policy promoted in Cyprus through the Church and the local bourgeoisie. The CPC recognised that the main problem facing the national liberation movement in Cyprus was the organisation of a united front – a front that would also include the Turks of Cyprus. This would necessitate acquiring a slogan that would attract and represent all Cypriots; the Greek Cypriot call for enosis hindered this united front.56 At the same time, the Party acknowledeged that the most pressing duty was to liberate Cyprus from the ‘despots, exploiters and tyrannous conquerors’, i.e., the British, in order to bring about changes that would be in the interests of the people.57

106

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

The CPC believed that a slogan promoting independence or autonomy (the two were used interchangeably) would be the way to create a united front that would only be successful if it was under the leadership of the Party itself.58 The Party manifested its position in favour of autonomy/independence in different ways at different times but always maintained its anti-enosis character. In March 1925, the CPC declared that the only solution was ‘absolute autonomy for Cyprus’, freeing the workers and peasants from the ‘plutocratic class of British and Greek capitalists’.59 The manifesto for the PanHellenic Games one month later concluded with the slogan ‘Down with Union and Long Live Cypriot Independence’.60 The first congress stressed that the ultimate political and economic liberation of Cyprus would occur only with ‘the establishment of a WorkerAgrarian Democracy which would join a Balkan Worker-Peasant Federation’.61 This position reflected the Party’s interpretation of the international communist movement’s position at the time, which was based on the Leninist philosophy of a nation’s right to selfdetermination.62 The CPC argued in favour of an uncompromising struggle for independence. It criticised the tactics of the pro-enosis leaders, accusing them of reducing their struggle to ‘announcements’, ‘dinners’, ‘tea-parties’ and ‘emissaries’ to London.63 The militant nationalists took the same line, condemning the policies of the Church and the political elite as ineffective and verbalistic.64 The CPC believed that a mass political struggle that included the Turks of Cyprus would be the most effective way to free the island from the British occupation. The solution the Party proposed was incomprehensible to the popular masses, who had been nourished on the demand for enosis. Moreover, the way in which the CPC characterised enosis made it even harder for the Party to reach the masses. The CPC press described enosis as ‘wild screaming’, ‘hot air’ and ‘a lot of loud noise’.65 One of its publications, addressed to nationalists, wrote: No, fellow countrymen! We don’t want Union with Mother Greece [. . .]. The People have awakened and know well that

THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CYPRUS

107

enosis will mean greater slavery, a more bitter life, illegal injustice [. . .]. The People are not so stupid as to increase their repression under Greek despotism [. . .]. Enosis will mean economic death for Cyprus.66 The Party extended its criticism beyond Cyprus. The Greek Republic was described as a ‘pseudo-democracy’,67 while in its manifesto for the Pan-Hellenic Games the CPC claimed the demand for enosis was ‘ridiculous and fake’.68 This position was based on a mistaken evaluation of the real desires of the Greeks of Cyprus, which the Party linked with its own desire for independence. In other words, the CPC defined its position top-down without having consulted the masses, believing that the people would follow. Ezekias Papaioannou, the longest serving General Secretary of AKEL (1949– 88), characterised the Party’s position as wrong, anti-Marxist, and in opposition to the desires of the people.69 According to Phantis (former assistant to the general secretary of AKEL), it was a mistake ‘of a sectarian leftist nature’: the slogan for enosis expressed the desire of generations of Greeks, and thus the Party position estranged the CPC from the popular masses.70 Servas, the former general secretary of CPC and of AKEL, attributes this mistake to Vatyliotis, who he felt misunderstood the communist theory and who he suggests had a subsequent association with Trotskyist groups.71 Although the first congress emphasised that ‘the party must differentiate between frontline slogans and those which are secondary on the basis of the needs of the struggle’,72 in practice the CPC did not succeed in adapting to the Cypriot reality. The slogan of independence had very restricted appeal among the Greek population of Cyprus. Some scholars attribute the CPC’s radical position against enosis to the fact that Greece’s Prime Minister Eleftherios Venizelos had started to take drastic measures against the communists in Greece and thus the Party did not want Cyprus to become part of this kind of Greece.73 Other analysts describe the CPC’s positions as vague, unclear and groundless,74 while others believe that it was a decision imposed on the CPC from abroad (i.e., the Comintern).75 Finally, some claim that the position in favour of autonomy was the answer to

108

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

the Party’s dilemma in finding a political position that would appeal to all the ethnic communities in Cyprus without being precisely defined.76 The Party’s stance was probably due to the temper of several communist parties of the period, which, in their total rejection of the bourgeois society and its norms, also underestimated the significance of national sentiments prevailing among the lower social strata.77 ‘Another reason however, for the support of independence was the fact that in Cyprus, a society suffering under a particular aggressive usury, enosis was, for a section of the laboring poor, also identified with the ideology of the money-lending establishment.’78 However, some sources claim that during the first pancyprian conference of the CPC some members expressed their view that the party should endorse enosis if it was to achieve its goals.79 4.4.3 Civil rights and liberties Participation of the masses in the elections was limited due to the property qualifications attached to the franchise; the majority of the people therefore had no say in the island’s administration. The CPC described the electoral process in Cyprus as ‘a comedy at the expense of the people’, and it called for universal suffrage.80 The demand for universal suffrage regardless of gender was a radical proposal in the Cypriot context – in fact, it was the very first time this demand was put forward in Cyprus. Although the Party believed that popular political rights could not be fully achieved under the British occupation, it nevertheless demanded that they be safeguarded against the dictates of the colonial authorities. The demand for political rights was an example of the Party strategy of demanding certain improvements within the existing system. Such demands included: (a) the implementation of universal suffrage for all citizens over 18 years of age, regardless of gender; (b) the transformation of the Legislative Council into a sovereign parliament with elective membership only; and (c) the formation of a government responsible to this parliament. These rights also included recognition of the trade unions, with an emphasis on ‘the

THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CYPRUS

109

political freedoms of the peasants and workers’ and the freedom to organise.81 However, The CPC’s demands were not addressed to the colonial authorities alone. The Party also challenged the structure of power relationships within the Greek community, accusing the National Council leaders of avoiding elections and sharing out public offices among themselves82 and describing the Council as non-representative, ‘ridiculous and fake’, with no legitimacy to represent the population of their provinces.83 The CPC viewed the Legislative Council as ‘a weapon in the hands of the exploiters and a club for the propagandists of enosis’.84 Despite CPC efforts, the demand for political rights remained largely unfulfilled during the period under examination. The franchise was not extended, and the parliament remained a body without real political responsibility and powers. Then, in 1931, it was abolished entirely. The exclusion of the majority of the Party’s potential supporters from the electoral process to a certain extent explains the subversive nature of its political proposals. If incorporation into the political system had been total and inclusive, the Party might have been led to moderate its positions, as did many other socialist parties in Europe. 4.4.4 Anti-clericalism The CPC’s positions on religion and enosis were the two issues that Phantis described as ‘mistakes of a sectarian leftist nature’, which opened the Party to attack by both the politicians and the Church. Phantis describes the Party positions at the time as ‘anti-religious’ and notes that the language used against religious believers, which he ascribes to fanaticism and ignorance, alienated a large part of the population from the CPC.85 Throughout the Party press there are numerous articles discussing the issue of religion/the Church, as well as articles responding to newspapers and politicians writing on the same issue. The communist press mounted a ‘polemic against priests and despots whose behaviour was grotesque. . . and the sickly psychology created by the Christian religion and the suspect beguiling of the

110

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

masses. . . so that big capital can exploit them’.86 The CPC press claimed that ‘history teaches the workers that the priests always support the interests of the ruling class and in Cyprus they cooperated with the plutocrats with the aim of fooling the peasants and workers’.87 The CPC regarded the Church as an organ of the capitalist system, which ‘deludes the worker with promises of eternal paradise, telling him that his suffering now will be rewarded in the kingdom of heaven’. However, the communists made a distinction between the Church and Christian teaching, as the same text referred to Christ as ‘a great revolutionary against injustice and exploitation’.88 The CPC also believed that the Church and politics should be separate, and that priests should restrict their activities to their religious duties.89 The Party took a strong position on the return of Church lands to the people, legitimating this claim on the grounds that this land was not Church property but had come into Church possession through Greeks during the Ottoman period to avoid heavy taxation.90 The CPC supported the foundation of a special bank with an administrative council directly elected by the people, which would handle Church property with the aim of its restitution to the people. At the same time, however, in an attempt to avoid alienating the masses, the CPC indicated that the Party should not turn against religion in general, but only against the higher clergy. This reveals that there must have been some internal confusion or debate over the Party’s policy on religion. It is also worth noting that the CPC gave its members the freedom to believe or not.91 For example, in one of the first issues of Neos Anthropos, it was claimed that ‘the Bolsheviks and the communists throughout the world do not support any religion and every individual has the right to believe in whatever religion he wants or none at all [. . .]. Belief in a religion or in none is a private affair for each individual.’92 This anti-religious rhetoric propagated by the first socialists and communists was not a purely Cypriot phenomenon. Ostrogorski observed a similar rhetoric among the socialists in Britain’s first Labour Party, who professed materialism and atheism.93 The enormous majority of the Cypriot people and most of the voters,

THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CYPRUS

111

however, were religious; as a result, the CPC stance alienated the masses. The anti-religious rhetoric of the Cypriot communists can also be explained by the fact that the left-wing national revolutionaries, in their attempt to remake society, often regarded religion as one of their greatest obstacles.94 The Cypriot society of the time, however, was overwhelmingly religious and respected the role of the Church as the dominant political and social organisation; the people could not accept the anti-religious rhetoric of the CPC. The political programme of the CPC reflected a radical, modernising discourse in its criticism of established political institutions as well as of social structures like patriarchy that run through Cypriot society. It emphasised the emancipation and equality of women, who took active part within this movement. The Party’s political programme aimed for the socialist transformation of a society whose national orientation would follow an anti-imperialist and democratic direction. This programme reveals an exhaustive theoretical understanding of the Marxist theory of stages, since it included settling the existing social contradictions. At the same time, this strategy recognised that the task of socialist transformation could not be successfully undertaken until the foreign occupation came to an end. For the CPC, the road to socialist transformation lay through national independence. In practice, however, and on many occasions, its positions did not follow this theoretical analysis, thus creating a confusing picture. On some questions it promoted issues and positions considered ‘extreme’ for the period and which could not be accepted by the masses, e.g., the Party’s stand against enosis. In other cases, it endorsed a more moderate and flexible political line; for example, the proposal for a united front against the British, made up of forces from the centre and the patriotic Right. The CPC’s demands and positions in relation to the peasants and workers, to a considerable extent, corresponded to the needs of these groups, with the result that the CPC’s approval came mostly, if not entirely, from these two strata. Due to its policy on the National Question, the CPC faced police persecution and polemical attacks from the ruling bourgeoisie and the Church (see Chapter 6). The fact that the CPC supported neither

112

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

the policy of enosis nor Christianity within the context of the Cypriot society in the 1920s created a ‘reservoir of anti-communism’ that, in later periods, was maintained and exploited by the opponents of the Left.95 These CPC positions were not understood or accepted, and sometimes they evoked a violent reaction from the pro-unionist, further limiting the Party’s influence.96 Moreover, the tone and language of CPC political discourse/rhetoric was often excessive, further alienating the people and adding more obstacles to the implementation of its own policy.

CHAPTER 5 ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURING: A PARALLEL SOCIETY

This chapter will examine the structure and organisation of the CPC, both internally and in regard to the Party’s external relationship to society. In terms of society, the focus is on how party structure enables or facilitates its infiltration into the society. With regard to internal organisation, the interest lies in how the party organises its internal functions – its party organs and decision-making procedures, the identification of the internal centre of power, etc. The chapter will also look at a third aspect of party structure, which relates to the internationalisation of a party, i.e., the relations and networks that it establishes beyond its national borders. In this regard, the relations the CPC developed during this period with the CPG and Communist Party of Britain (CPB), either directly or in the context of the Comintern, are of special interest. When examining any communist party structure, it is important to consider the Leninist tradition and legacy concerning forms of organisation. All communist parties follow these Leninist organisational ‘rules’, which stipulate that no revolutionary ideology can respond effectively without a revolutionary organisation, embodied in the creation of the working class political party.1 The CPC seems to have understood this principle very well. It believed that change to

114

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

the system could not come about simply through the mechanical evolution of economic and social conditions – an organised party was essential to effect any change.2 The CPC recognised early on that its capacity to influence and mobilise depended as much on its programme/ideology as on its organisational resources. The Party tried to place itself at the heart of a broader political and social movement: a people’s movement. The CPC developed its social influence through establishing a network of ancillary organisations, e.g., youth, women and farmers’ groups, focusing on extending the communist subculture. This organisational strategy created a kind of ‘parallel society’ in which members/voters were integrated into a specific culture. At the same time, this tactic provided the Party with a mechanism for mobilising supporters. This was a typical mode of organisation for parties operating outside the traditional political world. Mass parties, including the communist ones, utilised extra-parliamentary organisation in their effort to mobilise, since they did not obtain parliamentary presence due to the limitations on electoral rights. The organisation constitutes a source of strength for the popular strata, whose power lies in the effective use of the masses.3 The political organisations of the Left seem to have borrowed several principles from military organisation, as well as using some of the military terminology, both of which they applied to their internal organisation. The modern political party is – in the political meaning of the word – a ‘fighting organisation’ and as such needs to submit to tactical rules and regulations.4 The close relationship between leftist parties and the military is particularly evident in social democratic and communist terminology, which draws to a large extent on military science. Lenin himself referred to the party as ‘an army which will be concerned exclusively with a complete and broad political agitation, which will bring close and merge into one entity the destructive power of the revolutionaries’ organisation’.5

5.1 Penetrating society: a ‘parallel society’ The term ‘parallel society’ reflects the relationship that class-based political movements, such as communism and socialism, built in

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURING : A PARALLEL SOCIETY 115

many societies. They created an organised ‘sub-culture’ that functioned as a ‘society within the society’, isolating the workers from the influence of the bourgeoisie. The communist and socialist parties demanded strong commitment from their members and bound them in an extensive and well-organised party network based on a complicated web of supplementary organisations. In this way, these parties were able to influence all spheres of an individual’s life.6 The communist parties aimed, in other words, to create an environment of incorporation, whereby its members would be encompassed within an ideological framework of activities.7 This means of organisation succeeded in incorporating and socialising their members into active political radicalism. The Leninist position on party – society relations is that the party takes the role of guiding society, which it accomplishes through workers’ councils, trade unions, youth organisations, educational and cultural clubs. The party’s relationship with these groups cannot be neutral but should be as close as possible. The means to achieve this under democratic conditions include parliamentary activity, electoral agitation, participation in local social institutions and the legal functioning of unions. Under conditions of authoritarianism, however, organisation around a revolutionary newspaper is regarded as the most effective way of functioning.8 In Cyprus, the organisational structure and practice of the CPC reflected these positions. The Party’s newspapers, first Pyrsos and then Neos Anthropos, contributed significantly to the expansion of the CPC organisation and played the role of organisational vanguard. The papers constituted the vehicle through which the Party came into contact with the masses, and also the core around which the CPC’s first Party groups were formed. In some cases, the Party used the newspaper to pass secret messages to its organisations and asked for detailed reports on various aspects of the activities of its cells (organisational, ideological, etc.).9 The CPC aimed to establish a party presence in all social strata; this would enable it to most effectively pursue its policies. The Party set up various auxiliary organisations as a way to create links with certain societal groups that were not directly accessible to it. The peasantry was one of these and also of primary concern, given its huge

116

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

numbers within Cypriot society. The CPC understood that simply mounting an ideological struggle would not be effective; it needed to concretise its (political and social) demands with the establishment of an organisation to promote these ideas. To extend its influence to the peasants, the Party established cells in the villages and involved its members in local or national initiatives aimed at improving the peasantry’s living conditions.10 To this end, Party emissaries were sent to set up peasant cells in the villages, which remained the basic place of settlement of the majority of Cypriots.11 Through systematic efforts, the Party succeeded in organising the peasants and farmers and founded farmers’ clubs, initially in Limassol and subsequently in other towns and villages.12 To facilitate organisational mobilisation among the peasants, it published a draft statute that could be used by those who wished to form associations and more effectively make demands.13 The Party’s goal was to liberate the peasants from the influence of the bourgeoisie and landowning classes; at the same time this would also strengthen the CPC’s influence among the peasants. The foundation of peasants’ organisations was also considered a prerequisite for the electoral success of CPC candidates of a peasant origin. It called on the peasants to recognise their true class interests and elect representatives from their own class to the Legislative Council. Like all mass parties, the CPC emphasised the organisation of a youth movement, as the youth provided most of its cadres and activists. Moreover, the youth were key to expanding the Party’s appeal. A CPC veteran, Demetris Koullouras, recalls that the youth were responsible for campaigning in the villages near Limassol and spreading Party doctrines.14 The Party’s first attempts to establish a youth organisation occurred in mid-1923, when it enrolled school students, and then in early 1924 when it organised the first communist student group at the Limassol Secondary School. In mid1926, the party founded the Workers’ Communist Youth League (WCYL), which made its first appearance in August 1926 with a proclamation from its central committee.15 This organisation had about 20 members, who prior to membership had taken lessons on communism and the workers movement.16

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURING : A PARALLEL SOCIETY 117

At the CPC founding congress, it was decided to unite the student and worker youth movements into one organisation, the Communist Youth of Cyprus (CYC).17 The CYC was established on the basis of the system of cells18 and in this period seems to have held at least two congresses.19 The CYC also began publication of an insert for the CPC newspaper, entitled Neos Bolshevikos (Young Bolshevik). After two issues, however, the colonial authorities suspended publication by treating it as a separate newspaper, because that would require the Party to deposit a money guarantee, which it was unable to do.20 The CYC was nevertheless very active in other areas: it founded a theatrical club and two sports clubs – a football club and a walking club.21 The aim was to organise different types of sporting activities which they named ‘the Red Sports’. The walking club was actually a camouflage for the communists to organise campaigns in the nearby villages and the mining areas.22 The CYC organised at least two conferences during this period.23 It appears from the records (a decision of its central committee to expel a number of members) that in its early years the CYC experienced internal conflicts and disagreements; however, no further information on this is available.24 The CPC also established a women’s club, which participated in the Party’s founding congress and in which a leading role was played by Klio Christodoulides-Ioannidou (Skeleas’ sister). As Klio recalls, the stimulus was given by her brother Christodoulos (Alexis) who immigrated to Greece in 1924 after completing his studies in Moscow. He had written to Klio regarding the position of women in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics urging her to undertake the initiative to organise Cypriot women in the Party.25 The cell was very small (no more than ten women), and it supported women’s emancipation and the recognition of women’s role in society and the family. Most members were relatives of CPC cadres and undertook the role of liaison in the political contacts required by the Party’s activity.26 The club organised lectures on a weekly basis at the LLC; the first woman to deliver a lecture was Irene Solomonides, sister of C. Solomonides editor of Neos Anthropos.27 They also read and discussed in groups various socialist documents.28

118

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

The second aspect of the Party’s penetration into society related to its mode of territorial organisation. Duverger distinguished between branch-based mass parties (socialists) and cell-based devotee parties (communists).29 The socialist party base units were organised on residential or geographical lines, as this facilitated the mobilisation of Party members for electoral campaigns in their respective electoral districts. In Russia, the absence of electoral contests and the need for conspiracy necessitated a different sort of organisation – on a factory basis.30 This difference reveals the interdependence of political regime, electoral system and mode of organisation. In turn, these led to each party determining its own mechanisms to mobilise party members and followers. The Russian Communist Party originally adopted cells as the Party’s basic organisational units, because this form of organisation facilitated the underground activity necessary because of the absolutist tsarist regime. It represented a flexible, small-sized unit of organisation wherein one cell never knew the other cells, as there was no horizontal communication among the cells. In this way the cells were not easily compromised. This rationale applied to a degree to the CPC: members suffered constant persecution, and the Party was in a continual state of semi-illegality. This did not allow a continual public presence and so it undertook a more centralised organisation, i.e., cells and the use of both legal and illegal activity.31 Veteran CPC cadres recall cell meetings taking place with many safety precautions in place and with sentries at the door who would warn them of imminent police raids. In some cases, cells met in fields, caves and isolated regions.32 In Cyprus, however, both the existence of electoral procedures and the absence of large-scale enterprises influenced the CPC’s organisational concept. Consequently, it adopted a mixed system, activating cells not only within the workplace (mines and factories) but also in geographical regions (urban neighbourhoods and villages). The need for organisation to vary according to national conditions is noted in the decision on the organisational question passed by the Party’s first congress. Although the activity of the cells was centralised and subordinated to the Party’s higher organs, they

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURING : A PARALLEL SOCIETY 119

were allowed a margin of freedom to take initiatives in their own sphere of action.33 Despite the Party’s theoretical flexibility and adaptability, in practice, throughout this period it did not succeed in attracting a very large following (membership/voters). It was not until the early 1940s when the CPC evolved into AKEL that the Cypriot communist movement was able to develop a substantial base. This was achieved through the establishment of associations in the villages, usually of an educational, sport, or cultural nature, which acted as the spearhead to extend the Party appeal. Despite this, the associations established by the CPC enabled the Party to appeal broadly to Cypriot society and access segments of the society hitherto out of reach. These associations proved a catalyst in the attempt to develop the Party’s influence on a mass basis in the years that followed.34 5.1.1 Organising the Turkish minority The CPC also made a significant effort to include the Turks of Cyprus in the ranks of the Party through the creation of a Turkish party section. There is little information available on this subject, however, as the Party archives have not been preserved. It appears that prior to 1941 (when the CPC became AKEL), the Party did not succeed in attracting a significant number of Turks to join its ranks. Some reports note that a Turk, Kemal Ahmet from Limassol, was a member of the central committee of the CPC, but there is no reference to other Turks from other districts. Despite the obstacles, some Muslims did subsequently join the trade union movement and were elected to the administrative organs.35 D. Koullouras also recalls that even during the early years of the CPC a few Turks were part of the builders’ union, some taking part in joint strikes with their Greek counterparts, while 12 Turks were members of the athletic club founded by the CPC.36 Koullouras also remembers that the statute of the LLC was translated into Turkish so that the Turks would understand the reason behind the workers’ unions and their goals. In June 1930 a letter from the Turk Ahmet Fetullah was published in the Party press calling for the need of joint organisation between Greek and Turks.37

120

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

In a police report that is kept in AKEL’s museum, three Muslims are named as the leading communists among their community: Salim Aziz Boulli (auctioneer), Ahmed Houlousi (grocer) and Moustafa Naim Hodja (tailor).38 All three men were being tutored in communism by Vatyliotis. The same police report claims that Ahmed Houlousi enrolled 200 Turks as communists. Three days later the Turkish newspaper Soz made a reference to Turks who participate in the communist movement under the title ‘He who leaves the flock is eaten by the wolf’.39 These scattered reports indicate that although perhaps few in number, some Turks were actually involved in the CPC. The numbers mentioned were most probably exaggerated in order to provoke a reaction. In fact, the CPC had a very limited impact on the Turkish minority, despite the fact that it had distanced itself from enosis. Katsiaounis attributes this to two factors: (a) the fact that the Turks of Cyprus had always been more conservative compared to the Greeks, holding positions in the colonial bureaucracy; and to the fact that the Turks made up a very small proportion of employees and artisans, the two strata upon which the CPC had been based in its formative years.40 The mass participation of Turkish Cypriots in the trade unions and strikes took place much later, in the late 1930s. During this period and the 1940s there was significant Turkish Cypriot involvement, which attests to the later influence of CPC-AKEL within the Turkish community.41 A memoir by Pantelis Varnavas (a veteran of AKEL and the Pancyprian Federation of Labour, or PEO) provides a list of Turkish Cypriots who participated in the Left movement in the period 1933– 58, including names of Turkish Cypriots who were imprisoned (the majority were active during the 1940s and 1950s). He also provides a number of announcements written in Turkish.42

5.2 The Party press The party newspaper is a key component of communist party structure, as the following quote by Lenin attests: ‘Any political movement which aspires to be called political must have its political organ’ which can play the role of ‘collective propagandist, enlightener and organiser’.43 Historically, the newspapers of leftist parties played

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURING : A PARALLEL SOCIETY 121

a highly influential role. For example, members of the German Social Democratic Party considered the articles in the Party press as a kind of ‘Holy Writ in daily installments’.44 Reading the party press reinforces the convictions of the members, who as a result continue to support the party and buy the newspaper. The CPC was no exception to this practice of communist parties worldwide. The Party press of the CPC was therefore its main organ, not only of communication but also of organisation, designed as a tool to penetrate into the popular strata. The CPC newspaper, Neos Anthropos (New Man), first appeared on 1 January 1925; it was a fortnightly organ of the ‘worker-peasants and poor toilers’ under the political control of the CPC,45 succeeding Pyrsos. The name symbolised the new society and the new type of person the CPC dreamed of creating. The newspaper’s main goal was to spread the ideas of socialism and to provide guidance to the workers, calling on them to organise in trade unions as a way to promote and defend their rights. In its attempt to widely spread Marxist ideas, the CPC also bought books wholesale from Greece at a reduced price (or free), distributing them to its members either free or at very low prices.46 At the same time, the Party press fostered a climate of friendship, cooperation and mutual respect between the Greek and Turks of Cyprus and promoted the idea of a joint anti-British struggle. Indicative of the self-assigned ‘missionary’ role that the Party press assumed was a column on the back page of Neos Anthropos entitled ‘Red Lessons’, through which it conducted theoretical instruction of Party members and cadres on a series of political issues. Neos Anthropos constituted the collective property of the Party, although for legal purposes a publisher was nominated (Charalambos Solomonides).47 The conservative circles had far more publications than the Left (Table 2), attesting to their greater resources. The newspaper often appealed to its subscribers to pay their subscriptions on time, as it had no other capital with which to support itself. An annual subscription cost 6 shillings, quite a low price for the period. The newspaper claimed that its circulation approximated 800 issues in the first two years, rising to 1,600 in the third year.48

122

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

Table 2

IN CYPRUS

Average Circulation of Greek newspapers*

Year

Number of newspapers**

Sales (***)

1884 1887 1893 1901 1909 1917 1922 1926 1931

3 4 6 7 (1) 12 13 (1) 18 (2) 16 (2) 9 (2)

1,200 2,400 2,990 4,630 8,500 11,250 14,650 16,356 12,600

* The figures are extracted from the Blue Books from each respective year, published by the British authorities. ** The number in parenthesis denotes the number of magazines issued. *** The number of sales was estimated based on the assertion of each newspaper’s editor.

If these figures are accurate, it means the paper’s circulation was quite high, given the social composition and literacy levels of its potential readership. The Blue Books issued by the British authorities suggest that the circulation of Neos Anthropos was 850 issues throughout its publishing history, while Ergatis (The Worker), which was published only in 1928, had a circulation of 400, and Neos Ergatis (New Worker), which appeared in 1929, reached 2,000 copies.49 Whatever the case, Neos Anthropos faced serious financial and other difficulties in terms of both printing and circulation. In 1927 financial difficulties were eased due to Klio’s Christodoulidou gesture to donate her dowry worth £300 in order for the Party to acquire its own printing office. The name of this printing office was Astro (Star).50 Geographical limitation was a primary reason for its small circulation. Neos Anthropos mainly operated as a local newspaper in Limassol, the seat of the CPC; as such it was unable to extend its appeal on an islandwide basis and increase its readership. This weakness was recognised by the Party which noted that ‘the party organ has not yet succeeded in becoming a truly Pancyprian newspaper and is more or less limited to the issues which concern Limassol province’. The Party recognised

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURING : A PARALLEL SOCIETY 123

its own responsibility for this, declaring that it ‘had not succeeded in using Neos Anthropos for serious political campaigns’.51 The many illiterate workers and peasants posed another serious problem for the mass circulation of the newspaper among its intended audience. Hence, other practical solutions were sought, such as the group purchase of a copy of the newspaper, which would then be read by someone with elementary education.52 This practice broadened the circle of readers, because all the members of the group would jointly discuss the ideas expressed. This was a common practice in working-class circles.53 In this regard the role of the communist activists is crucial. As Rokkan pointed out: The active supporters hold strategic roles in the communication network. They spread the messages of the party press to their community and their immediate environment. It is through this process that the socialist parties maintained significant support when their newspapers did not reach large bodies of voters.54 To address the issues of its restricted audience and, more important, its limited economic resources, the Party decided to distribute Neos Anthropos through a system of volunteers, who also dealt with its subsequent circulation. The Party sent people into areas highly populated by workers (e.g., mines) to sell the paper as well as cull news stories for the paper. In fact, in order to protect their writings from the police they invented a mixed code so that if their notes were seized no one would understand the meaning.55 Besides the lack of financial resources, the newspaper had other serious difficulties with circulation. Although the newspaper was not illegal, the police kept records of those who bought it, thus rendering the mere fact of buying and reading an action that prompted consequences.56 Employment was often a problem for the newspaper’s subscribers,57 while there were also cases of copies being impounded and destroyed by local post officers.58 Party press distributors were also arrested on some occasions.59 The newspaper often faced libel suits,60 to which it was hard to respond. These led to

124

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

appeals to its readers and the Party members for financial support,61 with the result that it often had to suspend publication. The publisher was also jailed on a number of occasions.62 The newspaper was forced to interrupt publication three times; the fourth time proved fatal. The first time publication was suspended between 15 February and 1 May 1926, when the legally responsible publisher, Charalambos Solomonides, was sentenced to two months imprisonment. The second occasion was also due to the imprisonment of Solomonides; for a short period during this time, the CPC published another newspaper, O Ergatis, in the place of Neos Anthropos whose publication was again suspended. The third time was on 1 January 1929, when the CPC of its own accord decided to go underground in response to the government’s new criminal code. The last issue appeared on 6 December 1928, and in its place a new newspaper, Neos Ergatis, appeared on 15 January 1929 as a fortnightly paper of the villagers and workers, with the named publisher being Costas Drakos, a Party cadre from Koilani.63 The new paper’s political discourse was more carefully formulated. It was only published for one year, with its final issue coming out on 9 January 1930. During this period, the name of the CPC never appeared in the newspaper’s columns. On 30 January 1930, following legal advice, Neos Anthropos reappeared as an ‘organ of the workers and villagers and the Central Committee of the CPC’. By the third issue the Party’s name was removed from the paper. This constant persecution and the way the CPC managed to overcome the difficulties of the penal code and publish its newspapers under different names represented a form of an ‘institutional guerilla struggle’ between the Party and the colonial authorities.64 This was due to the institutional context that allowed the publication of newspapers under certain requirements. When the government introduced legislation requiring a £200 deposit for any newspaper to continue publication, the newspaper folded. In response to this regulation, on 16 July 1930, the newspaper appealed for financial support; by the end of August it had received only £65, and published its last issue on 27 August 1930.65 In the years that followed, the Party did not publish its own

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURING : A PARALLEL SOCIETY 125

newspaper again. A number of its cadres, however, succeeded in writing articles on a regular basis in bourgeois newspapers.66 During the years of its publication, the Party press played a central role in the CPC’s ideological and programmatic propaganda. Its significance for the Party lay in its ability to function as an interactive channel of communication with the people. The newspaper provided political guidance to its members, and at the same time it published articles written by workers and Party members that helped the CPC to remain aware of what was happening in society and at the workplace.67 Of course, this should be weighed against the fact that as the Party organ, the newspaper functioned primarily as a means of propagating the Party’s positions.68 The paper itself declared that it should be ‘the teacher of the masses, the comrade of every workers’ cause, [on] every workbench and [in] every village coffee-house’.69 Among the Cypriot mass media, the CPC organs offered the first examples of ‘popularisation’ and accessibility. The rest of the media were essentially addressed to the educated elite and rarely concerned themselves with issues important to the poor and the working class. The CPC publications offered a forum for expression for those who, due to their limited educational level and economic means, had never before had the opportunity to express their opinions. It offered an organisational rallying point for individuals with a radical disposition. Through its publications and propaganda, the leadership of the CPC aimed to get the message across to its worker and peasant audience that individual rights applied to the poor as much as to the rich and that their problems would be partially addressed when they acquired full political rights and completely resolved when the social system changed.

5.3 Internal structure The internal structure of communist parties is to a great extent defined by the principles laid down on 12 July 1921, at the 24th Session of the Third Congress of the Comintern. These guidelines stipulated, among other things, that communist parties should be monolithic, aim for a strong base, and have exceptionally good

126

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

organisation, strong discipline, a firm commitment to the statute, democratic centralism and collective guidance. These principles could be ensured, the congress stipulated, through the careful choice of candidates for party membership. Admitting alien class elements to the party could very easily compromise party discipline. Refusal to submit to the guidance of the central bodies was tantamount to the destruction of the party.70 The dominant organisational principle of communist parties is democratic centralism, defined by Lenin as ‘unity of action, freedom of discussion and criticism’. This means that there is freedom to criticise within the party organisation until a decision is taken; once taken however, the decision must be implemented with the unanimous will and action of the entire party organisation. The formation of any organised intra-party groups or taking any action that could endanger party unity and discipline are strictly forbidden. ‘The party constitutes a unity of will and action which does not compromise with the existence of factions and groups.’71 Following the 1926 CPC congress in which it adopted its 13-article Party statute, the Party structure, its organs and the relationships among them were defined. The highest forum was the congress, with representation based on the number of organised Party members.72 According to Lenin, this structure of communist parties was the result of long-term processes: ‘Long historical experience was required for the workers to realise the absurdity of the perception that democracy should function through continual referenda and votes by all the workers, and to understand instead the need for representative institutions.’73 Although the CPC statute makes no explicit reference to democratic centralism, its most fundamental principles can be found in article three, which states that Party members must strictly observe the statute and the decisions of the higher bodies, fully participate in Party activities and, if employed, contribute at least 1 per cent of their monthly wage to the Party coffers.74 The Party dealt strictly with members who violated these principles.75 The CPC, like all communist parties, was hierarchically structured. The extra-parliamentary leadership coordinated all activities of the supplementary and local organisations. This extra-parliamentary

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURING : A PARALLEL SOCIETY 127

leadership was comprised of the Party congress and especially the central committee.76 The CPC’s internal centre of gravity was clearly tilted in favour of these bodies, especially the central committee. The time distance between the congresses essentially renders the central committee of a communist party the most influential internal body. We must, however, recall that during the period under investigation, the Party had not succeeded in electing its own representatives to the island’s administrative institutions. As a result, at the practical level there was no tension between the parliamentary and extra-parliamentary sections.77 The basic organisational unit of a communist party was the cell, defined as a small group of individuals. The local organisations (cells) were formed as a way for the party to increase its infiltration of society. The party newspaper published a series of articles explaining how a communist cell operates in its area of action and especially in the factory, its rules of operation, the required display of discipline, the manner of approaching new members, etc.78 Regulations stipulated that three party members had to be present before a cell could be organised.79 At the start of the 1930s, it appears, according to some testimonies, that the CPC had 19 open Party cells and some underground groups, the latter usually made up of civil servants.80 Above the cells, the Party established district committees, which they labelled as local committees. District committees were created in all major towns of Cyprus with the exception of Paphos, where it seems that there was only one cell, as indicated by the lone Paphos signature on a Party petition signed by the Party’s district committees in the other towns against the penal code. By 1931, however, the Party had acquired a district (local) committee in Paphos as well.81 Prior to that, some members of the CPC had moved from Limassol to Paphos in order to form a masons union in the village of Geroskipou. According to some sources they came to number approximate 40 persons.82 In Famagusta (Varosi) the first communist sell was already present in 1923.83 It seemed to have a very close cooperation with the centre in Limassol and by 1929 had established a solid organisation. In the district of Kyrenia the first cell was established in 1926, however it

128

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

took the party almost ten years to establish a Party organisation in the said district. In the capital city of Nicosia, the Party leadership was more eager to organise cells given the increasing number of workers in the capital. Therefore, they sent people from Limassol in 1927 to boost the efforts of the Party cell in Nicosia which was established in 1925. By 1929 the Party managed to found 19 cells with more than 100 members in Nicosia.84 Interestingly, the first district secretary of AKEL in Nicosia was a Greek citizen whose name has not been remembered. In Larnaca, the first Party cell was established in 1926 under Vaggelis Argyrou, who had close contacts with the Limassol centre. The regularly held national congresses document the Party’s continual and lasting presence on the political scene. Apart from the first congress, and prior to the 1931 uprising and the consequent proscription of the CPC, the Party held a national congress, an extraordinary congress and an organisational conference. On 20 –21 August 1927 an extraordinary congress took place in Limassol where the chief issues under discussion were the questions of the united anti-imperialist front, the expansion of the membership and the circulation of Party publications.85 The second pancyprian congress took place at the end of December 1928 and included decisions ‘on the reorganisation of all the party sections’ to accord with the Party’s new situation of illegality since 1 January 1929. The CPC’s decision to resort to underground activity was a voluntary decision related to the British authorities’ imposition of the new penal code, but it was not provided by the law. Given this state of self-imposed illegality the Party avoided publication of most of the congress’s theses and decisions.86 The congress also approved the CPC decision to expel ‘the traitors who caused the last intraparty crisis in the CPC’, without giving any further information.87 The decision clearly indicated that there had been an earlier intraparty problem; this was likely related to disagreements over the 1927 municipal elections in Limassol (see Chapter 6). The second pancyprian conference, which took place on 12 July 1931, criticised the ‘sectarian’ decision for the Party to go underground, as it resulted in the Party’s isolation. However, it is

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURING : A PARALLEL SOCIETY 129

likely that the young party was aiming to preserve and protect its members from the persecutions that they believed were imminent. At the time of the conference, whose participants were almost exclusively young members,88 Vatyliotis made a serious attempt to reorganise the Party. A decision was reached to relocate CPC headquarters from Limassol to the capital town of Nicosia to support efforts to expand the Party’s appeal. When Ploutis Servas assumed leadership, he moved headquarters back to Limassol in the mid1930s.89 All efforts at expanding or improving the Party were shattered, however, after the riots of October 1931, when the British imposed a dictatorial regime and jailed the majority of the CPC leaders. The Party immediately went underground, but the majority of its cadres were soon arrested; this action broke up party activity until 1935 when these men were discharged. A year later, in 1936, the third congress was convened to facilitate the Party’s efforts at reorganisation. At this congress there was work on trade union development. The fourth party congress was convened in May 1940 and it was the last one held by the CPC.90 One year later, the CPC evolved into a new organisation: AKEL. However, the CPC did not dissolve immediately. It coexisted with AKEL until 1944 when it held its final (fifth) Congress where the decision to integrate in AKEL was made (see Chapter 7). The need for an organised party machine, which would carry out the party activity, is reflected in the concept of ‘professional revolutionaries’ – a significant feature of communist party structure. Professional revolutionaries constituted the pillars around which the new party would be built. ‘An organisation, like the political party of the working class, should consist chiefly of individuals professionally engaged in revolutionary activity and who lend coherence, durability and stability to the party.’91 In its early stages, the CPC did not have the financial muscle required to maintain a salaried Party machine. The Party statute indicates that the Party resources must come from contributions from peasants and workers and Party members’ subscriptions. Of the subscriptions, 25 per cent was allocated to the central committee, 25 per cent to the local (district) committee and 50 per cent to the cell’s own activities.92 Considering the social

130

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

composition of the CPC’s members and supporters, it is logical to assume that the financial resources were too small to support a salaried Party machine. Lefkis makes several references to CPC cadres making a voluntary contribution after finishing their daily work and often staying up all night to finish Party tasks.93 The Party’s minimal financial resources were exhausted in publishing the newspaper, financing the trials and fines and renting Party offices. The Party members also faced serious problems in their activities, due to the high fares and primitive public transport, but also due to lack of experience and too few cadres. The Party’s limited financial capabilities are also apparent from the fact that the CPC appealed to the CPG for financial help to support waged cadres: help that they did not receive (see Chapter 4). Later, in the early 1930s, it appears that there were a few paid officials in the Party.94 Moreover, towards the end of the 1930s, with the growth of the trade union movement, it seems that there were more possibilities of employing salaried personnel, at least at the level of leading trade union cadres, given the trade union’s enhanced ability to find funds due to their arithmetically broader base. Given the close Party – union relationship (see below), these cadres essentially served both organisations, carrying out Party and union work at the same time.95 Veteran CPC cadres note that nearly all the trade union secretaries at that time were also Party cadres and that many Party members participated in the union committees.96 Despite all these efforts, the CPC still faced limitations in its organisational activity. First of all there was the Party’s geographical reach, which was mostly restricted to the Limassol district.97 To address this, CPC cadres began to correspond with workers and other individuals in Nicosia, encouraging them to organisation and action; then the Party sent a number of cadres to organise Party cells in the capital, which gradually acquired weight in the Party organisation.98 According to a then Party member, CPC efforts to extend the movement to Nicosia received significant help from a number of refugees from Asia Minor and Thessaloniki.99 Thanks to its disciplined cadres and systematic work, the CPC managed in the

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURING : A PARALLEL SOCIETY 131

1920s and 1930s to establish permanent access to the working class, mainly in Limassol and Famagusta. The CPC exhibited all the organisational aspects characteristic of communist parties – the protection of party boundaries, the commitment of all members to active participation, the strict discipline, intraparty functioning on the basis of democratic centralism, the primary role of the workplace cell, and the combination of legal and illegal activity. The reliance on the cells as basic organisational units and the exclusive focus on specific strata and classes (peasants and workers) constitute fundamental components of a communist party. Other organisational characteristics of the CPC also point in the same direction: its bureaucratic and hierarchical structure stems from the need to coordinate the Party organisation and for organised access to the masses. In contrast to the organisations and other associations of the nationalist camp, the CPC maintained continual contact with its members and followers, which was not limited to election periods. The permanence of the organisation had a dual goal. On the one hand, it aimed to mobilise the peasant and worker masses through the Party, the only channel available to them given the lack of access to other mechanisms. On the other hand, the Party mandate was not limited to electoral participation alone, but was characterised by a broader conception of educating and shaping the society. The organisational dimension of political parties, especially those of the left, has been criticised both for its theoretical concept and its practical implementation. While the form of organisational structure can be an effective way of making demands and gaining access to the masses, it also contains certain inherent dangers, in that a small group has a lot of power and can turn reactionary or conservative, smothering freedom of thought and action. From this viewpoint, the organisation is almost identical to an oligarchy.100 There is insufficient evidence on this subject in relation to the CPC; however, for the time period examined here, there was just not enough time for the Party to develop in this way.

132

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

5.4 Rank and file and leadership Analysis of the CPC social base and leadership is extremely difficult due to the lack of research and other evidence. This is especially true in regard to the Party’s social base; there is a little more information available on the leading cadres of the Party. To compensate for the lack of hard core data, we must look to indirect sources and circumstantial evidence, while also looking for parallels with communist parties in other countries for which the data are available. A useful concept for the analysis of a party’s ‘black box’ (i.e., internal components) is that found in Katz and Mair’s seminal study on the three faces of party organisation.101 Gramsci made a similar distinction of a Marxist nuance, arguing that a communist party is comprised of three layers of people: (a) A mass element composed of ordinary, average men, whose participation takes the form of discipline and loyalty [...] without these the party would not exist but it is also true neither could it exist with these alone. They are a force insofar as there is somebody to centralise, organise and discipline them [. . .]. (b) The principle cohesive element, the leadership, which centralises [. . .] and renders effective and powerful a complex of forces which left to themselves would count for nothing [. . .]. (c) An intermediate element, which articulates the first element with the second and maintains contact between them.102 The three above-mentioned theorists draw on the pioneering study of Michels, who wrote that there are various echelons (voters, members, activists, leaders) that participate in party life, each with a specific hierarchical position indicative of their relative power. ‘Effective power is here in inverse ratio to the number of those who exercise it.’103 5.4.1 Members and followers Research on communist parties in other countries at corresponding periods has shown that most had a social base comprised of workers –

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURING : A PARALLEL SOCIETY 133

both organised members and voters. Moreover, independent and dependent middle strata individuals (artisans, skilled workers, etc.) participated to a significant degree. In political parties in general, workers are found primarily at the lower and middle organisational levels; in communist parties, however, workers are also represented in the party leadership – more so than in any other type of party.104 In countries with large communist parties, the lower strata – working class and/or the agrarian population, low-income, uneducated individuals, ethnic minorities, and the socially uprooted in rapidly changing areas – made up the bulk of the communist parties.105 Manual workers in professions that required them to live either in industrial towns or isolated regions (farmers, forest rangers, fishermen, etc.) also made up the communist party members.106 Research indicates that communist parties were supported by people who were forced to move from their homes (e.g., peasants who moved to the towns), especially in regions undergoing a process of social change. We can find a parallel situation in Cyprus of the time, although we must avoid, over-simplification. Some scholars argue that ‘uprooting’ and migration from agrarian areas did not favour direct involvement in a collective/organised form of action, either of a trade union or of a political nature. This line of thought posits that individuals relocated to an unfamiliar urban environment lack stable communication networks that would bond them together and stimulate them to action.107 The CPC’s limited influence among the working class and the population at large, in its early years, especially outside the Limassol district, seems to some extent to justify this argument. In addition, the CPC did not have an effective organisational and communication network to allow it to reach workers outside Limassol. In the early stages of the communist movement in Cyprus, an analogy with what existed elsewhere can be drawn in relation to the Party’s social base. Apart from a minority of peasants and manual labourers, the majority of its known membership consisted of employees of trading houses and skilled workers (artisans).108 This is consistent with the picture in many European countries, where the mass base of the socialist parties in their early stages was almost entirely made up of skilled workers rather than of factory and

134

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

industrial workers.109 Compared to their skilled counterparts, the unskilled workers could be easily replaced and had a greater fear of losing their jobs if they organised, acting as a deterrent to their organisational mobilisation. Some socialist and labour parties had two distinct types of membership: individual card-carrying membership, on the one hand, and collective affiliation through union membership, on the other.110 In contrast, membership in the communist parties was always an individual choice and a kind of ‘contract’ between the member and the party. In Cyprus, in addition to this practice of individual commitment, the very difficult conditions under which the first communists operated (police persecution and surveillance) led the CPC to enroll members through very strict procedures and after a thorough investigation and tests.111 This can be explained by the rationale underlying communist parties’ levels of membership in relation to the country’s regime. ‘In an authoritarian country there should not be many of them; the smaller the number of members the more difficult it is for the police to dissolve the organisation.’112 Article two of the Party statute reflects the above and states: Membership in the CPC is open to workers, peasants and various others when they recognise the aims and statute of the party and take part in the party’s daily activity and work. In order to become a member of the CPC, it is necessary to submit an application supported by the recommendations of two existing party members and to pass the candidate stage. For workers, the latter is three months, for peasants and professionals (artisans) six months and for everyone else one year.113 Although there is no explicit reference in the statute as to whether membership was discriminated along sex lines, it is safe to assume that members of both sexes were accepted, as women took part in the first socialist cells and also in the Party’s founding congress. Katina Nikolaou claims that she was only the fourth member of the communist cell in Varosi.114 The Party had a women’s club,115 and women were also very

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURING : A PARALLEL SOCIETY 135

active in all Party activities and campaigns. The CPC was the only political organisation at the time to demand full citizenship rights for all the people of Cyprus above the age of 18, regardless of class, ethnic or gender background (see Chapter 4, section 4.4.3). The Party did not keep precise membership figures. It is believed that the CPC archive, membership list and the list of subscribers to Neos Anthropos were lost in the 1930s, during the period of British crackdown in Cyprus known as the ‘Palmer period’ after the British governor of the time.116 As a result, we can only speculate on the figures, looking at British intelligence and other reports, as well as personal depositions of former CPC members. Leonidas Stringos, a CPC veteran who immigrated to Greece, notes that by the end of 1924 the CPC numbered 35 members.117 In a report on communist activity written in 1931, the then British governor, Storrs, noted a rapid increase in the number of Party members under police surveillance, which rose from 181 to 365 in six months. In the same year the special files on communists indicated that they numbered approximately 400, with the number 48 given to Galatopoulos in Paphos, whose membership in the Party is actually questioned.118 In addition to Party members, a considerable number of nonmembers, who had taken part in CPC meetings as sympathisers, were also under surveillance.119 Richter notes that Storrs had confessed that individuals suspected of subversive or communist propaganda, whether or not they were communists, were placed under surveillance.120 In a police document dated 14 October 1932, reference is made to ‘Red 460’, Kostas Anaphotis. Although this number would seem to indicate that many people were involved in CPC activities,121 there is probably a certain degree of exaggeration by both the British and the Cypriot police officers who were monitoring the Party, easily branding as communists many who were not, just to provoke a reaction among the people and the government. For example, the CPC local committee in Paphos issued a statement declaring that a person charged as a communist in court had actually nothing to do with the Party.122 As a result of the repression during the years between 1931 and 1941, by 1935 the CPC numbers had been drastically reduced to

136

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

just 35.123 By the time the fourth congress took place, their numbers rose slightly to 60124 or to 100.125 It is also possible that the small number of members indicated a compliance with the Leninist concept of a small, flexible party organisation when the type of regime is authoritarian – as was the colonial regime in Cyprus at the time.126 Studying the electoral geography of a political party allows us to recognise those regions where its strength is greatest and see how stable its advantage is from one election to the next.127 Most CPC members were located in the towns, particularly in Limassol; the same holds true for the Party organisations, although they were also found in provincial centres with a high concentration of workers, such as the mines and towns. Specifically, most were concentrated in Limassol, and secondarily in Famagusta, Nicosia and Larnaca.128 The Party was strongest in Limassol because of the relatively high concentration of workers in this town as well as the fact that the majority of its cadres were there. The functioning of the LLC reinforced the attempt to enroll new members for the Party.129 There was also a body of faithful followers and voters who felt an allegiance to the Party for economic or social reasons but did not become members. For example, 200 people signed a Party’s petition against nationalistic manifestations that would fend off terms as early as 1925.130 Furthermore, it is logical to assume, given the Party’s positions, that the members and voters of the CPC at this time were the least religious individuals in society. In conclusion, during the period under study, the CPC failed to turn its structures and electoral audience into a mass party and did not succeed in expanding to any significant extent beyond Limassol province. The numerical increase of the working class did not lead to a simultaneous increase in the Party’s electoral mass and membership list, for reasons related to the illiberal regime of the period and the Party’s own deficiencies. 5.4.2 Leadership There is a proven relationship between professional and social background and politics – i.e., of the leaders and the organisers of the

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURING : A PARALLEL SOCIETY 137

political movements.131 Michels analysed socialist party leadership in Germany and discovered that the majority came from two social classes: the proletariat and the intellectual stratum of the bourgeoisie.132 Available data on the first leaders and influential figures of the CPC indicate a mixture of intellectuals, artisans and office clerks, rather than factory and industrial workers.133 Peasants were almost non-existent among the leadership, particularly in these initial stages.134 The CPC introduced an entirely new conception of political leadership and political activism. Until the CPC, the political elite were drawn from religious figures, large landowners and some members of the bourgeoisie such as merchants and lawyers. The CPC professed the need of the working class to become a class of its own, thus assuming leadership positions in the working class movement. The advent of the CPC and its ideology signalled the gradual introduction of the workers themselves into the leadership of working class organisations. Hence, the Party succeeded in attracting to its ranks individuals who the political elite regarded as marginal or simply followers. The new communist parties, including the CPC, understood that their members needed training and education if they were to be successful leaders. The organisations of the Left institutionalised the best mechanisms for training new leaders in the face of trade union struggles, the party press, ideological indoctrination, etc.135 The CPC organised lecture series for its members, as did the LLC, which were attended by a large number of people.136 The aim of these lectures was the political education of the Party members and the unionised workers.137 Describing the work and contribution of all those who filled the leadership positions of the CPC would require another book, but we must make mention of a few important figures in the Party.138 The leaders (general secretaries) of the CPC during this period were, in chronological order: Demetris Chrysostomides (in the period of the early Party cells and up to 1924, when he left Cyprus), Nicos Yiavolopoulos (for a few months until his exile in 1925), Costas Skeleas (1925– 31), Costas Cononas (1931– 3) and Ploutis Servas (1934– 41). Christos Savvides is believed to have acted as the general

138

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

secretary of the Party in the two-year period prior to Servas without being officially elected to the post.139 Demetris Chrysostomides (1901– 35) was born in Larnaca and was a member of the first socialist cell in Cyprus. He was a clerk in a commercial house and later worked as a docker at the Limassol port. It was he who signed the letter to the Labour Government in Britain in February 1924, the first official presentation of the CPC. He left for Greece in 1924 and never returned to Cyprus again. Nicos Yiavopoulos (1898– 1975) was born to Cypriot parents in Athens, where he studied and became a medical doctor. He returned to Cyprus in 1924 inspired by the communist ideas. His contribution was decisive in publishing the Party newspaper Neos Anthropos, an action that brought sarcastic comments from the establishment.140 He was considered a threat to the colonial regime and was exiled in July 1925 (see Chapter 6). Costas Christodoulides-Skeleas (1895– 1941), born in Limassol, was a carpenter and member of the first communist cell. He was initiated into communist ideas along with his entire family: his wife Irene, his younger brother Christodoulos (nicknamed Alexis) and his sister Kleio, who donated her dowry to buy a printing office and a printing machine for the Party. He was elected as the first official CPC secretary general at the founding congress of 1926. He delivered numerous lectures, campaigned throughout Cyprus, wrote various articles in the Party press, and printed the Party newspaper and other announcements. On several occasions he suffered persecution from the police and was physically beaten by fanatical political opponents (see Chapter 6). He also placed his candidacy with the Party list in the municipal elections for the municipality of Limassol. He was exiled from Cyprus after the October riots in 1931. He escaped from London and went to Moscow a few months later, but there is no reliable information on him after that. Driven underground, the Party required some time to reorganise; Christos Savvides (1901– 63) was of major help in this when in 1932 he returned to Cyprus from the United States. While he was in the United States, he joined the socialist movement, and was sent to Moscow for theoretical education. In the First World War he served

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURING : A PARALLEL SOCIETY 139

as a mule driver. He was by profession a tailor and by birth the brother of Ploutis Servas. He led the first strikes in Limassol and was a founding member of the Party. For a short time Costas Cononas (1905– 83) led the CPC, although he was later expelled from the Party as ‘an unstable element’ and later accused of ‘entering the ranks of anti-communism’.141 Cononas was a cadre leader in Nicosia and a teacher by profession. His activities became known during the communist trials following the October riots.142 He was arrested in 1932, tried in 1933, and eventually convicted and fired from his job. In 1935 he signed a statement in which he renounced communism. Later he became fanatically opposed to the CPC, and worked as a journalist in various newspapers of the unionist, nationalistic camp.143 During the third Party congress in 1936 Ploutis Servas (1907– 2001) played a leading role and assumed the post of secretary general, which he held until 1944. According to personal testimonies, he had actually been carrying out the duties of the general secretary since his return to Cyprus from Moscow via Athens in 1935.144 Until then, Servas had been banned from entering Cyprus. He was only allowed to return when he signed a declaration promising to abstain from any communist or political propaganda – a promise he did not keep.145 Upon his return from Moscow where he had studied social sciences, he wrote for a number of newspapers. Servas was a controversial and at the same time highly influential figure in the Cypriot communist movement.146 He combined a good grounding in Marxist theory with practical experience that made him the Party’s most valuable asset at the time. However, his influence and power rose to a point where his own personal will became Party law.147 He was headstrong and bossy, which did not sit well with the rest of the Party leadership.148 Charalambos Vatyliotis (1898– 1934) never actually served as a secretary general of the CPC but he did preside over the founding congress and provided the Party stance with an ideological foundation, as he was the only one with theoretical training at the time.149 He had first studied at the Agricultural College, and worked as an agriculturalist. He soon left for Egypt, however, and it was here

140

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

that he was introduced to communism and partook in several strikes. When he left Egypt he travelled through Greece, the Balkans, and Moscow, where he advanced his studies in Marxist theory. He returned to Cyprus in 1930 to help reorganise the CPC, but because of the uprising of October 1931, he was exiled from the island along with Skeleas. He escaped from Britain and went to Moscow where he died in 1933 or 1934 of typhoid fever.150 The CPC leadership suffered persecution under the British administration; the outcome of this persecution impacted negatively on the Party’s organisational and political work. For example, during the period of the CLP, some leaders (including Yiavopoulos) were exiled, while others emigrated due to constant persecution and surveillance (e.g., Chrysostomides, Stringos, and Savvides). Immediately after the uprising of October 1931, the two most important leaders of the CPC, Vatis and Skeleas, were exiled to Britain (and never returned to Cyprus) and many other Party leaders were arrested.151 After a short period of underground activity, most of the Party’s leadership was arrested again. Until their release in 1935, Party activity was fragmented and carried out with difficulty. The daily life and work of CPC leaders was quite difficult, as Cypriot communists suffered considerable persecution during this period in the form of exile, internal displacement and deportation. Those elected to Party posts were not compensated with any material form of payment, even a symbolic one. The leaders made considerable sacrifices in terms of time and effort and often suffered deprivation, insults and humiliation (for example, in the form of arrests or the practice of bell ringing).152 They campaigned even on holidays, handing out proclamations. Due to their devotion to the Party and the unions, these leaders became the target of reprisals by employers and often lost their jobs.153 The CPC leadership was committed to a political ideology and saw the labour movement as a tool to promote social aims. This strong commitment compensated for the sanctions and measures that their activity usually entailed.154 The CPC leaders played a decisive role in radicalising the working class and the lower strata and putting forward their demands.

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURING : A PARALLEL SOCIETY 141

5.5 Internationalisation of the CPC: relations with communist centres abroad A highly debated and often controversial topic of communist party history relates to the various parties’ links and relationships with the centre of the communist world, i.e., Moscow. The Russian Revolution occurred at a time when communication technology was rapidly accelerating, so that information, news and knowledge were being transmitted worldwide. As a result, developments within one country were no longer isolated; therefore, communist party news and developments in one country spread quickly and were able to significantly affect the opportunities/development for other communist parties throughout the world. This process is often referred to as the internationalisation of a party family.155 The internationalisation of a party family can occur in three ways: (a) assistance and support from like-minded parties across borders; (b) providing models for other parties to follow; and (c) a successful sister party in one country can make the programme of a fellow party more acceptable in another country.156 The CPC seems to have internationalised according to all three ways in its infant stages. There is little hard evidence attesting to the CPC’s relationship with other communist parties abroad and with the Comintern; it is more a matter of conjecture and varying and questionable personal testimonies. It cannot be definitively stated that there was any kind of organic relationship between the CPC and foreign communist parties or between the CPC and the Comintern at Third International at this time. On two occasions, the Party itself, through its newspaper, declared that such a relationship did not exist and that it was an independent party.157 In contrast, there are scholars who claim that the CPC was accepted as a member of the Comintern in 1931,158 while some AKEL cadres date the CPC’s international entry to 1927.159 Others note, based on personal testimonies of veterans, that connection was established as early as 1924.160 Zambas notes, based on a Markoullis interview in Haravgi (Dawn), that in 1923 an application to the Comintern was submitted but rejected as the CPC had not been officially proclaimed a party and, moreover, the

142

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

Comintern had made a recommendation to the CPG to take the CPC under its protection. In Lefkis’ report on the first CPC congress, he noted that, Vatyliotis had promised to ask for the Party to be admitted to the Third International.161 Stringos says that the connection was established in 1924 when he and Christodoulos Christodoulides went to Moscow for their studies.162 According to the Comintern itself, the CPC joined them at their 22nd Executive Committee meeting, which took place between 25 March and 13 April 1931.163 Due to this action, the Comintern was thenceforward legally able to adjudicate the CPC’s actions and decisions. Indeed, after the October 1931 events in Cyprus, there are reports that in 1932 the Comintern’s Balkan Bureau placed the Party on trial and condemned the CPC decision to cooperate with the Church instead of playing a leading role in the anti-imperial movement. There are even some sources that claim a decision was taken to remove Vatis and Skeleas.164 The trial outcome reveals the Comintern’s ignorance of Cypriot reality, as the testimony of the protagonists of the period indicates that the CPC was too weak to undertake a leading role. It was also taken by surprise by the speed of events, and as a result did not even participate in the October events apart from some spontaneous activity of its youth movement.165 The CPC’s entry into the Comintern does not, however, clarify to what extent the Cypriot Party was guided by (or dependent on) the international or any sister party. However, it is certain that the CPC was in contact with the CPG with which it exchanged views and experiences, and there are those who believe that the CPG was responsible for the CPC’s sharp and confrontational discourse.166 Another argument has been put forward that the CPC was under the supervision of the CPG, following Comintern orders, until the October 1931 events, when it came under the supervision of the CPB, although again, it is impossible to determine the degree of control exercised by the latter.167 Efstathios Xynaris, a Communist Youth leader, maintains precisely the opposite, i.e., that the CPC was under the guidance of the CPB and immediately after the October revolution was placed under the supervision of the CPG.168 There is information that CPC cadres had direct contact with the CPB, from

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURING : A PARALLEL SOCIETY 143

which they took advice and orders to help the Cypriot communists avoid being arrested by the police.169 These contacts would seem to be substantiated by the CPC itself, which claims there was no organic relationship with any foreign communist party but does not refer to (or deny) contacts with the CPG (see note 144). Stringos asserts that the CPC was not guided either by the CPG or the CPB; it only had relations with the CPG.170 In any case, many CPC cadres linked up with the CPG when they went to Greece. Furthermore, some CPG leaders, such as the doctor Nikos Yiavopoulos, were key to the CPC reorganisation (see above). The same applies to Vatyliotis, who after his initial emigration to Greece, where he linked up with the CPG, later returned to Cyprus (in early 1930). It appears that the CPC established relationships with sister parties other than the CPG, such as the British, Egyptian and Russian communist parties. Vatyliotis had acted within the ranks of the Comintern since 1922, and came to Cyprus as its emissary to participate in the CPC’s founding congress. Various others, such as Stringos and Christodoulides, were accepted into Comintern party schools.171 This shows that even informally (before Comintern entry) there were contacts and links with the international communist organisation. Also attesting to the CPC international links was the practice of sending correspondence on Cypriot issues to the international communist magazine, Inprekor.172 However, the report of the caretaker committee of the CPC in 1944 (see Chapter 7, section 7.5) reveals that the CPC was unable to link in an efficient manner either with the CPB or the CPG; thus it lacked the much needed guidance in its everyday politics and made serious strategic and tactical mistakes.173 Leventis also reaches the same conclusion regarding the CPC’s relationships with the two parties. The CPC was not guided by any of them.174 Cypriot communists were also present in Greece, mostly Cypriot students. Their presence in Greece is evident in an article published in Ergatis, which was signed by the Cypriot communists of Athens.175 Moreover, some of the CPC leaders that left Cyprus in the

144

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

mid-1920s and migrated to Greece became important cadres of the CPG. Most prominent among them were L. Stringos who went on to become a member of CPG’s political bureau and C. Christodoulides who became the editor in chief of CPG’s newspaper Rizospastis (Radicalist).

5.6 Communist activism among the working class: the CPC in the organisation of the Cypriot trade union movement Like political parties, trade unions provide the working class with an organised way to defend its interests and claim its rights. The trade union as a form of organisation and the strike as a method of claiming demands are modern forms of workers’ protest against employers over working conditions, wages, etc., which are linked to the advent of industrial society.176 It is important to differentiate here between the trade union and the political party. The term ‘trade union action’ refers to forms of protest directed against employers with the aim of improving working conditions; it is not a protest against the entire sociopolitical system. In contrast, the term ‘political action’ refers to action aimed at overthrowing existing political institutions.177 Therefore, the political struggle is much broader than trade union activity, which is purely economic. As the two institutions have a different focus/struggle, their organisation is also different: a political party is a tool of political struggle while a trade union is an instrument of economic action. The Cypriot trade union movement emerged as a result of the same socioeconomic processes and changes as trade unions elsewhere throughout the world: the advent of capitalism, the formation of the working class, urbanisation, lack of labour legislation, unstable and unsafe working conditions, etc. While the economic causes mobilising the workers were similar, the form of mobilisation varied according to each country’s historical experience, traditions and customs. Cyprus’s absolutist past (Ottoman occupation) delayed both modernisation and industrialisation, and this is apparent in the patterns of labour mobilisation that emerged. The Cypriot trade union movement was different for two reasons from its counterparts

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURING : A PARALLEL SOCIETY 145

in other developed countries: its later development, and the fact that from the beginning it was organically linked to the communist movement. For this second reason, any discussion of the Cyprus union movement – including the present one – cannot ignore the relationship between the CPC and the unions. In the Leninist tradition, trade unions should be organised by profession and should appeal to all the workers without excluding anyone on the basis of ideology or class consciousness. In contrast, the party should be made up of professional revolutionaries, who should not differentiate among themselves on any basis (e.g., profession) and should operate conspiratorially wherever necessary. In countries with political freedom, party– union relations should be as close and simple as possible.178 Nevertheless, in practice, these relations have shown considerable variation – for example, in some countries, such as Italy, Britain and Germany, the two were in close contact; in contrast, a competitive relationship developed between them in other countries, like France and Spain.179 In both Europe and America, the way that the unions developed prohibited political parties from establishing mass organisations with many members. This was essentially because the unions had already acquired mass membership by representing the classes that traditionally would constitute a party base.180 This did not happen in Cyprus, simply because in Cyprus the unions were a creation of the CPC. Within a short time period, the CPC succeeded in dominating the unions and the labour movement, as the Party worked methodically and systematically in this direction. In efforts to infiltrate the union movement, the Party used its publications and sent organised missions of Party cadres to regions with high labour concentration (e.g. mines).181 The CPC worked intensively within the union movement in an effort both to shape it under its own leadership and to lessen workers’ dependence on the politicians and other significant power brokers.182 The CPC’s role in the foundation of the first trade unions in Cyprus was decisive. As discussed earlier, the first class-based trade unions that were established in 1919 followed the initiative of the first socialist circles (see Chapter 3). In 1923, aided by communist cells, Limassol metal workers attempted to found a union.183 The CPC

146

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

emphasised that unions must have a common meeting place, and so they established district labour centres. They had to leave out any mention of communist affiliation in order to receive an operating license. Essentially, however, they operated totally under the tutelage of the CPC. In November 1924, at the founding meeting of the LLC, the most important of these centres, participants included not only the committees of the unions themselves, but also the central committee of the CPC. The latter’s representative was elected secretary of the sixmember LLC committee.184 In April 1925 the Working Youth of Limassol was established.185 The LLC elected its regular committee members on the basis of proportionality, i.e., based on the membership figures of each separate union, hence applying the principle of representativeness in its administrative bodies. It was remarkably active, especially in the educational and cultural sphere: it organised classes, gave theatrical performances, and set up a library and a night school for illiterate workers with 93 students. The communist cells operating within the LLC also organised classes for the socialist education of the workers, and held lectures given by invited speakers outside the working class.186 At this centre in 1925, for the first time in Cyprus, Labour Day was celebrated.187 The LLC became a place for recruiting members for the CPC, due to the daily contact between the Party and the unions and the guiding role played by the Party over the unions.188 It was also a meeting point for communists from other countries as well. Koullouras recalls an occasion when Italian fishermen visited the centre and taught their Cypriot counterparts the famous workers’ song ‘Avanti Popolo’.189 The CPC extended its activity beyond Limassol to other towns in an effort to embrace the working class on an island-wide basis. With the help of the Limassol unions, similar organisations were founded in Nicosia. In late 1925, the CPC sent Liasis Pieris and Efstathios Xynaris to Nicosia to strengthen Party efforts.190 According to the Party press on 27 December 1925 a labour centre was set up in the capital as well at the presence of the Party’s Secretary General Costas Skeleas.191 Respective labour centres were established in Varossi and Larnaca in 1926.192 The CPC was making a systematic attempt to

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURING : A PARALLEL SOCIETY 147

unite related professions into single unions.193 The failure to create a labour centre in Kyrenia was an indication of the economic and organisational backwardness of this district, where the extreme nationalists dominated party politics. The Party worked especially hard to organise a union of mine workers, given the important weight of this industry in the Cypriot economy and the high concentration of the working force the mining areas. Indicative of the Party activity among the miners is the following passage in the local press: It is well known that the communist labour centre in our town (Limassol) has extended its propaganda to the miners of Amiantos, aiming to spread an anarchist and rebellious spirit among them. The owing company did not take any drastic measures against them (the communists). A few days ago, however, rebellious communist proclamations were found in a number of locations calling upon the workers to go on strike and destroy company property. Faced with this situation, the owners were forced to fire 94 workers who were suspected of being communists and the police undertook an investigation to find the instigators.194 The communists also played a leading part in the first massive strike of the mine workers in Amiantos in July 1929, in which 6,000 workers were involved.195 The CPC periodically scrutinised – at least theoretically – the relationship between the Party and the trade unions. At the CPC founding congress in 1926, quite detailed consideration was given to the trade union movement and especially to Party–union relations. The published decisions emphasised the importance of organising the workers into class-conscious professional organisations and linking them to a higher-level organisation, the General Union of Cypriot Workers. This explains the Party emphasis on establishing district labour centres. Concerning Party–union relations it was recognised that, great attempts were made to organise peasants and workers but without satisfactory results. This was because the party

148

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

mistakenly gave its own colour to the organisations when they were founded and presented them as branches of the CPC, thus provoking the immediate reaction of the government and the capitalists.196 Party very critically examined its relationship with the unions: ‘It must be understood that there cannot be an organisational relationship between the CPC and the workers’ organisations because they are two completely different organisations.’ Therefore from the start, at the CPC founding congress, the Party decided to separate itself as a political organisation with broader aims and goals, from the labour organisations, which were exclusively concerned with the problems of the workers and the economic struggle. Members of the workers’ organisations may include not only communists but also any worker who wishes to struggle to improve his position. The unions cannot depend organisationally on the CPC. However, this does not mean that the party refuses to guide workers’ organisations, so long as the workers themselves voluntarily assign the leadership of their organisations to members of the CPC.197 At the same time, the Party advised and helped its members set up small groups within the unions and the labour centres to spread the party line. Phantis declares that while the CPC took the correct position on the separation of the Party from the unions, in practice it did not follow its own position; there was a manifest tendency to identify the Party with the labour organisations.198 In fact, the LLC in practice functioned as a Party club.199 This was a strategy that remained in place throughout the CPC’s existence, as from 1935 – 9 it was usual for union organisations to be regarded as Party branches.200 In those unions created or controlled by the CPC, membership required either membership in the Party or at least strong allegiance to the CPC.201 This practice hindered the development of the unions on a mass basis and reinforced their identification with the CPC.

ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURING : A PARALLEL SOCIETY 149

According to the trade-unionists themselves, the foundation of labour unions in the period before 1931 marked the first step in the early class-based union movement in Cyprus.202 The common form of organisation in this period was that of a separate union for each profession in each town. During this period, the labour unions aimed to shape a ‘new’ consciousness, which would result in better organisation and more effective assertion of demands. Research indicates that the unions’ influence was of huge importance in Cyprus, making the individual independent of his local environment by incorporating him into a broader communication network.203 The riots in October 1931 marked the end of the first phase of trade union activity; these events led to the prohibition of any kind of political organisation, excluding the labour unions. The decade between 1931 and 1941 constituted the second phase of the trade union movement.204 The workers gradually began to understand the power they were acquiring through the unions, and expressed this by holding strikes more often and with mass participation.205 The labour movement was gaining strength, but the unions nevertheless had many weaknesses: they were small, fragmented professionally, geographically scattered, without coordination and with inexperienced leaders. There are two major reasons why the Cyprus unions were weak. First, there was a small labour base in Cyprus due to the island’s weak industrial development. Second, the government intervened in the labour movement with the aim of ensuring political loyalty. The communists were involved in union organisation and were in a position to offer dynamism, unity and leadership to the organisation of the working class.206 The unions constituted a strong mechanism for the CPC’s infiltration of the working class and its gradual consolidation. The fact that the organised union movement to a great extent owed its creation to the systematic intervention of the CPC played a decisive part in this.

CHAPTER 6 POLITICAL INTEGRATION

There are two factors that significantly influence the orientation, radicalism and character of any kind of political movement; this is especially true for working class parties like the communist parties. The first factor concerns the attitude of the state, which in Cyprus at the time meant the colonial power. From early on the colonial authorities made it clear that they would tolerate a party similar to the BLP – but not a communist one. The second factor concerns the conflict/competition between the working class movement and the existing establishment (i.e., ancien regime), as well as their conflict with the political forces of the bourgeois right. The nature of this competition also tends to define the identity of working class movements to a considerable degree. The political right in Cyprus at the time – nationalist politicians and organisations, the Church – considered communism to be a social trend and not a political movement. As a result, they discriminated against communists and took a polemic stance against the CPC. These two factors not only crucially defined CPC character, but they also determined the degree of its political integration in the system. The Party’s electoral status also influenced its political integration. Electoral development will reveal not only the electoral fortunes of the party but also the modes and forms of competition with the nationalistic forces.

POLITICAL INTEGRATION

151

6.1 State repression Comparative research reveals that the degree of state repression corresponds proportionally to the degree of labour radicalism.1 Repression increases revolutionary tendencies, while political normality and open collective bargaining systems encourage reformist political ideas and incorporation within the system. Thus, authoritarian Russia created a revolutionary labour movement, liberal Britain a ‘reformist’ labour movement, and in semi-authoritarian Germany the working class combined revolutionary and reformist characteristics. The way a repressive mechanism can turn economic struggles into revolution through direct military intervention is apparent in the case of Russia in 1905. In cases where the confrontation with the state assumed a direct and violent character, and under regimes that went so far as to ban union action and organisation (thus worsening the perceptions of the working class concerning the state’s role in maintaining a status quo hostile towards it), the labour movement directed its activity into political channels as the only way out. We can also posit a reverse scenario: i.e., that the radicalism of the working class could provoke state repression. Although the labour movement was in some countries such as Britain tolerated, if not accepted, it often faced hostile legislation. The relative absence of violent and unprovoked repression did not mean that the authorities took a favourable stance towards the labour movement. Moreover, while colonial powers may have adopted liberal stances domestically, they rarely extended this practice to their colonies – as we noted earlier in this book, this is the paradox of capitalist democracy.2 This was the situation in Cyprus, at the time a British colony. The British used both open repression and indirect means of suppression through legislative measures that seemingly applied to every type of organisation and the entire population. The issue of the franchise was an integral part of the policy adopted towards the rising labour movement, as it signalled to a significant extent the working class’s integration in the political system or its alienation and radicalisation. Earlier we examined the citizenship issue in relation to the franchise, noting that in countries

152

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

where the working class was not accorded electoral rights until the first quarter of the twentieth century, the struggle to acquire them was linked with socialism as a political movement, thereby producing a radical version of socialism.3 In other words, where workers were not given economic and political rights, they mobilised on the basis of a revolutionary version of socialism. Where these claims developed within a context where socialist ideas were more acceptable and became incorporated into the system, the labour movement was linked ideologically with reformist evolutionism. To some extent, the mere participation of the labour movement in elections gradually led to the assimilation of parliamentary rules of competition.4 In Cyprus the significant restrictions on workers’ and peasants’ electoral rights and their demand for political rights can explain the working class (or at least a part of it) alignment with the communist left. However, the movement’s radical and revolutionary character was moderated by two facts. First, a small percentage of the working class was allowed electoral participation, and according to de-radicalisation theories, participation in elections constitutes a mode of incorporation that moderates working class radicalism. Second, the British treated the Party with relative tolerance until 1931. Although the colonial authorities in Cyprus were tolerant of the Party at the outset, they nevertheless placed the CPC under ‘close and continuous watch by the Government over all persons suspected of designs dangerous to peace and good order’.5 This was despite the fact that, shortly before the October events in 1931, Governor Storrs himself confessed, in a report to the minister for the colonies that, ‘the communist movement, although harmful, is not at all worrying’.6 The British authorities deliberately opted to differentiate the CPC from the labour unions of the LLC and labourist-minded parties. They openly declared that a labour party on the British model would have the government’s sympathy, as it would accept the existing system, and the government would help workers who organised in such a party.7 Whether this was an intentional or unintentional effort to divide the workers, the net result was to provoke tension among them; some workers demanded the

POLITICAL INTEGRATION

153

immediate eviction of the CPC from the LLC. As a result of this tension, the CPC was forced to relocate its offices.8 The British authorities were unsympathetic towards the CPC because it openly declared its aim to overthrow the regime. The authorities actively persecuted Party leaders and members, an anticommunist practice that was common worldwide at the time. The newspaper Nea Laiki cites an article in the British Workers Daily dated 25 December 1925, according to which the British government apparently gave orders to its local representatives in Cyprus to dissolve the ‘outrageous communist conspiracy’.9 The issue can, however, also be viewed the other way around: the CPC repeatedly stressed the imperialist nature of the British government in Cyprus, and complained about the British collaboration with the bourgeois employers against the peasants and workers. Looking at the situation from this angle would confirm Geary’s position that working class radicalism provokes state reaction. In this way, the actions of the colonial authorities can be interpreted as a reaction to the CPC political discourse and practices.10 The colonial policy towards the CPC included, among other things, the systematic monitoring of every movement of the workers and their meetings, the banning of books and publications with a communist content, and the creation of police files on communists. For example, records tell us that Costas Skeleas, the CPC secretary general, was ‘Red 10’; Costas Drakos, a prominent peasant leader, was ‘Red 104’; Charalambos Solomonides, publisher of Neos Anthropos, was ‘Red 25’; Tefkros Anthias was ‘Red 398’; and Charalambos Vatyliotis was ‘Red 102’. There was also a special branch of the police specifically assigned with communist persecution.11 Police surveillance was systematic and included frequent body searches, house searches at any time of day or night, beatings, fines and imprisonment, censorship of members’ correspondence and Party publications, prohibition to organise events, pressure on employers not to hire communists and an attempt to exclude communists from union leadership positions.12 A characteristic case concerned the exile on 5 July 1925 of the then (informal) party leader, N. Yiavopoulos, because of his Greek citizenship and following advice from the

154

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

nationalists (see next section). The Party press received several letters from individuals referring to their experiences with police surveillance and the attitude of employers. The Party also formally denounced cases of the colonial government carrying out searches in the Party office and confiscating material.13 The CPC was subject to persecution throughout the entire period under study. In July 1930, a Party youth member, E. Xynaris, was arrested and was brutally treated by the police.14 In April 1931, Party leader, C. Vatyliotis was put on trial in Nicosia because in two speeches he had incited the people to ‘adopt an anti-regime stance’.15 In June of the same year, two refugees from Greece were deported because ‘they spread communist propaganda and their shoe shop was a centre of communist gatherings’.16 Any school teachers who were known (or suspected) communists were also placed under strict surveillance. According to the Director of Education: There are 10 masters and 1 mistress teaching in Greek Christian schools who are registered as communists and in addition 5 such masters who are temporarily employed as substitutes and have not been re-appointed. There are a dozen others whom I have reason to suspect of communist sympathies.17 Although the British were in no serious danger from the CPC, owing to its small size, the 1928 amendment to the penal code almost exclusively targeted the CPC, as they were the only organised party at the time.18 The British authorities and employers generally would not recognise any unions, especially if the leadership included communists or individuals regarded as communists.19 This amendment to the penal code provoked reaction from all Cypriot political forces. In Limassol a demonstration was organised by the Limassol Lawyers Association, led by the politician N. K. Lanitis, who denounced the law as restricting freedom. According to the newspaper Eleftheria (Freedom), at the same meeting CPC representative Ploutis Servas made an unplanned speech that was applauded by those present.20 As the newspaper writes, however, this momentary consensus went no further, as nationalist leaders were not

POLITICAL INTEGRATION

155

keen to cooperate with communists. Servas proposed the resignation of the parliamentarians, a boycott of British products, protests and a united front of the people. The October 1931 events that led to the abolition of all freedoms and rights of all Cypriot citizens also intensified persecution of the CPC, which was then officially banned (see Chapter 7).21 The British government’s measures against the Party and its followers throughout this period were a way to exercise pressure on citizens attracted to the Party. These measures reached all areas of public life, since simply reading left-wing newspapers was subject to persecution. These measures made it difficult for the CPC to integrate into the political system; this is confirmed by various theories concerning the de-radicalisation of the labour movement.22 In addition, as communists were continually expelled from the unions, they had no choice but to direct their activity to the political party level, even in an illegal form. To a certain extent, this can explain why in Cyprus the political party of the working class emerged as a communist party rather than a labour or social democratic party.

6.2 The ‘crabs’ of communism: a war of ideas The second significant factor that shaped the character of the newly founded party was the way it was received by the traditional political forces, i.e., the nationalists and the ethnarchy. Both reacted with hostility toward the CPC, viewing the Party in much the same way as most countries worldwide did at the time. Throughout Europe and among the leaders and the elite, the various forms of lower class protest were regarded as the work of ‘agitators’, ‘conspirators’ or ‘foreign elements’.23 The situation in Cyprus was no different: the local ruling class and the colonial authorities reacted with equal intensity against the CPC.24 In philosophical terms, the right-wing organisations and politicians viewed communism as a purely social movement but not as a national one.25 They considered social struggles to be harmful because they threatened the national goal of enosis – they hindered the formation of strong political organisations

156

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

with a national programme that required the support of all social classes and strata. The nationalists believed that social issues would be solved automatically the day after national liberation. They accused the CPC of trying to dominate the society by exploiting social inequality, which, according to the bourgeois press, was ‘the natural order of things’.26 This reaction to the labour movement is traceable to the common social perception that the lower strata were unsuitable for the management of public affairs and power. For the British authorities as well as the Cypriot elite, it was fear that the new movement could awaken the masses and turn them against their authority, thus leading to a questioning of their factual and moral supremacy. In more practical terms, the CPC’s presence on the political scene aroused outspoken opposition from its very first appearance.27 This polemic was manifested on multiple levels: newspapers, employers and the Holy Synod of the Church of Cyprus itself. According to Klio Christodoulidou, the communists were branded everywhere and she notes her personal experience at school, where the other children abused her because her brother was a well-known communist.28 One week following publication of the Party’s newspaper, the nationalist newspaper Eleftheria responded with a front page article entitled: ‘The crabs of communism’; a few days later the same newspaper questioned the government’s tolerance towards the communists.29 The government took this advice and acted accordingly. A few months later, the Limassol newspaper Alitheia (Truth), which voiced the interests of a number of the town’s political elite, applauded the deportation from Cyprus of Nicos Yiavopoulos, the CPC’s acting secretary general: Despite the illiberality of the measure, we fully support the decision of the British authorities which is in line with this sentiment [. . .]. The whole of the healthy social body of the town aspired to this decision, pleased to see the cutting out of a rotten and sick member. With these thoughts [. . .] we find justified the strict measure taken by the government, as a measure of extreme need. We hope that this vigilant

POLITICAL INTEGRATION

157

supervision will be continued in the case of any future manifestation of communist ideology, because it is likely to reappear tomorrow in a new version, jealous of the dubious glory of the so justly deported comrade.30 Despite this, it was later revealed in a note written by the then Greek consul Alexis Kyrou, to the British authorities, this action was primarily due to pressure from Greek Cypriot parliamentarians.31 The nationalist forces aimed to isolate the Left and place it in a disadvantageous position. They pursued a strategy of isolation of the Party by limiting its channels of access to the government apparatus. When the editors of the Cypriot newspapers, both Greek and Turkish, called a meeting to define their stance towards the newly imposed legislation concerning the £200 guarantee required for publications to circulate, the Left’s newspaper, Neos Anthropos, was not invited to take part and thus did not sign the joint statement.32 The strategy of isolating the communists included other forms of (Greek) public associations as well. The Party press published a letter from three Party members that complained about the dismissal of their application to join the reading club Anorthosis in Famagusta.33 The CPC was loudly criticised by the local establishment (Church and bourgeoisie), who employed a rhetoric of religion, tradition and nation. In their accusations against the CPC they cited the example of Russia where, according to the Party’s opponents, religion was persecuted since the members of the Russian Communist Party were forbidden to attend church or to have a Christian burial. They accused the CPC of a lack of tolerance of religion and the fatherland, of aiming to confiscate private property, of promoting women’s common ownership and of trying to disrupt the harmonious cooperation among the various social classes.34 The CPC was also accused of receiving external funding from the many agricultural associations and labour unions it had created.35 All of this rhetoric was likely a tactic to associate the Party with the Russian communists, and geared to arousing emotional, anti-communist feelings. Opposition to the CPC was not limited to verbal accusations in the newspapers and advice to the government. There was an attempt

158

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

by three building contractors to found a rival labour centre in Limassol as a counterweight to the CPC labour centre and a way of distancing the working class from the CPC’s influence. The contractors bore all the operating expenses and ensured that those who joined their centre would find stable employment. Their strategy was to promote the idea that the employer– worker relationship should be one of ‘partnership’ – and they claimed that the CPC intended to upset this working relationship. Their offer of work in a period of high unemployment constituted a significant lure for many of the working class to abandon the communist centre and influence. This centre was established on 31 July 1925 as the Association of Greek Builders of Limassol. A lawyer and three contractors were elected to its administrative committee, highlighting the non-class nature of the centre.36 A similar effort was undertaken by the then mayor of Limassol, A. Zenon, who founded the Greek Builders Union (GBU) – mainly as a way to promote his candidacy for the forthcoming elections. This was but a short-lived attempt, however, as only two months later it was essentially dissolved.37 It was not only the nationalists who opposed the CPC. Opposition also emanated from the so-called moderate rightists, i.e., ‘populist’ politicians who took advantage of pro-worker slogans as a front. The most prominent representatives of this tendency were the Popular Party and its president G. Chadjipavlou.38 Through its newspaper, the Popular Party condemned CPC attempts to expand its influence in Nicosia as ‘the transfusion to the capital of the sick seeds of the famous heresy’.39 It also stated that it believed that the association of working class demands with the ‘thieving communist conspiracy’40 would provoke fear and suspicion throughout Cyprus, and so prevent the passage of any labour legislation. It described the Cypriot communists as ‘unbalanced individuals who sold the national spirit and their souls to the secret agents of the Bolsheviks’41 and claimed that the CPC would never take root in Cyprus because of the absence of large-scale industry. The attempt to delegitimise the CPC also utilised foreign policy issues, condemning the fraternity of Greek, Turkish and Bulgarian communists who wanted ‘Macedonia to become autonomous’. The PP newspaper went further and urged the

POLITICAL INTEGRATION

159

shopkeepers and the contractors to dismiss from their businesses well-known communists and encouraged people to boycott those that employed communists.42 The populist rhetoric highlights the fact that the communist ideology provided a common enemy for the entire right-wing spectrum. In a similar vein, a former CPC member, Panos Fassouliotis, founded the Worker–Peasant Party (WPP) in 1925 and in 1926 the Labour Federation (LF), whose members included small shopkeepers and artisans as well as workers.43 The LF tried to establish itself among the workers by exhibiting action of some duration. In this direction the LF elected guiding organs where workers and members of the bourgeoisie coexisted, as the composition of these administrative bodies attests.44 At the same time, it appears to have been pro-British since it had an excellent cooperation with the authorities ‘within the current social and political system’.45 This was also evident in LF phraseology in its resolutions: ‘thanks to the government’, ‘the government is respectfully entreated’, ‘the wish was expressed’, etc.46 There were some employers who persistently and systematically pursued a policy of persecution towards the labour movement, a common practice internationally that included private police, strikebreakers, informers within the trade unions, corrupt policemen or judges, and intimidation practices.47 Leading CPC cadres have described the actions of the nationalist camp and the multiple forms of pressure used by employers against Party members as including: attempted murder, organised attacks against workers’ associations all over Cyprus, and the firing of communists and other workers from their jobs.48 Savvas Polycarpou, a Party veteran, recalls that, unable to find a job because he was a communist, he was forced to mortgage his house to buy a car and work as a taxi driver.49 Testimony in the CPC newspaper indicated that the mayor of Limassol beat up vendors found selling the newspaper.50 On 15 June 1925 the CPC denounced an incident where signs carrying the Party name had been destroyed.51 One of the most shameful actions against communists was the Nicosia practice of bell-ringing.52 This practice refers to the shop-owners in Chryssochou Street who rang bells every time a known communist walked past, calling on the people to ridicule

160

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

them. Bell-ringing represented a system of ‘class bullying’ against the communists, an act of humiliation. The tension between the two camps peaked in the late 1920s and early 1930s, leading to frequent clashes and conflicts – usually organised attacks against workers’ meetings at which the communists made speeches.53 For example on one occasion five persons invaded the LLC, smashed the furniture and destroyed the books.54 The bourgeois press set the context for the confrontation; in a front-page article, Eleftheria called on the government to purge the labour movement of the ‘communist finger’,55 and in 1928 there were three major instances of sharp public confrontation between the CPC and the bourgeois politicians. First there was an element of nationalist participation in the official British celebrations of its 50-year presence in Cyprus – despite a National Council decision to abstain. The CPC criticised participants as ‘sell-outs to the foreign boss’.56 The second incident was the acceptance by several leading nationalist figures, such as N. Paschalis, of appointments from the colonial government – in this particular case, seats in the Executive Council.57 Finally, there was the government decision to implement the penal code, with the archbishop and parliamentarians remaining neutral, which incited strong criticism from the CPC. The Party accused the deputies of inconsistency, even insinuating treason on their part. This event marked a serious point of disagreement and mutual name-calling, with the CPC asking the parliamentarians to resign.58 The situation was aggravated by a vote in Greece on the so-called ‘Idionymo Law’ in March 1929, which criminalised any activity against the existing regime and banned the CPG and its auxiliary organisations. It is impossible to accurately assess the extent to which the Greek government was to blame for the intensification of the confrontation between the Left and the nationalists in Cyprus. Certainly the Greek consul, Alexis Kyrou, contributed to the heightened tension, whether of his own accord or following orders. Kyrou believed that the CPC’s minimal successes were due to the Church’s failure to appropriately address the communist danger. He called the Church’s attempts medieval and advised inciting

POLITICAL INTEGRATION

161

anti-communist propaganda among the lower strata and taking measures in favour of the peasants.59 Tensions intensified in 1931, leading to many incidents throughout Cyprus. In Nicosia and Limassol, there were incidents involving members of the two camps during the celebration of Greek Independence Day on 25 March, when members of the CPC attempted to distribute proclamations.60 In both cases, only the communists were arrested and tried. At their trials, some of the accused denied their communist ideology and the rest were sentenced to various penalties.61 The judge in Nicosia declared that he would have been harsher if he had not known that the condemned were simply the instruments of others (meaning foreign communist parties).62 In a communique of the Central Committee of the CPC, signed by Costas Drakos, the party condemned the rumors that followed the incidents on 25 March, according to which the communists would prevent the litany of the Epitaph.63 In another incident at Phaneromeni, a CPC follower was knifed, while in August of the same year there were extensive clashes in Larnaca, when ‘a crowd of peaceful town-dwellers and peasants’ dissolved a CPC meeting, chased and beat up CPC cadres and destroyed the labour centre building. Vatyliotis and Skeleas were beaten, while other Party members were forced to jump into the sea to escape.64 At a meeting with the British commissioner of Larnaca and the mayor following the episodes, leading figures from the town asked for measures to be taken to ‘dislodge’ the communists from the town.65 The nationalist violence provoked communist ‘counter-violence’. In Nicosia, three small shock groups were set up by the Party to deal with the practice of bell-ringing. These groups attacked and beat up the organisers of this anti-communist humiliation and thus put an end to the practice.66 In 1931 the CPC district committee in Varossi organised the ‘Red Guard’, who were charged with frightening people who acted against the Party.67 Members of the workers club in Varossi began to carry arms after their clubhouse was attacked during a meeting at which Vatis spoke. The attackers were drenched with hot water.68 These organised responses testify to the CPC’s greater self-confidence due to its growing appeal.

162

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

The Church officially dealt with the communists in 1927 when the Holy Synod examined measures against the ‘continuously spreading communism’.69 However, it was not only until 1931 that the Church officially and actively joined the Right. The cleric Gennadios Mahairiotis published an article denouncing three teachers accused of communism, noting ‘the poisoning of simple people with communist propaganda’, a system that disavowed the ideals of the fatherland, religion and ethics. He declared that one could not be both a teacher and a communist and called on the communist teachers to resign, declaring that ‘what you do not do of your own accord must be imposed on you by the religious leaders’, who should ‘remove [the teachers] from the profession and cut them off from the body of the Church’.70 The Pontifical Committee of Kyrenia and Morphou also published a series of anti-CPC articles.71 In April a meeting of the Church hierarchy ‘considered the communist question’,72 and decided that the communists would be summoned by the bishop of their district and advised ‘to mend their ways, otherwise the ecclesiastical punishment of excommunication would be imposed on them’. Another meeting held at the Archbishopric gave precise instructions about dealing with the communist threat: Last Monday evening, representatives of almost all the associations of Nicosia met at the Archbishopric and discussed how to combat communist propaganda. The meeting concluded with a decision to appeal to the shopkeepers, factory owners, artisans, building contractors, professionals, teachers, religious associations, school committees, municipalities, etc. The decision stressed the following: Known communist craftsmen and workers should not be hired by individuals or associations, and those discovered should be fired. Communist teachers should be denounced by parents to the Office of Education and the Archbishop and the pupils should be withdrawn from the school until the communist teachers have been removed. Young people moving from the villages to the towns to learn a skill should be prevented from coming into contact with individuals

POLITICAL INTEGRATION

163

contaminated by the communist virus. Communist books, brochures or proclamations should not be bought or read. Avoid attending any meeting or event organised by the communists.73 It was during this period that, on 1 May 1931, the Holy Synod excommunicated the poet, Tefkros Anthias, because of his poem ‘The Second Coming’.74 Anthias had not been a Party member at the time of his excommunication, but this act impelled him to enlist.75 Panayiotou sees the Anthias case as an example of the congruence between the communist class-based criticism and the post-modern criticism of the intelligentsia at the time.76 Anthias’ identification with the CPC lent the Party both a revolutionary political and a cultural force at the same time. Another expression of the tension during this period is reflected in declarations of disinheritance within families. In August 1931, the newspaper Laiki Dynamis (Popular Force) published a mother’s disinheritance of her communist son, in the village of Akanthou, for his professed ‘anti-Christian and antinational principles’.77 The Party viewed these actions as a sign of a total social war aiming to eradicate and discredit the CPC among the popular masses.78 To some extent, CPC radicalism was a reaction to the hostility of the pro-unionist leaders and the Church. A vicious circle developed in which the hostility of the nationalists towards the labour movement led the latter to adopt more radical positions, while the Party’s radicalism in turn drove the bourgeoisie and the nationalists to more extreme reactions. The Party’s radicalism was evident, for example, in its questioning of the entire framework of the Cypriot establishment. The Party took a stand against enosis and in favour of the taxation of wealth and the expropriation of Church land. It criticised the way that the ethnarchy and the bourgeoisie fought the colonial struggle through memoranda and meetings; it also loudly disapproved of their continual compromising with the government.79 In the Party newspaper, the CPC verbally attacked its opponents using harsh and vitriolic language.80 The escalation of the tension between the two political camps, as well as the emotional reactions of the Party and the mistakes of a sectarian nature which

164

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

were accepted by its cadres,81 forced the moderate bourgeoisie to distance themselves from the Party, fearful of being stigmatised as friends of the communists. Overall the situation did not facilitate CPC implementation of the united front policy the Party promoted (Chapter 4). The gap between the CPC and the nationalist leaders was widening, thus adding to the Party’s isolation.82 This confrontation was also manifested in the contestation between the two camps in the electoral field.

6.3 Electoral development and competition The CPC’s first electoral appearance occurred during the 1925 parliamentary elections. The Party did not participate in the elections with its own candidate(s), but offered ‘negative’ support for the ‘new’ politicians who employed slogans in favour of the popular strata, against the ‘old’ pro-unionist politicians. The CPC asked voters to express their disapproval of the old guard politicians by ‘blackening’ them in the elections and supporting the new candidates, whose programmes included some measures for the relief of villagers, while officially declaring that it did not trust them.83 Although the Party accepted that it was unable to run its own candidates, it described the elections as ‘a comedy at the people’s expense’ and opposed them on the grounds that the electoral legislation excluded the overwhelming majority of the population.84 When these elections took place the CPC was in its infancy. It was no match for the nationalists who, despite their fragmentation, had both considerable electoral experience and the mechanisms of social and political control. While the Party claimed that it did not contest the elections due to persecution85 it was probably because of its lack of organisation and resources. The Party’s first direct electoral experience was in the Limassol municipal elections in March 1926. There appears to have been a conflict within the ranks of the CPC-controlled LLC as to whether the centre should put forth its own candidates. The disagreement was also due to the preferences that some members of the the LLC expressed for nationalist candidates, who were represented on two

POLITICAL INTEGRATION

165

different slates: G. Hadjipavlou and A. Zenon. The CPC did not approve these members’ behaviour, which seemed to be guided by bonds of social dependency and allegiance to the higher classes, as well as personal friendships.86 The broader issue of electoral participation, in general, does not seem to have been a source of ideological conflict within the Party in contrast to some other countries, where participation was regarded as legitimating the bourgeois political system. Although the Party debated this issue, the main concern was the (in)effectiveness of the whole enterprise, given the limits of the franchise, and the effects of social dependence. The Party initially decided against independent participation in the municipal elections of 1926 and in favour of maintaining a neutral stand, due to their relative weakness and the danger of a split within the LLC.87 The bourgeois press heralded this decision as ‘praiseworthy’.88 Within a short time, however, the Party changed its position, blaming their ambiguous stance on inexperience. It cited conflict within the LLC, which individuals from both bourgeois camps attempted to exploit, and stated that it should have taken a stand in the elections.89 The Party therefore decided to run on the LLC’s platform with three candidates and not under the banner of the CPC. These candidacies were applauded by Eleftheria, indicating the newspaper’s ignorance of the candidates’ ideology and political platform.90 By participating in this election, the CPC realised the need to carry out an election campaign among the broad electorate, and hence it published special electoral pamphlets in addition to the Party newspaper.91 The CPC received 15 per cent of the votes in this election: in the Limassol municipality a total of 2,038 citizens were entitled to vote, of whom 1,737 exercised their right (i.e., the abstention rate was around 14 per cent) and the CPC candidates received 270 votes.92 The CPC believes that most of the 301 voters who abstained were workers, who did not vote due to threats from their employers. When looking at the CPC percentages in this election there are factors that must be taken into account: first, many workers and peasants did not have the right to vote; furthermore, many workers and peasants were in fact unable to vote because the elections took place on a working

166

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

day (Wednesday), and the polling booth hours left little – if any – time for workers to vote. In fact, as a result of protests, an additional day was allocated for voting in that particular election.93 The split in the ranks of the LLC deserves elaboration, although there is little actual information. It is likely that the split was related to some trade unionists’ electoral behaviour, especially if we consider the above-noted clashes within the LLC. The CPC central committee valuated the election as a success, referring to ‘scapegoats who were kicked out of the party’ and the expulsion of elements who had not acquired class consciousness. They also emphasised that the CPC ‘is a party with discipline which knows how to raise its fist against those who do not respect the CC’s [central committee’s] instructions and who think that they can abandon their post or exploit their position for personal ends and go unpunished’. Furthermore, they declared that ‘some unions of our own workers did not vote for the CPC candidates and some unscrupulous comrades, fooled by promises, fought against us in the worst possible way’.94 These references are indicative of the schism, but whether this significantly influenced the election result and who precisely was involved remain unclear. The first congress, in a moment of self-reflection, stated that ‘the party did not succeed in orientating itself in a timely manner and in maintaining a stable line against the competing bourgeois parties, which damaged the workers’ struggle and reduced its influence’.95 Ultimately, the court invalidated these elections, and hence new ones were slated for March 1927. These new elections again had two nationalistic lists and the LLC had its own candidates. The information on the precise number of candidates on the LLC’s list is confusing: both the CPC newspaper and Lefkis write that the LLC participated in the elections with a complete list.96 However, Perdios notes that only two candidacies were eventually submitted. To substantiate his claim, Perdios invoked the minutes of the LLC, dated 16 March 1927.97 This decision seems to have been taken after a joint meeting with Panos Fassouliotis’ LF, who had been previously expelled from the CPC (see Chapter 3). The CPC candidates ran in the election representing the LLC and received 300 votes (approximately 17 per cent) out of the total of 1,733 people who

POLITICAL INTEGRATION

167

actually voted (the total enfranchised population was 2,035 people).98 The Party press does not provide any additional information on the final number of the Party’s candidates or of the percentage of votes won by each. In the Limassol municipal elections of March 1930, the CPC again participated with two candidates, Costas Skeleas, the party secretary general and Charalambos Solomonides, publisher of Neos Anthropos, who ran under the slogan ‘Blacken the bourgeois candidates’. At the time of the elections, Limassol had a population of approximately 17,000 – only 2,130 of whom had the right to vote and only 1,905 of whom actually voted. Despite its efforts in the three-year period between the two elections, the CPC did not increase its strength. Hence, its two candidates, Solomonides and Skeleas, received 278 and 268 votes, respectively, maintaining the same number of votes and about the same 15 per cent proportion.99 There was, however, a significant difference compared to the previous electoral contest: this time, the CPC ran in the elections as an independent political force and not under the aegis of the LLC, which had allowed the Party to appeal to a broader audience. The election results therefore can be interpreted in two different ways: that the CPC had increased its vote share, since it was not under the wider umbrella of the LLC; or the opposite claim that the Party’s identification with the trade union movement had hindered further expansion of either organisation. In addition, failure to enlarge beyond the previous election’s result could be also pointed out. The first time the CPC participated in elections for the Legislative Council was in June 1930, in the by-elections in the KoilaniAvdimou constituency, again in the Limassol district. The CPC ran in the elections with its own candidate and with demands for national independence and universal suffrage. The CPC candidate received 387 votes (16 per cent) compared to his opponent’s 1,609. In total, 2,452 individuals voted, out of the 5,414 who were eligible.100 A few months later, in October 1930, the CPC transcended its local character for the first time and took part in the parliamentary elections, running candidates in some (but not all) constituencies. Eleftheria published the names of the CPC candidates in four

168

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

constituencies.101 Papademetris described these elections as the most tense he had ever seen in Cyprus and noted that the confrontation was no longer between old and new politicians, or between the ethnarchy and Chadjipavlou’s Popular Party, but had been refashioned as a clash between Right and Left. The important point is that for the first time the communists entered the political arena on an island-wide basis. Despite their limited strength, they became ‘the object of intense polemic from the colonial authorities but also from the nationalists who denied them any right to participate in public affairs and persecuted them like lepers’.102 Their participation substantively changed the terms of electoral and political competition in Cyprus. The reaction of the nationalists to the CPC’s electoral presence was intense, and in some cases violent. In reportage from Larnaca, Eleftheria wrote: In the western constituency of our district, the candidates are the Bishop of Kition, the lawyer Georgios Vassiliades and the communist Vassilis Tangas from Pervolia [. . .]. In Pervolia the friends of the candidate Tangas spoke through Mr Evanthis S. Nikolaides, who explained the programme of the Communist Party. In Kition the tension heated. While the Bishop of Kition was conducting a service, communists arrived from Pervolia. At the same time, Mr Chadjioannou arrived and urged the villagers to expel the communists as the inhabitants of Kition had once expelled the Jews. This was followed by debates and recriminations and the police, armed, ordered the meeting to break up, holding the communists responsible for what had happened.103 According to press reports, no CPC candidates were elected. Moreover, there is no reference to C. Drakos, so it is uncertain whether he remained a candidate until the end.104 In Lefkara constituency, Tangas received 121 votes compared to 933 for the bishop of Kition. In the Ktima constituency in Paphos, Mikros received 616 votes compared to the 1,092 of his fellow candidate, C. Galatopoulos. This was equivalent to 35 per cent, a very high poll

POLITICAL INTEGRATION

169

for the period. In the Limassol constituency, Petros Odiatis received 346 votes out of 1,738, i.e. around 20 per cent. Overall, the CPC claimed 665 votes out of a total of 4,500, or 14.8 per cent. The election results were challenged in two constituencies: Morphou-Lefka and Paphos. Following a judicial decision, byelections were held in both constituencies in 1931. The CPC presented the candidacy of C. Drakos in Morphou-Lefka constituency. Eleftheria reported that when Drakos attempted to speak at an election meeting in Morphou, he was attacked by 500 ‘fanatics’ who broke up his meeting, and concluded with the following comment: ‘we hope this instructive lesson will bring them and their fellows to their senses’.105 On polling day, Drakos was not allowed to go to the government office and submit his candidacy,106 as he was obstructed by supporters of the other two candidates. In the Paphos by-elections, the candidates who ran for office were C. Galatopoulos and Loizos Philippou. The CPC decided not to put forward its own candidate, instead supporting Galatopoulos, who had written articles in the CPC newspaper and who the Party regarded as a socialist. In addition, Galatopoulos had defended the publisher of Neos Anthropos in a libel suit in court.107 Eleftheria claimed that Galatopoulos had undertaken to support communist interests in parliament – which the candidate himself did not deny – and criticised him for this stance.108 Galatopoulos accepted the CPC’s support and, in the end, won the elections.109 His acceptance of the CPC’s support indicates that the Party was already being viewed as a significant political force. These were the last elections to take place during the period of CPC existence, as soon afterward there were the October riots that led to the abolition of all political rights and freedoms. We can now turn to an interpretation and analysis of the electoral behaviour of the working class and consider the CPC in light of the political and electoral system.

6.4 Interpreting the communist vote When evaluating the CPC vote, there are specific local peculiarities as well as a number of general factors that must be considered. One

170

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

highly significant local factor is the very small working class, which never exceeded 15 per cent of the Cypriot population during this time. Also, because the CPC directed its appeal primarily to the working class, the Party’s electoral audience was limited (most workers did not have the right to vote). Two related general factors, i.e., the size of factories and the size of towns that are linked to a higher left-wing vote, also apply to Cyprus at this time,110 where there were neither large towns nor big factories nor any large-scale industries. All these factors can help explain why the CPC was unable to acquire a broad electoral base comprised of workers. These factors can also explain why the CPC was most successful in Limassol, which was the epicentre of social and economic activity in the first decades of the twentieth century. The Party also registered a strong presence in regions with high labour concentration, such as in the mining areas. To analyse the extent to which the CPC’s electoral influence accurately reflected the Party’s popular appeal is more difficult, primarily because the electoral law, based on immovable property and the payment of taxes, deprived the mass of landless peasants and workers of the right to vote, and it was among these classes that the CPC enjoyed more support. Furthermore, these two classes were not unified and homogeneous groups with common characteristics and interests and, by extension, common electoral behaviour. While, in general the working class is more likely to be left-leaning politically than the upper classes, such a simple categorisation as the type of work an individual does is not a reliable indicator of electoral behaviour. Other factors such as religion, for example, must also be taken into account.111 Moreover, while we have suggested that it is an over-simplification to correlate social class and membership of or voting for a party, Rokkan has shown that an individual’s socioeconomic and cultural roles are not automatically translated into electoral choices. On the contrary, parties must actively promote their political agenda with the aim of attracting voters.112 One of the main reasons why individuals with low incomes do not vote in accordance with their social position (i.e., left-wing parties) is the existence of traditional social values (such as religion). According to this ‘interpretation of divergence’, the position of rich and poor is

POLITICAL INTEGRATION

171

determined by the natural order of things, supported by personal, family and local loyalties; positions are not the result of impersonal economic and social forces, and are not easily changed through political action.113 In this light we can better understand the difficulties the CPC confronted in accessing the electorate: the peasants had traditional ties with the bourgeois political parties and politicians through clientelistic networks promoting socioeconomic dependence (see Chapter 1). There was also a problem with the Party’s stance against religion. In the context of confrontation with the colonial administration, the ethnarchy and the nationalist politicians, the CPC pursued a dual strategy: mobilising and organising the popular classes; and systematically pressing for the democratisation of the political system through the demand for universal suffrage in an effort to gain access to the political structures. The CPC campaigned hard to persuade the working people and the popular strata to support the Party electorally, using various forms of political education, including public meetings, lectures, and the distribution of political literature and other books with communist content. There were, however, powerful factors opposing the CPC, i.e., the nationalist politicians and the Church, which enjoyed a monopoly of the political institutions. In demanding universal suffrage, which was a radical demand for the political and social traditions of the era, the CPC was also aiming to establish itself as a viable political force. The literature contends that left-wing parties that simultaneously demand political and socioeconomic rights undergo a process of radicalisation, while leftist parties that have easier access to rights of political participation are usually more willing to collaborate with bourgeois parties to achieve reforms.114 The Party’s radicalness was enhanced by the fact that it did not achieve electoral representation despite its acceptance of electoral contests and participation in a colonial, bourgeois regime. The communist vote, to some extent, reflected a specific type of protest, which can be interpreted as a way of challenging the legality of the political and socioeconomic system.115

172

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

Despite its radical proposals, the CPC did not succeed in attracting the masses on the basis of the demand for universal suffrage – mainly due to the catalytic influence of the National Question and the strong presence of the Church. According to Katina Nikolaou, a Party veteran, ‘being a communist at the time meant a person who was an atheist, immoral and unpatriotic’.116 In addition, supply-side factors of party politics must also be taken into account when explaining the CPC’s lack of success during these early years: the Party’s geographical limitation to the Limassol district during its early stages, its inability to run candidates in all electoral districts, its limited financial resources, and the lack of experienced personnel at the national level. All these factors made it hard for the Party to make a successful island-wide appeal. The gradual institutionalisation of formal organisations of the less privileged social strata – such as the trade unions, the agricultural unions and the CPC itself, as a classbased political movement with an organised party machine and its own newspapers – steadily increased the possibilities of raising the political consciousness of these strata. The CPC, while still not a mass party, by the end of the 1920s represented an evident pole opposing the various nationalist currents of bourgeois politics.

CHAPTER 7 THE YEARS OF ILLEGALITY AND TAKING OFF

This chapter focuses on the latter years of the CPC, a ten-year period of illegality (1931–41) until the foundation of AKEL in 1941 and the years of CPC and AKEL coexistence (1941–44) until the CPC was eventually integrated in AKEL. In this regard, three issues are examined. First, we will examine the way the Party organised itself for underground activity. In the first few years after it had been declared illegal, the Party shrank to such dangerously low numbers that its survival was at risk. At the same time there was a crisis of leadership since almost all Party cadres were either in prison or in exile. The situation gradually changed in the mid-1930s, as a number of Party leaders were released from prison/exile and the Party made a serious attempt at reorganisation centred on underground activities. Second, we investigate the way the Party penetrated and eventually took control of the trade union movement. The legalisation of the trade unions a few years earlier and the Party’s reorganisation opened up a channel through which the Party could advance its goals. The communist networks agitated intensively within worker circles and successfully set up a number of trade unions in the latter half of the 1930s. The Party’s presence and influence within the unions were key to making the CPC a mass movement. The third issue concerns the events and circumstances that resulted in the CPC’s becoming AKEL in 1941, and the coexistence

174

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

of the two parties until 1944 when the CPC voluntarily, but not without opposition, dissolved. We investigate the factors that enabled the new party to extend its membership and support basis, and thus, finally, to become a true mass party with considerable influence among Cypriots.

7.1 The riots of October 1931 and CPC reaction The October uprising caught the CPC unaware. One Party captain, E. Psaras, pointed out in an interview that: Indicative of the fact that the party was not yet well organised was its absence during the October events, when it maintained a stance of indifference. It did not take any decisions and even if it had, these could not have been implemented as we could not have mobilised people. We were not a vanguard but still limited to a role of guidance.1 Moreover, many within the Party itself had reservations as to whether the uprising was the right course (with regard to the Party’s goals). According to Party veteran, Iosif Mavros, the Party’s stance had been decided at a central committee meeting, when the CPC decided to change tactics and become more involved in the anti-colonial struggle so that the nationalists and the Church did not exclusively set the agenda on this issue.2 As a result, the Party found itself supporting the uprising, despite its disagreement with the political slogan of enosis. In this direction, the Party decided to propose to the ethnarchy that they take a joint stance against British colonialism. As a first step in implementing the decision, a CPC delegation that included Vatyliotis and Tefkros Anthias informed the archbishop that the Party was ready to cooperate with the ethnarchy in the struggle against the British. British records confirm that a meeting took place at the archbishop’s palace, where decisions were taken concerning the course of events.3 Their report states that, ‘the Greek nationalists and the communists agreed to declare a strike with a view of overthrowing the Government’. However, the two sides

THE YEARS OF ILLEGALITY AND TAKING OFF

175

disagreed on the flags that would be carried in the demonstration, with Vatyliotis refusing to carry the Greek flag because he believed that this would alienate the Armenians and the Turks, who would likely not support them. The two sides also disagreed over the aim of the ‘revolution’. Vatyliotis wanted a ‘Democracy of Labourers’, while the nationalists of course sought enosis with Greece. Eventually, as no agreement could be reached, the CPC distributed its own manifesto on 23 October 1931.4 The manifesto emphasised that a common front, which would include all Cypriot political forces and all ethnic communities, was necessary to make an effective stance against British imperialism; and further, this common goal should supersede each party’s individual goals. It also condemned the neutral stance taken by local party organisations during the anti-imperialist uprising as favouring the imperialists. The Party’s U-turn was later criticised by the Balkan office of the Comintern because it made the Party a laggard of the nationalists.5 This same police report also recorded a meeting between CPC officials (Vatyliotis and Skeleas) and a Turk named Moustafa Moulousi during which they ‘discussed the way they should publish a notice which would please the Turks and be conducive to the interest of the Turkish labourers in order to induce them to take part in the revolution and the strike’. Before Moulousi would agree to Turkish approval of this notice, he wanted to submit it to the British, denying Turkish complicity. It was agreed that Vatyliotis would send a communique´ to Moulousi to approve the notice before printing it. The communique´ was eventually distributed.

7.2 Crisis and reorganisation Following the riots of October 1931, the British abolished all democratic institutions. During this period, the Party suffered serious blows: it was declared illegal, as were all its affiliated organisations;6 its organisations were dissolved and its offices destroyed; its leaders were exiled and many Party cadres were imprisoned or internally exiled to isolated villages in the countryside. Immediately after the October events, almost 50 CPC cadres were

176

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

imprisoned, exiled or banished, including the Party’s two most important leaders, Vatis and Skeleas.7 Skeleas and Vatyliotis were arrested on 25 October in Limassol and Nicosia, respectively, and were deported on 6 November and 1 November, respectively.8 The British also invalidated Vatyliotis’ British passport.9 During the period 1932 – 3 almost all known CPC cadres were arrested; at trial all were found guilty and were sentenced to various punishments.10 As a result, the Party was essentially left without leadership, as the entirety of the then central committee members were in prison. Party’s acting secretary general, Costas Cononas, issued a statement of repentance, an act that led to his expulsion from the Party.11 Essentially, the true leader of the Party until the mid-1930s was Christos Savvides, brother of Ploutis Servas, who was in Moscow during the uprising and was sent to Cyprus to fill in the vacuum left after the deportation of Skeleas and Vatis.12 The mass arrests resulted in the Party’s activity coming to almost a complete standstill, a situation that lasted for some months.13 During this period, the police managed to infiltrate the Party lines and as such were constantly informed of the Party’s activities and intentions.14 For example, there is a police report that recorded a meeting of six communists in the Limassol public gardens; the sixth person’s name is not provided, as he is noted only as ‘informant’.15 The British also reported in 1955 that ‘during the years 1933– 4 and following years of intense work, 28 leading figures of the CPC were convicted for conspiracy and they were imposed sentences up to four years imprisonment’.16 In an interview, Party veteran Demetris Koullouras gave many examples of Party members being imprisoned or exiled during these years.17 There were also members who left the Party because of communist persecution and fear of betrayal,18 while British espionage tactics led to the dissolution of the Limassol and Nicosia branches, with only the Famagusta branch surviving.19 The fact that the CPC branch in Famagusta escaped censorship explains why the two (illegal) Party congresses in 1935 and 1940 were held in this district. There were totally different reactions among the Greek ruling class and the communists towards the new authoritarian regime in

THE YEARS OF ILLEGALITY AND TAKING OFF

177

the aftermath of the 1931 riots. The former decided early on to cooperate with the British in order to safeguard their privileges.20 The British understood their motive and used it to their advantage. Governor Reginald Stubbs was very clear on this strategy when he said that ‘we need to breed such a class that will be willing to cooperate with us’.21 To pursue this strategy the British cleverly set up a new system of governance in which all public posts were appointed: executive and advisory councils, municipal and village councils, etc. The idea of abolishing the elections was not entirely British. As revealed by Palmer in his correspondence with the Ministry of Colonies, P. Kakoyiannis (later knighted for his services to the Crown) was one of those Cypriots who put forward this idea.22 The entirety of appointments came from the ruling class, who competed among themselves for all the public offices. The mayor of Nicosia, Themistocles Dervis, is a good example of this class’s willingness to cooperate for their own personal gain: in 1932 he requested that he be allowed to relinquish his Greek citizenship in order to acquire British citizenship and thus be eligible for appointment as mayor.23 Another indication of the compliant attitude of the nationalist ruling class is the fact that in the first five years of Palmer’s tenure, the number of Cypriots awarded medals for loyalty and service to the Crown outnumbered those who had received medals in the previous 55 years of British rule.24 The British were also discrete towards the Church because they wanted to capitalise on its anti-communist beliefs that they considered as ‘an invaluable asset’ in their endeavours against the CPC.25 With the nationalists safely under their control, the British concentrated on the CPC, which they recognised was their greatest threat.26 A newspaper editorial in 1933 complained that that the community was left without day-to-day policing because, the entire attention of the government is today distracted by the prosecution of communism. From the honourable attorney general to the last policeman, everybody is preoccupied with the communist flysheets, which are from time to time found in various parts of the island. Special laws have been

178

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

enacted, severe sentences have been passed and draconian measures have been adopted.27 In 1932 and 1933 several Party cadres were released from prison, and they set about helping the CPC improve its operation. Under Savvides’ leadership a first effort at reorganisation was attempted. Illegal cells were set up, convening in caves and in the countryside in order to avoid arrest; Party members would take food with them to hold the meeting under the guise of a picnic.28 Moreover, they operated under pseudonyms to conceal their true identities.29 The Party leadership was careful to prevent its further breakup, and counselled members to exercise caution – especially important was to have no communist books or proclamations on their person in case of arrest. They also advised members to refrain from discussing communism in public.30 The closure in August 1930 of the Party newspaper, Neos Anthropos, due to the (new) law requiring a £200 guarantee for the publication of newspapers, led the CPC to change the way in which it communicated with its members. Given its illegal status, the Party operated in complete secrecy; in order to communicate with its audience and convey its message, it utilised the tactic of distributing proclamations all over the island – a practice at which the Party excelled in these years.31 For example, on 1 August 1932 the Party distributed placards calling on the people to rebel against the colonial regime.32 In another leaflet released in early October of the same year, the Party called upon the workers and poor peasants to join the CPC and fight with it for social justice. Upon the arrival of the new governor, Sir Reginald Stubbs, the CPC issued notices against him.33 In a January 1933 flyer that was seized by the authorities, the Party addressed the working masses, calling on them to organise and fight the bourgeois polity and its representatives, i.e., the government and large companies that exploited the labourers and the peasants.34 Another form of resistance was the practice of hanging small red flags throughout towns and villages so that people passing by would see them and realise that there were still people fighting against the regime, and most importantly that these were the communists. In the

THE YEARS OF ILLEGALITY AND TAKING OFF

179

same period the Party continued to pay attention to members’ indoctrination. The police in Limassol reported that ‘the communists on 19 July 1932 at night went to the Public Garden where a lesson was held by Red 285 Ioannis Carnaos of Limassol’.35 The communist activity posed a serious concern for the government. Their actions constituted the only dissonance in an otherwise totally controlled, smoothly running government.36 The British therefore took strict measures against a movement that was gaining strength and whose proliferation was enhanced by the passivity of the nationalists who were content with their appointments and other positions.37 During Palmer’s governorship (1933– 9) prosecution of the CPC intensified. In August 1933 a new article was added to the criminal code that directly targeted communists. The correspondence between the governor of Cyprus, the attorney-general and the colonial authorities is clear: ‘the main object of this law is to enable the Government to cope with the growing menace of communism’.38 In the same month, therefore, the CPC and its ancillary organisations were declared officially illegal,39 while there were more severe punishments provided for under the new law. Possession of communist books would be punished with two years’ imprisonment. The police were vested with special powers that allowed them to conduct house searches, to arrest people and confiscate properties without a court order. Moreover, the governor was entitled to ban/make illegal any organisation that called for a general strike – of course, the only organisation calling for this type of action was the CPC. The colonial authorities also sided with employers in all labour disputes. On many occasions it provided safe conduct (escort) to strike-breakers and the courts imposed sentences on any strikers who attempted to block strike-breakers’ access to work.40 Companies and employers took advantage of this attitude, as can be seen in a Famagusta contracting company letter addressed to the colonial secretary when a strike broke out on its site in 1938. The masons union is a nest of venomous vipers; they are instigators of the strike. The soft policy pursued by the

180

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

government and the police aggravate the situation. Only through the localisation of the aforementioned persons [he lists the names of the strikers] outside the city of Famagusta, or their house arrest from sunrise to sunset could correct things.41 This letter attests to the fact that in the second half of the 1930s the CPC had already managed to re-orientate its core activities and put its focus on the labour movement – a tactic that was an effective catalyst for its later growth into a popular party.

7.3 Trade union tutelage as a vehicle of expansion and integration The Party’s continuous persecution at the hands of the colonial authorities drove it to find new ways to pursue its policies and approach its target audience. As it had been declared illegal, the Party decided to take advantage of the British government’s decision to legalise the trade unions and pursue its activities through the trade union movement. It was in January 1932 that the British government enacted the first ever legislation on trade unions, which in effect represented official recognition of the Cypriot trade union movement. The British realised that there was increasing economic and social development in Cyprus and knew that it was only a matter of time before trade unions would become an established part of political and social life. Rather than ban trade unions, therefore they opted instead to exercise control over the unions. This decision was taken in light of the situation in Britain at the time: a Labour government that had to deal with a lot of pressure from the trade unions. The British enacted legislation in Cyprus that placed trade unions under the personal supervision of the governor; this law also stipulated the procedure for establishing a union. According to the law, the trade union registrar was vested with the power to impose certain restrictions on the workers’ rights to enter into the union partnership: a trade union was only allowed to enrol a specific number of workers; and the names of workers who wished to join the union

THE YEARS OF ILLEGALITY AND TAKING OFF

181

had to be submitted to the registrar, who would verify that no extremists were included (i.e., communists or ultra-nationalists). Copies of the statute both in English and Greek would be given to each new union member, who was required to pay a fee of 10 shillings – a considerable amount for the time. Whenever the union wished to convene an assembly or hold a meeting, it had to have the written approval of the district commissioner – which was only given on the condition that the police would be allowed to be present. The main purpose of the legislation was to contain communist activity; at the same time, however, it allowed trade union activity.42 In the trade unions the CPC had identified an opening for its activity, and an important channel through which to exercise its influence.43 This was the focus of the third Party congress in 1936.44 The Party had already begun to redeploy around 1935 under the leadership of Ploutis Servas, and was gradually reestablishing its organisational capacity with a focus on the trade union movement. The CPC employed the ‘popular front tactic’ favoured by the European communists at the time, but adapted it to the Cyprus context and emphasised the anti-colonial struggle. According to some sources, Servas tried to persuade his comrades to abandon the radical discourse on some issues (e.g., religion and enosis), so they could appeal to the middle classes.45 As Panayiotou noted, ‘under the shadow of the colonial dictatorship of the 1930s the communists had their heroic underground phase: they became the backbone of the emerging working class movement’.46 By 1936, police and district commissioners’ reports noted an increase in communist activity in the labour movement.47 Of great worry was the communist activity in Famagusta.48 By the late 1930s – when the working class had grown considerably and the CPC was focused on the trade union movement with much greater organisational capacities – the Party presented a highly different picture than in previous years. According to the British, ‘the communists were undoubtedly actively linked with the strikes that took place in the first semester of 1939 [. . .]. Communist influence was much greater in the cities than in the countryside [. . .] the police watches closely their activities.’49

182

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

In this period, the labour organisations were distinguished by two main features. First, they were bi-communal, as they included both Greek and Turk workers; this meant they were an important bridge of cooperation between the two ethnic communities of Cyprus. There were many instances of this bi-communal cooperation, which was entirely attributable to the communists. For example, in 1936 at the American-owned mine in Mavrovouni a massive strike broke out, in which the strikers’ organising committee comprised five Turks and ten Greeks.50 Other examples of Turks working with the communists include the Turkish worker Ahmet Zekki from Famagusta who was given a one-month prison sentence because the police found communist proclamations written in Turkish in his possession.51 A few weeks later another Turk worker, Hassan Chilmi, was accused by the district court in Limassol of subversive activity against the authorities and for propagating communism.52 The unions were characterised by militancy and rigidness because it was the CPC that was responsible for their organisation.53 The communists had become involved in the trade unions and were in a position to offer vigour, unity and leadership to the rising movement. Servas described the way the Party penetrated and spread within the unions as virtuosic.54 For example, to deflect any suspicions the authorities might have, the CPC sometimes placed non-communists at the head of the various unions. Gradually, the trade unions became the main carrier of the Party’s policy. They were also the basic pool from which the Party drafted the support that allowed it to establish itself and expand after World War II. Their strategy can be largely justified – as well as anticipated – since the trade union movement was the only channel of organised struggle that the British were willing to tolerate. All the available evidence supports the above conclusions. The break-up of CPC machinery in the early 1930s is the main reason for the small number of trade unions in Cyprus at the time. Furthermore, despite the numerous obstacles presented by the colonial authorities, a significant number of unions were founded towards the end of the 1930s, a development linked to CPC reorganisation in the mid1930s. To clarify: in 1937 there were only six trade unions with a

THE YEARS OF ILLEGALITY AND TAKING OFF

183

total membership of 367; their number rose to 14 in 1938, to 46 in 1939 with 2,544 members, and further increased to 62 in 1940 with a total membership of 3,389.55 The highlight of the trade union movement was the first ever island-wide trade union conference that took place in the town of Famagusta on 6 August 1939. The conference had 101 representatives from 30 recognised trade unions and another 27 that were in the process of becoming legally established. The CPC guided these unions through its members, who held leading positions in the unions.56 Phantis recalled another indication of CPC involvement in the unions: in 1938, the four trade unions in Nicosia presented the government with a memorandum demanding the resolution of a number of workers demands. The uniform stance adopted, the language in which the memo was written and the range of demands, all point to the influence of the illegal CPC.57 The increase in the number of unions and unionised workers also reveals that, as the workers gradually became aware of the power they acquired through organisation, they began to use it. This was vividly manifested in the numerous strikes during this period. Papademetris writes that in the second half of the 1930s there were so many strikes that the workers enjoyed a position of great self-confidence.58 In this chain of strikes there were even jailed prisoners threatening to go on strike if their demands for a cigarette break and a minimal remuneration for their work were not met. The labour movement had acquired sufficient power that employers had to respond, and they were forced to compromise on several occasions. A very illustrative example of this new balance of power was the fulfillment of the dockworkers’ demands in Famagusta on the mere announcement of their intention to strike. Their success at the organisational level, as well as having some of their demands met, led the unions to make more demands and justified their methods (i.e., strikes). Their successes also made the workers appreciate the role of the unions and helped them better understand the need to organise. However, the trade unions of this period, i.e., until the foundation in 1941 of the Pancyprian Trade Union Committee (PTUC), still lacked the power to acquire a pivotal role within society: they were small, fragmented

184

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

professionally, geographically dispersed, lacking in coordination and led by men with little experience.59 It is clear, however, that the CPC played a formative role in the establishment of a significant number of trade unions (organisation) and in the increased number of strikes (mobilisation). In addition to trade union infiltration, the CPC deployed a concentrated cultural campaign among the oppressed masses in an effort to awaken them to their reality. The late 1930s signalled the creation of a network of cultural clubs throughout Cyprus.60 These clubs were the means for the Party to expand in the villages of the countryside. The Party had also issued bulletins for members using material from the magazine Inprekor and other sources from abroad.61 The CPC’s infiltration and guidance of the trade union movement, together with its presence in virtually every corner of Cyprus via these clubs, made the communists a third pole in Cypriot politics (in addition to the two established camps of the nationalists – moderates and intransigents), albeit in the making.

7.4 The CPC in the Spanish Civil War Communist parties are distinguished by their internationalism. The CPC was clearly no different, as evidenced by the Party’s solidarity with the Democratic Front of Spain during the Spanish Civil War (1936– 9). Although an official Party decision was probably never taken, it is known that several Cypriot communists joined the Spanish Democrats. According to the Party itself, 60 Cypriot communists enlisted,62 14 of whom lost their lives on the battlefields. The Cypriot volunteers were primarily UK Cypriots, most of whom were active members of the Communist Party of Great Britain and the League against Imperialism. There were also a number of USA based Cypriots who went to Spain to fight alongside their Spanish comrades. The percentage of Cypriots who fought in the international brigades ranks among the highest of any country. With a population of only 350,000 at the time, the contribution made by the Cypriot volunteers among all the 35,000– 40,000 volunteers from

THE YEARS OF ILLEGALITY AND TAKING OFF

185

63 countries who served in Spain, is significant. Historical research does not provide a precise number of volunteers.63 Cypriot volunteers from the island itself, probably did not travel to Spain because in 1931 the British enforced measures forbidding engagement in the war. In addition, in November 1936 Britain passed a law stating: ‘it constitutes an offence for any British subject to accept or agree to accept any order or service in the armed forces of any of the two conflicting sides in Spain’.64 Another reason is the lack of strong organisation in the CPC at the time. As mentioned above, Cypriot immigrants in Britain and the USA made up the bulk of Cypriot volunteers. The American organisation Pagkipriaki (Pagkypriakή/All-Cyprus), established by Cypriot leftists, was very active in invigorating the Spanish Democrats. However, it was the Cypriot communists in London who proved the most ardent supporters of the Spanish case. They took part in rallies and other events held in support of the Democratic Government of Spain and many joined the international brigades. The CPB, and more precisely the Committee of Cypriot Affairs of the Party, was primarily responsible for drafting volunteers for the war. Ezekias Papaioannou, one of the first volunteers, recalls how he was drafted: ‘during a protest in London someone spread the word for enlisting as volunteers. I, Michalakis Oikonomides and Tony Theodoulou signed up and in a few days we departed for Spain via France.’65 Papaioannou took part in a number of clashes before being injured in the battle of Antioucha and sent back to London. From London he was active organising various events and fund-raising activities, as well as organising memorials for those who had lost their lives. He also published several articles both in English and Greek.66 The CPC participation in the Spanish Civil War represents an important pillar of the Party’s collective memory, and one that celebrates its heroic and international past. In this sense, the Party often recalls the events in a way of rallying its supporters.

186

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

7.5 From the CPC to AKEL: an opening to society The outbreak of World War II led Britain to alter many of its oppressive colonial policies in the effort to earn the colonies’ allegiance in the war. The CPC took advantage of this and decided to launch an initiative for a new political organisation that would appeal to other progressive personalities of the centre-left and the centre-right, beyond CPC members and supporters. Thus, it rebranded the party as AKEL in April 1941. In May 1940, the decision to launch the new party was made at the fourth Party congress in Famagusta. AKEL was founded during a meeting that included leading members of the CPC and several liberal personalities of the bourgeoisie. Most prominent among them was the lawyer G. Vassiliades, who had previously served the advisory council launched by Stubbs in 1933.67 Strikingly, peasants were absent from this initiative, as were the Turks of Cyprus.68 The congress was received with mock by the bourgeois press who wrote of a symposium69 and indifference.70 The new party represented a conscious choice for a mass party organisation that would be highly integrated in society. The cornerstone of the Party’s democratic integration strategy lay in its decision to take the peaceful or electoral ‘road to power’; also key were its aims to make alliances with other political forces and personalities, and to espouse a broad conceptualisation of the Left that included the vast majority of wage-earners and appealed to the middle classes at the same time. This strategy led to an impressive electoral performance and participation in election-winning coalitions at the local level during the 1940s and early 1950s and a rapidly growing membership: the 200 members of the CPC in 1941 rose to 3,224 in May 194271 and to 5,000 by 1945.72 This new strategy also allowed AKEL to continue to occupy a prominent place in the island’s political landscape throughout the second half of the twentieth century and the early twenty-first century, a position its European counterparts did not enjoy. This was especially true during the 1940s, when AKEL wrested the initiative and the primacy of the anti-colonial struggle from the Church and the right wing,

THE YEARS OF ILLEGALITY AND TAKING OFF

187

dominated the trade union movement and polled highly in the municipal elections (more than 50 per cent on some occasions).73 The road from CPC to AKEL was not always easy; it was, in fact, marked by considerable strife and disagreement. In April 1941, prior to the AKEL founding congress, materials related to the character of the new party were distributed among the CPC members for discussion.74 There were serious disagreements and divergent opinions among the CPC members on this topic, and a group labelled the ‘Ten Intellectuals’ distributed a document declaring their opposition to the proposed tactic, i.e., founding AKEL as a front organisation of the CPC. The fundamental disagreement was over the extent to which the CPC should dominate the new party and the extent to which this should be visible. The position of the Ten Intellectuals, which was guided by a later prominent figure of AKEL and mayor of Famagusta, Adam Adamantos, supported the view that, in addition to certain CPC intellectuals, AKEL should feature new progressive-minded persons to provide the disguise – a new face – for the new party. Servas opposed this view and the discussions within the Party were long and bitter. The Congress finally decided in favour of Servas, who represented the hard core of the CPC and who was idolised by Party members.75 The congress decided that the CPC should dominate, but also guide the new party; in this way, the leadership of AKEL would remain in the hands of prominent CPC cadres so that ‘AKEL would not derail to reactionarism’. Nevertheless, a number of non-party members and intellectuals were also invited to the congress, some of whom were also elected to leadership positions to convey the message that something new had actually been born.76 Phedias Kyriakides, a lawyer from Limassol and former member of the Legislative Council, presided over the congress, while another lawyer from Larnaca, Giorgos Vassiliades (later state attorney), explained the purpose of the new party.77 The founding declaration expressed its unhappiness over the fact that there were no Turks at the congress, and set the new party in a democratic, anti-fascist and antiHitler direction.78 The new party unofficially disposed its own newspaper, Aneksartitos (The Independent).79 A few months later, on

188

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

5 October 1941, the first AKEL congress was convened in Limassol, where Servas was elected secretary general, thus giving him the leadership of both parties (the illegal CPC and the legal AKEL). The congress was attended by 90 persons representing the 1,284 Party members at the time.80 Another 100 non-party persons also attended the congress. The communists were the majority in the 17-member central committee.81 During the years of co-existence (1941– 4) a huge dispute erupted within the illegal CPC. The issue at stake was whether the two parties should continue to co-exist with the illegal CPC guiding AKEL, or whether the CPC should dissolve. Essentially, the crisis was rooted in earlier discussions regarding the leadership of the new party and was related to the character of AKEL. The crisis was personalised by the fact that the two camps were divided between those who supported Servas and those who were against him.82 Interestingly, Servas changed his position and became an adamant supporter of the view that the CPC should dissolve. According to Ioannou, he believed that it was imperative for AKEL to separate from the CPC if it wanted to expand its popular appeal, as a communist headlock on the Party would jeopardise its credibility.83 The other side endorsed the view that AKEL was not sufficiently mature and there was the danger of ‘rightist, petit-bourgeois deviations’ if the CPC were dissolved.84 Ioannou branded the anti-Servas faction as the ‘leftists’. The crisis simmered during the years 1941 – 2 and was manifested vividly in 1943. An integral feature of this discussion referred to the fact that the new party could offer its leaders and cooperators a chance at social mobility through election. This was because the Party had grown so large that there was now the real possibility that it could win state elected offices. In fact, in 1943, Servas was elected mayor of Limassol, and in due course it proved that he was keener to hold onto his public rather than his Party office. As mayor, Servas often took a stance at variance to the Party position. For example, he refused to consent to the Party decision to relocate headquarters from Limassol to the capital Nicosia. The matter was eventually resolved in 1945 when AKEL stripped him of his position as secretary general when he chose

THE YEARS OF ILLEGALITY AND TAKING OFF

189

the office of mayor over the post of the leader of AKEL (implied in the decision to relocate Party headquarters).85 Moreover, Ioannou stated that on many occasions, using his influence among like-minded AKEL leaders, Servas overturned CPC decisions that he was obligated to pass on to AKEL.86 One such instance took place in 1943 when the Party decided to run Marcoullis as its candidate in the municipal elections: Servas overturned this decision in the local AKEL committee in Limassol, where his influence was catalytic.87 With reluctance, the Party accepted this decision, fearing a split owing to Servas’s huge influence, especially in Limassol. The amount of influence that Servas enjoyed is explained, according to one view, by the fact that he was one of the very few university graduates among the leadership cadres of AKEL and the CPC at the time, and Cypriot society was accustomed to deference towards the educated strata of society (AKEL’s constituency not excluded).88 In addition, AKEL’s appeal to the Party members and the public at large to enlist in the British military forces in June 1943 (see below) resulted in the enlistment of 11 of the 17-member central committee. As Servas was the mayor of Limassol at the time, he stayed behind; with so many committee members away, he had more freedom to pursue his own agenda. Adams suggests that the decision for the enlistment was a plot by Servas aiming to unload his intra-party competitors.89 The British were keeping a close eye on internal developments in AKEL, and their intelligence indicated, according to Katsiaounis, that Servas was trying to mould the Party along the lines of the BLP.90 British reports noted that Servas was impressed by the British trade union officials during his visit to Britain in April 1945 (two months prior to his deposal as secretary general of AKEL) and that he had decided to orient the Party in a more ‘prolific and reasonable direction’.91 This suggests that the struggle within the Party at the time was more serious than just competition over a few posts. It was a struggle over the character of the Party. British intelligence also revealed that, after his deposal, Servas even considered announcing his own political programme that would appeal to the ‘less extreme’ members, and that would see him prevail in the upcoming AKEL congress (August 1945). The British reports also indicated that he

190

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

hoped to establish himself as a national leader, and in this effort he also planned to look to the rightists for support if he failed to win the majority in the congress. The most crucial issue at this time was the coexistence of the two parties, as this affected both the functioning and the future of AKEL. The CPC held what came to be its last congress in order to decide their future, and at this meeting they took the difficult decision to dissolve the CPC. The convergence of the conference was essentially imposed on Servas by a majority of the central committee of the CPC.92 Sixteen of the central committee members resigned from the body on 15 August 1944, and since they comprised the majority they elected a five-member caretaker committee responsible for organising the fifth congress of the CPC. The introductory document of the caretaker committee questioned AKEL’s status as the vanguard of the working class hitherto. One of the main reasons for this was the acceptance of opportunistic and petty-bourgeois elements by AKEL and held Servas, then secretary general, responsible for this development. The report of the caretaker committee although extremely selfcritical also discusses many features of the CPC’s past policies.93 Chief among them was the admission that the party’s policy for an independent socialist Cyprus was a sectarian mistake that led to isolation; the party should have adopted the enosis policy and lead the people’s struggle based on the right of nations for self-determination. It also discloses information that, in 1938, the CPC decided to pursue a policy of autonomy and for that reason it dispatched an emissary to London to inform the CPB that the people of Cyprus is against union with Greece and to ask for assistance and guidance. In fact, the party charted a plan for an autonomous Cyprus within the British Empire. According to the caretaker committee this position constituted a treachery to the people’s case because it denied the people of Cyprus’s right for self-determination and constituted a justification of the imperialistic exploitation of Cyprus by the British. The same mistake was repeated during the period of coexistence with AKEL. The report also characterises as a serious mistake the CPC’s inability to link with the CPG and thus adjust its tactics to those of

THE YEARS OF ILLEGALITY AND TAKING OFF

191

the CPG; the party of the motherland. This resulted in lack of guidance from a more experienced party and also to theoretical inadequacies, which were mostly evident in the party’s strategy regarding the national issue. The CPC’s inability to link with the CPG and the non-political nature of the link with the CPB was due to the negligence exhibited by the CPC. The conference took place on 11 November 1944. Although various CPC cadres strongly opposed the decision to dissolve the CPC, they eventually gave their consent because they feared that the coexistence would jeopardise the existence of both parties.94 They strongly believed that it was crucial that there be only one party of the working class; two centres of leadership would lead to tension and conflicts that could prove fatal for the working class and the people of Cyprus. They recognised that AKEL had already acquired a mass influence and saw that it would be very difficult ‘to change horses in mid-stream’. This congress was attended by 36 members of the CPC.95 Interestingly, at the time this meeting was held, Servas was still the CPC secretary general but he was not among the participants – this seems to indicate that the old guard of the Party did not trust him. Discussions covered a variety of issues, ranging from Servas’ role, the new Party’s strategy, even the name of the Party, as some members wanted to call it the CPC, and the need to appeal to the middle class. The main concern, however, related to the issue of the working class character of AKEL and the negative influence of petit-bourgeois elements. The discussion ended with the decision to dissolve the CPC and the recognition of the need to safeguard AKEL’s working class character through the continued CPC presence within AKEL. They also decided that the secretary general should have his offices in Nicosia and that he could not assume two posts at the same time. It was therefore decided that Servas had to choose between the two offices. The congress elected a new nine-member central committee tasked with organising within a month the final conference of the CPC, at which time the Party’s changeover to AKEL would be finalised.

192

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

7.5.1 The premises of growth As stated earlier in this chapter, AKEL’s growth into a truly popular party happened quickly. Integral, and at the same time fundamental, to this success was the Party’s reappraisal of its stance on the National Question. Numerous CPC veterans relate that in the late 1930s there were discussions on the line that the Party should endorse with regard to the island’s political future; the results of these discussions were apparent in AKEL’s eventual resolutions.96 While AKEL’s establishing declaration makes no clear reference to the issue of enosis, the signs of change were visible. The Party demonstrated its will to fight for ‘the recognition of the national identity of both communities’.97 The language was vague because any reference to the cause of enosis was considered illegal, since it would fundamentally change the status of Cyprus. The British authorities had given their permission for the founding conference but they attached strict conditions that required caution. Therefore, AKEL’s declaration and statute explicitly referred to the need to use lawful and legal tools of action, within the bounds of the existing laws, when advancing the Party’s goals. Furthermore, the majority of CPC cadres were still opposed to the idea of enosis.98 Nevertheless, AKEL’s position was a radical departure from the CPC’s position on the national issue. The signs of change became gradually apparent. On 30 May 1942, one year after AKEL’s founding congress, the Party addressed a memorandum to the British governor asking that the Atlantic declaration on the peoples’ rights to self-determination be fully implemented in Cyprus, adding that this should be carried out within the context of the statement of the then prime minister of Greece, who spoke of enosis.99 The second Party congress in January 1943 demanded ‘national restoration’ for the people of Cyprus.100 On 16 June 1943 the Party called on its members and supporters to enlist in the Cyprus Regiment of the British army to fight in World War II in order to be able ‘to claim the national, political and social future of Cyprus after the end of the war’.101 The third Party congress in April 1944 asked for the recognition of Cypriots’ right to prepare themselves for national restoration immediately after the liberation of Greece.102 The fourth congress held in July 1945 determined the

THE YEARS OF ILLEGALITY AND TAKING OFF

193

stage that Cyprus was going through as national-liberating and clearly positioned the Party in the enosis camp: ‘we demand the union with mother Greece’.103 The U-turn was officially complete. Moreover, AKEL’s political bureau declared that the CPC policy for autonomy/independence was a mistake that facilitated British imperialism, since it alienated the masses.104 AKEL launched the slogan of self-determination/enosis that remained the Party’s prime goal until 1958 – except for a brief digression in 1947 –8.105 However, AKEL never adhered to the ‘enosis and nothing else matters’ perspective; instead, the Party promoted the slogan ‘enosis forever’, which gave it room to manoeuvre.106 The Party also retained several features of its former policy that differentiated it from the right-wing political forces claiming enosis. These included the struggle for social and workers’ rights, the demand for more political and civil liberties, and the promotion of a united anti-colonial front that included both Greek and Turkish Cypriots and left and right political forces.107 These comprised the other factors that explain AKEL’s growth. In particular, the Party’s domination of the class struggle and its leading role in the labour movement enabled AKEL to put its mark on several labour achievements. Additionally, the Party tried to internationalise the Cyprus problem, both on its own and in cooperation with the Church and the right wing. The first deputation of the left alliance, which included AKEL and other cooperating personalities of the centre, was sent to Athens and London in 1946– 7.108 The Greek government refused to meet with them because they considered the Cyprus question to be a bipartite issue between Greece and the UK and that its solution should be placed within the traditional context of Greek–British friendship. It is important to place the Party’s U-turn on the issue of enosis in context. The first and most important reason for the change was the need for the Party to adjust its programme to the feelings of the vast majority of the population of Cyprus (especially the Greek Cypriots) who demanded enosis.109 This was vital if the Party wanted to penetrate the masses. Enosis was long established as a hegemonic

194

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

ideology, and if the Party wished to avoid the political ghetto it had to make a radical transformation of position. For this reason the Party decided to support enosis, accompanied by a renewed proposal to the Church leadership and the other right-wing political forces for a common stance vis-a`-vis colonialism. To this end it proposed the establishment of an island-wide National Council, which it expected would cover all Cypriot political forces regardless of their different social aspirations.110 However, the nationalists and the Church denied any cooperation with the communists because they believed that their stance in favour of enosis was insincere and opportunistic, and because AKEL included ‘alien national elements’.111 It is also important to consider the developments in Greece in the early 1940s. The CPG and its allies dominated the anti-fascist campaign (and armed struggle) after Italy and Germany invaded Greece, and they provided the backbone of the resistance movement that rendered the CPG the most powerful actor in Greek politics. Those developments were viewed with gratification by AKEL, who believed in a victorious and socialist Greece, which Cyprus would gladly join. The united front of the left and other political forces in Greece inspired AKEL to pursue a similar course of action in the Cyprus municipal elections in the 1940s and early 1950s. We also need to consider the victory of the Allies in World War II, and particularly the emergence of the United Soviet Socialist Republic as a world power which symbolised the vision for a different world, stimulated further the Party’s ambitions of dominating the anti-colonial struggle in Cyprus and possibly directing the island’s course towards a socialist future, or at least keeping it out of NATO. AKEL presented itself as realistic and progressive party representing the interests of the working people,112 acting within the boundaries of the law113 and calling for unity among all Cypriots. These positions and the Party’s anti-fascist campaign114 served to refute the CPC’s previous bad image among the population. In addition, AKEL monopolised the class cleavage and loudly took the initiative of anti-colonial struggle giving it a mass character. The elections that took place in the 1940s illustrate the success of the

THE YEARS OF ILLEGALITY AND TAKING OFF

195

Party’s new position.115 The Party’s electoral strength in the municipal elections of 1943, 1946, 1949 and 1953 rose to cover more than 40 per cent of the electorate, in some cases – clear evidence of the new Party’s mass character. The change in position made it possible for the Party to pursue alliances with various centre-right and centre-left personalities, and this was key to breaking the Party’s isolation. AKEL managed to elect Party cadres or like-minded candidates to the mayor’s office in a number of municipalities. Several auxiliary organisations were established in the early 1940s: AON (Progressive Youth Organisation) – later EDON (United Democratic Youth Organisation), EAK (Cypriot Farmers Union) – later EKA (Cypriot Farmers Union), PODG (Pancyprian Organisation of Democratic Women) – later POGO (Pancyprian Federation of Women Organisations), etc. that served the party’s goal for massification. The 1940s lay the foundations for the growth of AKEL and its consolidation in Cyprus society that exists to this day.

CONCLUSION AGENT OF SOCIAL CHANGE AND RADICALISATION

Unlike other schemes of lower strata mobilisation, the CPC was a political movement with a specific programme for radical reform – in other words, it was politically conscious in its demands. It was an organised movement for social and political reform, not a spontaneous rising of the poorer strata. The establishment of the Party constituted a huge step forward in the founding members’ efforts to avoid working class fragmentation and to establish the independence of the proletariat. Ever since, the CPC has represented lower class politics, building a distinct political culture based on a different value system. The Cypriot Left based its political identity on representation of the working class, solidarity with the Turkish Cypriots, and an anti-nationalistic, anti-imperialistic rhetoric. Thus the establishment of the CPC signalled a huge change in the political life of the island. It had long-term consequences for the internal balance of power within the Greek community, in particular, and within the political system more generally. These consequences were not initially apparent, but for the first time, a political force of the lower classes and the labouring poor challenged the dominant position of the bourgeois nationalist class and the Church and claimed leadership of the anti-colonial struggle. It gave expression to the protest of marginalised social groups and classes, not as a form of simple resistance or an incidental revolt, but as a lasting political

CONCLUSION

197

proposal. The CPC was an agent of action for social change, and at the political level expressed the radicalism of the popular strata. The new reality the Party brought to the Cypriot political scene entailed the autonomous political and organisational presence of the Cypriot workers and peasants. CPC policies emphasised satisfaction of social and economic needs, cooperation with the Turks of Cyprus, and rejection of the nationalist rhetoric and ideas promoted by the bourgeois politicians and the Church. It marked the beginning of a rupture in the traditional mode of political organisation, which was essentially a number of bourgeois groups, (most) guided by the Church, competing for power on the basis of political clientelism.1 Thus the establishment of the CPC placed Cypriot political life on new terms. Through its organisation and its political discourse, it challenged the religious domination of political life.2 The CPC aimed to reinforce its political and ideological singularity through its total rejection of the policy of enosis. The Party’s political discourse was more dangerous for the pro-unionist politicians than for the colonial administration, at least until the late 1930s, because it threatened to upset the internal balance of power in the Greek community. For this reason, the nationalist anti-communist discourse was more immediate and intense than that of the British.3 Gradually, though, the CPC faced strong reaction from British authorities due to its consistent anti-imperialistic rhetoric and action. The CPC entered the political arena claiming to represent only a part of the society and not the whole society – this is a characteristic of all mass parties. It succeeded in consolidating itself among the electorate, despite the limited influence suggested by its electoral percentages. Cyprus’ late development proved decisive in this direction. The fact that the CPC’s appearance coincided with the formation of the working class and the fact that the majority of its members were artisans and wage-labourers allowed the Party to acquire strong support among the most conscious section of this class and then extend its membership to the majority of the working class. According to Lipset, radical movements such as communist parties, particularly in the less developed countries, appealed to the masses

198

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

that had been ‘uprooted’ from their environment.4 In Cyprus, it was the dispossessed peasants who provided the source from which the working class emerged. They represented a significant proportion of the population, and they were forced out of their agricultural livelihood, where a vertical form of political organisation marked by clientelism prevailed, to the towns, where they became available for the new horizontal class organisation that was developing.5 The CPC’s increased infiltration into these groups was also a reaction to worsening economic conditions, for which the existing political establishment and the Church were unable, or unwilling, to provide satisfactory solutions. Although the CPC’s roots lay in the socioeconomic conditions, it was essentially a political party offering political solutions to those problems and also to other major problems of the Cypriot society. It offered a programme and prospects to all those who saw themselves as victims of the ruling class. The Party’s success among the workers and peasants can also be explained by its use of a simple vocabulary and a terminology appropriate to their lower level of education at the time. The attempt to organise the popular masses was the starting point for the aim of liberating them from the tutelage of the bourgeoisie and the Church. This was the sine qua non for this class’ independent political presence, where it had its own candidates, its own programme and its own means of communication. To achieve these aims, the CPC worked intensely to promote the political education of its supporters through lectures, debates and literature, etc. At the same time, the Party was aware that its autonomous political presence meant it needed to be independent of the kind of financing and dependence that dominated political life at the time. This necessitated a different kind of party – a party that would give weight to its members, to quantity and not to quality, shifting the weight from the few to the masses. The CPC dominated the working class early on and since then has never faced a substantial threat from a socialist or social democratic party. Due to Cyprus’ delayed economic development, the creation of the working class did not precede the appearance of the Party itself; in Western Europe, the formation of the working class preceded the

CONCLUSION

199

October Revolution and the consequent establishment of the communist parties, while in Cyprus the opposite occurred. This particularity of Cyprus could only favour the communist movement. Historically, social democracy appeared in the economically developed countries of Western Europe. The bourgeois classes in these countries needed class collaboration in the context of their colonial policy and hence did not open conflictual class fronts domestically. This policy averted the diversion of social democratic parties onto a more revolutionary course. Cyprus followed a different pattern of trade union mobilisation from the rest of Europe, because the trade union movement appeared after the CPC’s establishment and as a product of the Party’s efforts.6 The Cypriot trade union movement was therefore unified under the leadership of the CPC. The unity of the labour movement was also related to the competition it encountered. Lipset and Rokkan noted that the labour movement was much more divided in countries where the bourgeoisie and the Church were openly or covertly opposed to each other, rather than in countries where the Church aligned with the rising bourgeoisie against a common external enemy, as was the case in Cyprus.7 The absence of competition in the broader realm of left-wing politics and the fact that the right-wing camp (Church and bourgeoisie) succeeded in reconciling its differences contributed to the absence of significant divisions within the Cypriot labour movement in the period under examination. This was despite the (ineffectual) attempts to create rival trade union organisations as a counterweight to those controlled by the CPC. It was not until the mid-1940s that a rival labour organisation emerged – SEK (Synomospondia Ergaton Kiprou, the Confederation of Cypriot Workers), which was established by the Church and the bourgeoisie as a counter-weight to AKEL’s dominance among the labouring masses.8 Like all rising parties of the working class, the CPC faced serious obstacles in its endeavour to gain access to the institutions and structures of society.9 Rokkan describes four institutional thresholds that must be crossed before any new political movement can be incorporated into the political system.10 Examining the case of the

200

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

CPC in the light of Rokkan’s thresholds, we find that, in fact, it did not fully cross any of them. Regarding the first threshold, legitimation, although the CPC may have ensured (or the authorities were tolerant towards) the right was able to propagate its views, to organise and participate in elections, this was allowed only with serious restrictions and in the face of numerous obstacles. Its members were under surveillance, its newspapers were forced to stop publication on several occasions and the Party itself was banned after 1931. The second threshold refers to the extension of political rights to the Party’s supporters on a par with the established strata (threshold of incorporation). This did not happen at all. The overwhelming majority of its potential supporters did not have political rights, nor did they acquire them, because during the period when political rights existed, prior to 1931, they continued to be linked to property ownership. Nor did the CPC succeed in winning parliamentary seats (threshold of representation) or entering the decision-making centres of the Greek community (threshold of executive power), which are the other two thresholds noted by Rokkan. In trying to acquire a foothold within society and within the political structures and activities, the CPC faced a number of limitations and difficulties, stemming either from the external environment or from its own weaknesses. First, the electoral law excluded the greater part of the electorate, and especially those sectors of society from which the Party might draw support. Second was the fact the Party’s positions on particular issues, such as religion and the National Question, were not acceptable to either the masses or the other political forces. They alienated all the other political forces, rendering infeasible the Party’s demand for a united front. Third, the working class’ limited numerical weight within the Cypriot population, due to the structure of the Cypriot economy, did not allow the Party to acquire a mass character. According to Servas, the CPC had considerable appeal among the organised workers, but these were not the majority of the working class. In contrast, the Party failed to gain serious support within the broad popular strata, especially among the peasants.11 This only changed in the late 1930s, and in particular in the 1940s. Fourth, the strong reaction of the

CONCLUSION

201

established ruling class and the colonial administration and finally, the Party’s own organisational weaknesses during the early phase did not permit its growth to a satisfactory degree. It should not be conceived as paradoxical that the CPC’s radical message was met with fierce resistance both by the local establishment and the British. The local establishment, i.e., the Church and the rising bourgeoisie, fully controlled the mechanisms of socialisation within the Greek community: the press, the education system, the various clubs and the Church itself. Using these mechanisms they could effectively repulse any new ideas that would threaten their conservative hegemony among their community. The British, however, recognised that the new party could potentially undermine the pillars of the entire socio-political system of the island and their very presence on it. They therefore utilised the various state mechanisms of censorship and repression to deal with the new party. They constantly dragged Party members and supporters into court; the police raided the Party offices and the houses of members. Given this reaction it was very difficult for the CPC to create openings for itself within society. To a large degree, the massification of a communist party will depend on a country’s institutional structures and the party’s organisational capacities. Under conditions where political action is largely restricted, the demand for a mass party will be essentially a utopian dream. The fact that the Party was initially small in numbers and forced to act in secret demanded efficiency and education. These conditions led to the concept of the professional revolutionary, which emerged as the organisational cornerstone of communist parties.12 The CPC was hierarchically structured with strong discipline, key to maintaining its secrecy and ensuring its survival. These organisational characteristics corresponded to the international experiences of the communist movement as a strong organised and disciplined movement firmly entrenched through a formidable organisational network.13 Sartori suggested that the organisational support for every system of beliefs, whether religious or socialist, is of crucial importance for the strength of the movement. Whenever the class appeal surpasses that of religion, this is explained by the

202

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

organisational dominance of the mass party in relation to the Church, which had been the main form of organisation before the appearance of political parties.14 The CPC was an extra-parliamentary organisation; as such it functioned outside the norms of the traditional political world and developed all the characteristics Duverger attributed to parties of this type. It was more centralised, with greater ideological cohesion and discipline, and less willing to attribute particular significance to parliament and elections. As a result of the conditions under which this type of party was created, it did not develop vested interests within the existing political (or social and economic) institutions, justifying its opposition to them and also to the system overall.15 The parties of the lower class assumed country-specific characteristics; they diverged in terms of strength, organisational unity, ideological orientation and degree of incorporation into, or alienation from, each country’s polity. These variations resulted from the different historical conditions in each country.16 The conditions under which the CPC was born, the reaction of the existing political establishment and the colonial authorities, and its ideological programme decisively influenced and shaped the character of the Party, thus substantiating Panebianco’s remark on the influence of any party’s generic factors on its future course, i.e., the formative period of an organisation strongly affects its future structure and programme.17 Unlike the populists and other agrarian leaders, the new political force could not be assimilated by the traditional conservative and nationalist political world; consequently, it was impossible for the CPC to become acceptable.18 The appearance of movements alienated from the state and embracing revolutionary Marxism as their official ideology was also the result of governmental actions. Wherever the working class was denied a share in political power, the socialist movement displayed a revolutionary spirit.19 In the various European countries there were important differences in the attitudes of the established and rising elites to the demands of the working people, which clearly influenced the development of the unions and the socialist parties. For example, in Britain and Scandinavia, although the elite were actively resistant

CONCLUSION

203

to the workers’ demands, they also tended to be open and pragmatic, with little or no repression. These were the countries with the largest socialist parties and those most incorporated into the system. In countries like Austria, Germany, Italy and Spain, where the dividing lines were deeper and the states attempted repression, the labour movements isolated themselves. The anti-system orientation of large parts of the European working class was brought to a climax immediately after the Russian Revolution.20 Cyprus resembles the second group of countries in this regard. Consequently, the CPC’s radicalism (a term Geary interprets as meaning targeted action beyond the short-term improvement of living standards and some form of economic reconstruction)21 was helped by the reactions of both the British and the local establishment. Despite the CPC’s radicalism, it did give signs of adapting to the existing social situation, for example, in its idea of an alliance with the bourgeoisie and the middle classes and its use of trade union activity. This indicates an understanding of the objective reality: the CPC was facing not only the strongest colonial power in the world but also the reaction of the political and religious elite and significant sectors of the bourgeoisie. In order to pursue its aims it therefore opted to modify its demands and utilise all available channels. This meant using a combination of moderation and radicalism, which confirms Lipset’s finding concerning working class organisation in unions and labour parties: on the one hand, this strategy creates a mechanism for the expression of conflict, but on the other, because this integrates the workers into the political body they have legal means to satisfy their needs, which will tend to moderate their revolutionary spirit.22 The tactic of adaptation was far more evident in the AKEL era. Panayiotou believes that AKEL succeeded in consolidating its presence because it adapted its ideology to the historical and structural environment of Cyprus.23 Despite these weaknesses and limitations, the appearance of the CPC definitively changed the political landscape. The various national organisations, set up by the bourgeoisie and the Church to promote enosis, did not fight to improve the position of the poorest social strata, because they represented the bourgeoisie and the large

204

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

landowners. This gave the Party the opportunity to infiltrate a particular sector of society, although this did not result in a change within Cypriot society to the degree that the balance of power was affected. Power continued to rest in the hands of the bourgeoisie and the Church. In this period, those interested in solving the problem of the popular strata were not yet well enough organised, nor were they in a position decisively influence political affairs. Although the CPC did not become a mass party, the fact that were more strikes – which were guided to a great extent by its members – and it had control over the trade union movement during these years, indicate that it was becoming a serious political actor. Although the Party’s influence and electoral weight were largely restricted to the Limassol district and, to a lesser extent, Famagusta, the very existence of the Party and its activity, channeled through the trade unions, signalled a change in the balance of power. Furthermore, the working class was gradually acquiring weight, even though it was still excluded from local and national political life. This new balance of power explains the gradual achievement of working class demands such as the right to organise, improve wages and working hours, and so on, towards the end of the 1930s and especially in the 1940s. This new balance of forces also led the Church and the right-wing camp to take more of an interest in the social question in subsequent years. The CPC laid the foundations for an entirely different type of party, a party based on its membership and not some prominent figures or patron–client relationships. The new party was based on collective work, proper organisational structures, continuous contact with its membership and the working class at large mostly through the trade unions, and most importantly, a cohesive ideology. These features were unprecedented at the time and gave the party a distinct identity. The fourth congress of the Party, held in Derynia in March 1940, began to examine its position on the National Question and the prospect of massification of the movement, and to seek a way out of illegal action. This was to occur a year later, with the foundation of AKEL.24 The two parties shared the same Marxist ideology, but they differed in their mode of action, organisation and ways of attaining

CONCLUSION

205

influence over Cypriots. The CPC remained a relatively small group with limited influence and rigid positions on national and social issues. AKEL, in contrast, projected a moderate public image both in its leadership and its positions on various issues. These features ensured AKEL’s success from the outset. AKEL introduced several innovations with respect to Party operation, methods and practices. It successfully implemented democratic centralism, through a well-structured organisation with an active and militant membership. AKEL’s establishment led to an organisational reaction from the Right,25 such that Cyprus’ political landscape would never be the same from that point on. With the founding of AKEL, the island entered the era of mass politics, an era of ideological division between left and right.

NOTES

Introduction 1. Dunphy, Richard and Bale, Tim (2007). ‘Red flag still flying?’, Party Politics, 13 (3), pp. 129– 46. 2. Lefkis, Yiannis (1984), The Roots, Limassol [in Greek]. The author was one of the Party’s founding members. 3. Adams, W. Thomas (1971). AKEL: The Communist Party of Cyprus. California: Hoover Institution Press. 4. Christophorou, Christophoros (2006). ‘Party change and development in Cyprus (1995 – 2005)’, South European Society and Politics, 11 (3– 4), pp. 513– 5. Christophorou, Christophoros (2008). ‘A new communist surprise – where next? Presidential elections and in the Republic of Cyprus, February 2008’, South European Society and Politics, 13 (2), pp. 217– 35. 5. Yiallourides, Christodoulos (1993). ‘The Cyprus party system’, in Rascke, J. and Katsoulis, E. (eds), The Political Parties of Western Europe. Salonika: Paratiritis Publications [in Greek]. 6. Attalides, Michalis (1986). ‘Parties in Cyprus (1878 – 1955)’. Nicosia Municipality Publications, pp. 123– 53 [in Greek]. 7. Papageorgiou, Spyros (1984). AKEL: the Duplicate of KKE. Athens: Ladias Publications [in Greek]. 8. Panayiotou, Andreas (2006). ‘Lenin in the coffee-shop: the communist alternative and forms of non-western modernity’. Postcolonial Studies, 9 (3), pp. 267– 80. 9. Dunphy and Bale, ‘Red flag still flying?’.

NOTES TO PAGES 2 –7

207

10. Leventis, Giorgos (2001). ‘Self-government – enosis or immediate enosis: the influence of Zakhariadis on the shift in AKEL’s strategy (November 1948 – January 1949)’. The Cyprus Review, 13 (1), pp. 75 – 87. 11. Ioannou, Fifis (2004). The Left and the Cyprus problem. Nicosia: Intercollege Press [in Greek]. 12. Digklis, Pavlos (2010). AKEL: Speaking Boldly and Frankly, Nicosia [in Greek]. 13. Charalambous, Giorgos (2007). ‘The strongest communists in Europe: accounting for AKEL’s electoral success’, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 23 (3), pp. 425– 56. 14. Katsourides, Yiannos (2012). ‘Travelling against the tide: The Cypriot communist left in the post-1990s era’, Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 13 (2), pp. 187– 209. 15. Katsiaounis, Rolandos (2000). The Constitutional Treaty of 1946– 48, Nicosia: Cyprus Research Centre [in Greek]. Katsiaounis, Rolandos (2007). ‘Cyprus 1931– 1959: The Politics of the Anti-Colonial Movement’. Cyprus Research Centre Yearbook, XXXIII, Nicosia, pp. 441– 69. 16. Servas, Ploutis (1985). The Cyprus Problem: Responsibilities, 2nd edition, Athens: Grammi Publications [in Greek]. 17. Phantis, Andreas (2005). The Cypriot Trade Union Movement during British Colonialism, 1878 –1960, Volumes I and II, Nicosia [in Greek]. 18. Varnavas, Pantelis (1997). Joint Greek and Turkish Cypriots Labour Struggles, Nicosia: PEO Publications [in Greek]. 19. Lipset, Seymour Martin and Rokkan, Stein (1967). ‘Cleavage structures, party systems and voter alignments: an introduction’, in Lipset and Rokkan (eds), Party Systems and Voter Alignments, pp. 1 –64, New York: Free Press. 20. Mair, Peter (2006). ‘Cleavages’, in Katz, R. and Crotty, W. (eds) Party Politics, London: Sage Publications, pp. 372– 3. 21. Scarrow, Susan (2006). ‘The 19th century origins of modern political parties: the unwanted emergence of party-based politics’, in Katz and Crotty (eds), Party Politics, p. 20. 22. Lipset and Rokkan, ‘Cleavage structures’, p. 5. 23. Lipset, Seymour Martin (1963). Political Man, New York: Anchor Books, pp. xxii– xxiii. 24. Daalder, Hans (1990). ‘The reach of the party system’, in Mair, Peter (eds), The West European Party System, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 87. 25. Vassalo, Francesca and Clyde, Wilcox (2006). ‘Party as a carrier of ideas’, in Katz and Crotty (eds), Party Politics, p. 415; Mozaffar, Shaheen (2006). ‘Party, ethnicity and democratization in Africa’, in Katz and Crotty (eds), Party Politics, p. 242. 26. Siavelis, Peter (2006). ‘Party and social structure’, in Katz and Crotty (eds) Party Politics, p. 361. 27. Scarrow, ‘Origins’, p. 21. 28. Sartori, Giovanni (1990). ‘The sociology of parties: a critical review’, in Mair, Peter (eds), The West European Party System, pp. 150– 84.

208

NOTES TO PAGES 7 –11

29. Spourdalakis, Michalis (1990). On the Theory and Study of Political Parties, Athens: Exantas Publications, p. 46 [in Greek]. See also Ostrogorski, Moisei (1982). Democracy and the Organisation of Political Parties, Volume I, England: Transaction Books, p. 154. 30. Beaud, Michel (2008). History of Capitalism, Athens: Electra Publications, pp. 211, 216 [in Greek]. 31. Hobsbawm, J. Eric (2001). Special People, Athens: Themelio Publications, p. 68 [in Greek]. 32. McPherson, Crawford Brough (1986). Democratic Theory: Essays in Retrieval, Athens: Gnoseis Publication, pp. 72 – 4 [in Greek]. 33. Michels, Robert (1997). Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy, New York: The Free Press, p. 61. 34. Rokkan, Stein (1970). Citizen, Elections, Parties, New York: McKay Co, pp. 109, 112. 35. Lipset, Political Man, p. 89. 36. Rokkan, Stein (1968). ‘The structuring of mass politics in the smaller European democracies: a developmental typology’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 10 (2) pp. 173– 210. 37. Rokkan, Parties, p. 110. The most characteristic example was the German Social Democratic Party in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. 38. Duverger, Maurice (1954). Political Parties, London: Methuen & Co. Ltd, pp. xxx – xxxiv. LaPalombara, Joseph and Weiner, Myron (1966). ‘The origin and development of political parties’, in LaPalombara and Weiner (eds), Political Parties and Political Development, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, pp. 9 – 10. 39. La Palombara and Weiner, ‘The Origin of Parties’, pp. 404– 5. 40. Krouwel, Andre (2006). ‘Party models’ in Katz and Crotty (eds), Party Politics, p. 254. 41. Mayer, Nonna (2005). Electoral Behaviour, Athens: Savvallas Publications, p. 158 [in Greek]. 42. Molyneux, John (1986). Marxism and the Party, 3rd edition, Great Britain: Bookmarks Publications, p. 11. 43. Lenin (1976). One Step Back, Two Steps Forward, Athens: Sygxroni Epoxi Publications, pp. 68 – 9 [in Greek]. 44. Mair (2006), ‘Cleavages’, p. 372. 45. Sartori, ‘Sociology’, p. 154. 46. Mayer, Electoral Behaviour, p. 102. 47. Rokkan, Parties, pp. 100, 421. 48. Michels, Political Parties, p. 330. 49. Lipset, Political Man, pp. 199, 263, 267. See also Lipset, Seymour (1970). ‘Political cleavages in developed and emerging polities’, in Allardt, Erik and Rokkan, Stein (eds), Mass Politics, New York: Free Press, p. 26. 50. Michels, Political Parties, p. 331.

NOTES TO PAGES 11 –18

209

51. Hobsbawm, J. Eric (2000). Age of Capital 1848– 1875, Athens: Cultural Foundation of the National Bank of Greece, p. 337 [in Greek]. 52. Sartori, ‘The sociology of parties’, p. 169. 53. Allardt, Erik (1970). ‘Types of protest and alienation’, in Allardt, Erik and Rokkan, Stein (eds), Mass Politics, p. 108. 54. Cited in Molyneux, Marxism and the Party, p. 11. 55. Spourdalakis, Theory of Political Parties, p. 91. 56. Newman, Michael (2006). Socialism. A Short Introduction, Athens: Greek Letters Publications, pp. 39, 53 [in Greek]. 57. Sartori, ‘The sociology of parties’, p. 160. 58. Molyneux, Marxism and the Party, pp. 16 – 17, 33 – 5, 45. 59. For more on this relationship, see Geary, Dick (1988). European Labour Movement (1848– 1939), Salonika: Paratiritis Publications, pp. 72 –4 [in Greek].

Chapter 1 The Particularities of Cyprus: Late Economic Development and Belated Nation Building 1. Brown, Vivienne (2003). ‘The development of the economy’, in Hall, Stewart and Gieben, Bram (2003). The Emergence of Modernity. Economy, Society, Politics, Culture, Athens: Savvallas Publications, pp. 208, 211 [in Greek]. 2. Katsiaounis, Rolandos (1996). Labour, Society and Politics in Cyprus During the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century, Texts and Studies of the History of Cyprus, XXIV, Nicosia: Cyprus Research Center, p. 29. See also Census of Cyprus of 1921, London, 1922, pp. 12 – 13 where the same point is raised: ‘Cyprus is, to a large degree, a country of peasant proprietors. 46,321 persons were returned as owning land; that is to say, one person in every 6.7 of the country’s total population at the time claimed to own land, a proportion of 14.9 per cent. Approximately 30 per cent of the island’s land was private. 3. EVKAF was a pious foundation for administering the Turkish land in Cyprus mainly for utility purposes. 4. Ciftlik (Turkish word) is a large private estate. 5. Sant Cassia, Paul (1986). ‘Religion, politics and ethnicity in Cyprus during the Turkocratia (1571– 1878)’, European Journal of Sociology, 27 (1), p. 10. 6. Census of Cyprus of 1881, London, 1884, p. 6. 7. Millet is a term for the confessional communities in the Ottoman Empire. It refers to an administering system under which religious communities were allowed to run their own affairs. 8. Englezakis, Venediktos (1984). The Church of Cyprus during the 18th and 19th Centuries, Nicosia Municipality Publications, 309 [in Greek]. Persianis, Panayiotis (1978). Church and State in Cyprus Education, Nicosia, pp. 9 –12; Sant Cassia, ‘Religion, politics and ethnicity in Cyprus’ pp. 5 – 15.

210

NOTES TO PAGES 18 –21

9. Katsiaounis, Labour, p. 13. 10. Kyrris, Costas (1984). ‘An anatomy of the Ottoman regime in Cyprus 1570– 1878’, pp. 65 – 82, Nicosia Municipality Publications [in Greek]. Katsiaounis, Rolandos (2004). ‘Social, national and political antitheses in Cyprus during British colonialism 1878– 1950’, Nicosia Municipality Publications, p. 19 [in Greek]. 11. Katsiaounis, Labour, p. 60. 12. Tzermias, Pavlos (2001). History of the Republic of Cyprus, Vol. I, Athens: Libro Publications, p. 71 [in Greek]. 13. Sophocleous, Andreas (1995). Contribution to the History of the Cypriot Press, Vol. A, 1878– 1890, Nicosia: Intercollege Press, p. 21 [in Greek]. 14. Census of Cyprus of 1911, London, 1912, p. 15. In the previous censuses no figures on the literacy levels are provided. 15. Held, David (2003). ‘The evolution of the modern state’, in Hall and Gieben (eds), Modernity, p. 156 [in Greek]. 16. Georghallides, George (1979). A Political and Administrative History of Cyprus 1918– 1926 with a Survey of the Foundations of British Rule, Nicosia: Cyprus Research Centre, pp. 5 – 6. See also Ioannou, Yiannis (2007). ‘Socioeconomic development and nationalism: nationalism and advertising in the Cypriot press, 1900– 1931’, pp. 383– 413, Yearbook of the Cyprus Research Centre, XXXIII, Nicosia, pp. 396– 7 [in Greek]. 17. Eptanisa is a complex of islands in the Ionian Sea. ‘The Eptanisiakon problem and the Cyprus problem’, Eleftheria (Freedom), 30 March 1929, p. 1. Demetriou, Kyriakos (1999). Victorian Texts on Cyprus 1878– 1891, Nicosia: Kykkos Monastery Research Centre, p. 4. Sophocleous, Contribution, p. 261. 18. Hill, George (1952). A History of Cyprus, Vol. IV, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 286– 7. 19. Georghallides, George (1994). ‘British colonialism 1878– 1960. A brief reappraisal’, Nicosia Municipality Publications, p. 81 [in Greek]. 20. For a more thorough description on the discussions that took place within British government about Cyprus acquisition see Hill, History of Cyprus, pp. 269– 92. See also Storrs, Ronald (1945). Orientations, London: Nicholson and Watson, pp. 463– 4. 21. Georghallides, History of Cyprus, p. 24. 22. Mouzelis, Nicos (1987). Parliamentarism and Industrialisation in the Semiperiphery, Athens: Themelio Publications, p. 37 [in Greek]. 23. Georghallides, ‘British colonialism’, p. 81. On the liberal model see McPherson, Democracy, p. 19. 24. Georghallides, ‘British colonialism’, p. 84. 25. Georghallides, History of Cyprus, p. 24. 26. Census of 1881, p. 6. 27. Census of 1931, p. 1. 28. In the population census of 1881, the inhabitants of the five major towns of Cyprus were as follows (within the municipal boundaries): Nicosia 11,536,

NOTES TO PAGES 21 – 24

29.

30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36.

37.

38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50.

211

Larnaca 7,833, Limassol 6,131, Famagusta 2,564 and Paphos 2,204. The respective figures in the 1931 census were: Nicosia 23,507, Larnaca 11,725, Limassol 15,066, Famagusta 8,771 and Paphos 4,467. ‘Taxes, Duties and other sources of revenue’, Cyprus Blue Book 1892– 93, pp. 4 – 44 and Cyprus Blue Book 1915– 16, pp. 1 – 60. The tax system included, among others, taxes on real estate, capitation, the tribute, the tithe (i.e., 1/10 on all agricultural products), military tax for non Muslims, Mohammedans, taxes on salt, ships, silk, duty taxes, etc. Cyprus Blue Book 1883– 84, p. 4. See also Cyprus Blue Book 1901– 02, p. 7. Turkish word standing for the president of the village council. Katsiaounis, Labour, pp. 99 – 100. Noussis, Christophoros (1951). ‘Credit capital in Cyprus countryside’, Democrat, 4 (12), p. 228 [in Greek]. Noussis was pseudonym of the economist Christophis Oikonomides. ‘The victory of 27 September’, Evagoras, 4 October 1901, p. 1. Holland, Robert (1999). Britain and the Cyprus Revolt, Athens: Potamos Publications, p. 27 [in Greek]. Sophocleous, Contribution, p. 20. Katsiaounis, Labour, p. 72. Georghallides, Giorgos (1984). Last Years of Turkoctratia in Cyprus, the Transfer of Cyprus to the British and the Consequences, Nicosia Municipality Publications, p. 25 [in Greek]. Hill, History of Cyprus, pp. 444, 457. Richter, Heinz (2003). ‘The Cypriot Communist Party and the Comintern’, The Cyprus Review, 15, p. 101; Katsiaounis, Rolandos (1994). ‘Vote and stand in the first parliamentary elections of British colonialism in 1883’, pp. 309– 45, Yearbook of the Cyprus Research Centre, XX, Nicosia, p. 312 [in Greek]. The Tribute refers to the obligation of Britain to pay the Sultan £92,800 as a compensation for the buying of Cyprus. See CO 67/219/13, No. X7955, 19 November 1926. Eleftheria, 12 October 1927, p. 2. ‘Acknowledging what is fair’, Eleftheria, 3 September 1927, p. 1. ‘The report of the tax committee’, Eleftheria, 10 May 1930, p. 2. ‘Joint memorial of the Holy Synod and the deputies to the Minister of Colonies’, Eleftheria, 22 October 1930, pp. 1 – 2. CO 67/113, Confidential, W. F. Haynes-Smith, High Commissioner to J. Chamberlain, Secretary of State for the Colonies, 29 October, 1898. Katsiaounis, Labour, pp. 193– 4. ‘Tax system’, Eleftheria, 8 January 1927, p. 1. Hill, History of Cyprus, p. 461. Census 1891, p. 50. Cyprus Blue Book 1929, p. 388. ‘The migration of Cypriots’, Eleftheria, 4 March 1916, p. 2. For example, Alitheia, 10 December 1887, p. 1. ‘Expatriation’, Eleftheria, 13 July 1913, p. 1. ‘The reasons for the misfortune of peasants’, Eleftheria, 1 June 1918, p. 1.

212

NOTES TO PAGES 24 –29

51. Tornaritis Kriton, in Eleftheria, 13 November 1926, p. 1. 52. Katalanos, Nicolaos (2003, first publication 1914). Cyprus Album Zenon, Nicosia, p. 58 [in Greek]. Noussis, ‘Credit capital’, pp. 227– 8. 53. ‘Usury’, Foni tis Kiprou (Voice of Cyprus), 23 November 1901, p. 1. 54. N. Lanitis cited in Richter, Heinz (2007). History of Cyprus, Volume A’ (1878 – 1949), Estia Publications, Athens, pp. 261– 2 [in Greek]. 55. ‘Usury’, Foni tis Kiprou, 23 November 1901, p. 1; N. Kl. Lanitis, in Eleftheria, 16 October 1926, p. 1. 56. ‘The peasant issue of Cyprus’, Neos Anthropos ( New Man), 18 February 1925, p. 1. 57. ‘A worrying situation’, Eleftheria, 16 September 1922, p. 1. ‘The farmers seek a way out’, Eleftheria, 7 October 1922, p. 1. ‘The impoverishment of the Cypriot people’, Eleftheria, 4 September 1926, p. 1. Tornaritis, Kriton in Eleftheria, 13 November 1926, p. 1. 58. CO 67/22714, No. 143227, Governor Stevenson to the Minister of Colonies Amery, 30 January 1929. 59. Georghallides, History of Cyprus, p. 429. 60. ‘Humiliation of peasants’ ownership’, Eleftheria, 18 July 1923, p. 3. 61. ‘The selling prices of the farmers’ estates’, Eleftheria, 11 August 1923, p. 2. 62. ‘Usury revels’, Neos Anthropos, 23 June 1928, p. 3. 63. Georghallides, History of Cyprus, pp. 332– 4. 64. Ibid. 65. ‘Agricultural bank’, Pyrsos (Torch), 24 December 1923, p. 1. 66. Georghallides, History of Cyprus, p. 334. 67. ‘The cooperative credit societies’, Eleftheria, 6 November 1930, p. 3. 68. Surridge, B. J. (1930), A Survey of Rural Life in Cyprus, Nicosia. 69. Ibid. 70. Faustmann, Hubert (1998). ‘Clientelism in the Greek Cypriot community of Cyprus under British rule’, The Cyprus Review, 10 (2), p. 55. Katsiaounis, Labour, pp. 139– 58. 71. Seligman, Lester (1964). ‘Elite recruitment and political development’, The Journal of Politics, 26 (3), p. 618. 72. Hill, History of Cyprus, p. 306. Tzermias, History, p. 70. Sophocleous, Andreas (1997). The First Greek Newspapers of Nicosia: From the early Years of British Colonialism until the Annexation of Cyprus in 1914, Nicosia: Intercollege Press, p. 7. Ioannou, ‘Development’, p. 384. 73. Katsiaounis, Labour, p. 176. 74. ‘The peasant issue of Cyprus’, Neos Anthropos, 18 February 1925, p. 1. See also section 1.3.1. 75. N. K. Lanitis, in Eleftheria, 16 October 1926, p. 1. 76. ‘A survey of Cypriot mines’, Nea Laiki (New Popular), 6 kai 13 May 1927, p. 1. The paper publishes the survey conducted by the British supervisor of Cypriot mines.

NOTES TO PAGES 29 –33

213

77. See for instance ‘The memorial of Cypriot parliamentarians to the Minister of Colonies’, Eleftheria, 11 September 1929, pp. 1 – 2, 14 September 1929, p. 4. 78. Richter, ‘The Cypriot Communist Party’, p. 101. It is astonishing to note that when a six-day working week was voted in 1928 rendering Sunday an obligatory holiday, the mine companies were excepted. 79. Noussis, ‘Credit capital’, p. 229. 80. Servas, Ploutis (1951). ‘Data on the study of the history of the Communist Party of Cyprus at its early stages of development’, Democrat, 4 (6), p. 129 [in Greek]. 81. Census of 1891, p. 13. 82. Census of Cyprus of 1921, London, 1922, p. 12. 83. The memorial is published in Eleftheria, 25 August 1923, s. 2. 84. Census of 1891, p. 50. 85. Census of 1931, p. 60. 86. History of PSE-PEO (1991), Nicosia: PEO Publications, p. 11 [in Greek]. 87. Katsiaounis, Labour, p. 34. 88. ‘Unemployment’, Eleftheria, 3 October 1928, p. 1. 89. Census of 1911, p. 14 and Census of 1931, p. 14. 90. Census of 1911, p. 14. 91. This is the number given by the newspaper of the CPC. See Neos Anthropos, 23 November 1926, p. 4. 92. Katsiaounis, ‘Antitheses’, p. 29. 93. Katsiaounis, Constitutional Treaty, p. 50. 94. Cyprus Blue Book 1929, p. 388. 95. For the role played by the mining industry in the formation of the Cypriot working class and for more information regarding the working and living conditions in the mines see Phantis, The Cypriot Trade Union Movement, pp. 44 – 51. See also Varnavas, Pantelis (1989). Memoirs of a Mine Worker, Nicosia: PEO Publications [in Greek]. 96. ‘The vocational issue, Theses of the CPC towards the 1st Pancyprian Conference’, Neos Anthropos, 23 November 1926, p. 4. 97. Census of 1931, p. 54; Cyprus Blue Book 1929, p. 388. 98. E.g., ‘Terrible death of workers in the mine of Skouriotissa’, Eleftheria, 6 October 1928, p. 2. 99. Phantis, The Cypriot Trade Union Movement, pp. 40 – 2. ‘Labour legislation’, Laiki (Popular), 7 August 1925, p. 1. 100. ‘The labour issue. The Government’s reply’, Nea Laiki, 12 August 1927, p. 1. 101. Katsiaounis, ‘Antitheses’, p. 23. 102. ‘Unemployment in Cyprus’, Neos Ergatis, 28 November 1929, p. 1. 103. Servas, Responsibilities, p. 113. 104. For an analysis of social classes as a unit of analysis, and working class in particular, with the difficulties associated with this endeavour see Hobsbawm, J. Eric (1998). On History, Athens: Themelio Publications, pp. 109– 12 [in Greek]. See also Geary, European Labour Movement, p. 272.

214 105. 106. 107. 108.

109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119.

120. 121. 122.

123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130.

NOTES TO PAGES 34 – 40 Katsiaounis, Labour, p. 136. ‘Atrocious exploitation’, Neos Anthropos, 1 July 1926, p. 3. ‘The drink’, Neos Anthropos, 2 September 1925, p. 6. Randall, Vicky (2006). ‘Political parties and social structure in the developing world’, in Katz and Crotty (eds), Party Politics, p. 389. Examples include the African National Congress in South Africa and the Indian National Congress in India. Macridis, Roy (1967). ‘Introduction: the history, functions, and typology of parties’, in Macridis R (eds) Political Parties, London: Harper and Row Publishers, pp. 15 – 16. Lipset, Political Man, p. 454. Lipset, ‘Political cleavages’, pp. 35 – 6. Georghallides, George (1985). Cyprus and the Governorship of Sir Ronald Storrs, Nicosia: Cyprus Research Centre, p. 169. Holland, Britain and the Cyprus Revolt, pp. 25– 6. CO 883/6/5 Enclosure 5 in No. 276, F. D. Newham to Haynes Smith, 4 August 1902. Papapolyviou, Petros (1997). Cyprus and the Balkan Wars. Contribution to the History of Cypriot Volunteerism, Nicosia: Cyprus Research Centre [in Greek]. Memorial of the Greek deputation to the Ministry of Colonies, in Eleftheria, 15 March 1919. CO 67/223/39093 No. 170, Loraine to Chamberlain, 25 April 1928. Eleftheria, 11 March 1931. CO 67/227/39518 (Part 3) Minute by A. J. Dawe, 28 October 1929. Markides, Diana (2008). ‘British friendship with Venizelos and Venizelos friendship with Britain in the case of Cyprus, 1906– 1931)’, in Papapolyviou, Petros, and Kazamias, George (eds), Proceedings of Conference, Eleftherios Venizelos and Cyprus, Athens: Kastaniotis Publications, p. 69 [in Greek]. Georghallides, Cyprus and the Governorship of Sir Ronald Storrs, pp. 121– 3. CO 67/225/6 Despatch No. 145, Enclosure No. 4, Principle Forrest Officer to the Governor 1 September 1927. For Turkish Cypriot nationalism see Altay, Nevzat (2005). Nationalist Amongst the Turks of Cyprus: The First Wave, University of Oulu, Phd Thesis. See also Apeyitou, Eleni (2003). ‘Turkish Cypriot nationalism: its history and development (1571– 1960)’, The Cyprus Review, 15 (1), pp. 67 –98. Guttsman, W. L. (1960). ‘Social stratification and political elite’, The British Journal of Sociology, 11 (2), pp. 142– 3. ‘Contagion from the left’. See Duverger, Political Parties, p. 25. CO 883/2/4 No. 18915, Biddulph to Kimberley, 31 October 1881. Katsiaounis, Labour, pp. 189– 90. Mozaffar, ‘Ethnicity’, p. 239. For the origins of these two tendencies see Katalanos, Zenon, pp. 155– 70. Frangoudes, Giorgos (1911, republished in 2002). History of the Archbishopric Question, 1900– 10, Alexandria: Aihmi Publications [in Greek]. Rokkan, Parties, p. 282.

NOTES TO PAGES 40 – 47

215

131. Lipset, Political Man, p. 67. 132. On the labour movement in the Balkans, see the Prologue by Liakos, Antonis in Geary, European Labour Movement. 133. Allardt, ‘Patterns of class conflict’, pp. 119, 127, 131. 134. Geary, European Labour Movement, pp. 11, 24 – 5, 236. 135. Kitschelt, Herbert (2006). ‘Movement parties’, in Katz and Crotty (eds), Party Politics, p. 286. 136. Sartori, ‘Sociology’, p. 170. 137. Katsiaounis, Constitutional Treaty, pp. 21, 25. 138. ‘Time to move’, Neos Anthropos, 15 January 1925, p. 1. ‘The publication of Pyrsos’, Pyrsos, 19 December 1922, p. 1. 139. ‘Entering our second year’, Pyrsos (Torch), 8 January 1924, p. 1.

Chapter 2

Political Institutions and Political Participation

1. Duverger, Political Parties, xxiv; LaPalombara and Weiner, ‘Origin of Parties’, p. 9; Scarrow E. Susan (2002). Perspectives on Political Parties, USA: Palgrave, pp. 6, 9. 2. McPherson, Democratic Theory, p. 19. For a more thorough discussion on the various models and theories of representation, see Heywood, Andrew (2006). Introduction to Politics, 2nd Edition, Athens: Polis Publications, pp. 314– 20 [in Greek]. pp. 314– 20. 3. Universal franchise was extended to include women in different time periods in the various countries: England 1948, Ireland 1923, Sweden 1920, Finland 1906, Netherlands 1917, Luxembourg 1919, Austria 1919, Iceland 1920, Norway 1915, Denmark 1915 and France 1945. Rokkan, Stein (1968). ‘The structuring of mass politics in the smaller European democracies: a developmental typology’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 10 (2), p. 188. 4. The Cyprus Constitution was enforced on 30 November 1882 and the law governing the elections of the members of the Legislative Council on 14 November 1883. 5. Loizos, Peter (1986). Changes in the Structure of Society, Nicosia Municipality Publications, p. 104. See also Katalanos, Zenon, p. 57. 6. CO 883/2/4. 7. Darwin John, cited in Ioannou, ‘Development’, p. 400. 8. CO883/8/3, X 39518/29, No. 31, A. J. Dawe, Memorandum on Cyprus Constitutional Question, 23 April 1929. 9. Georghallides, ‘Colonialism’, p. 82. Richter, History, p. 308. 10. Cyprus Blue Book 1886 –87, pp. 87 –98.

216

NOTES TO PAGES 47 –54

11. Anagnostopoulou, Sia (1999). ‘The Church of Cyprus and its Ethnarchical role: 1878 – 1960. The religioucisation of Cypriot political activity: enosis’, Contemporary Issues, p. 200 [in Greek]. 12. Mozaffar, ‘Ethnicity’, p. 240. 13. ‘The bill on municipal authorities’, Eleftheria, 12 April 1930, p. 2. ‘The bill on municipal authorities’, Eleftheria, 24 May 1930, p. 2. 14. Georghallides, The Governorship of R. Storrs, p. 703. 15. CO 883/6/5, Haynes Smith to Mr Chamberlain, December 1901. 16. Rokkan, Parties, p. 27. 17. ‘Obligatory voting’, Eleftheria, 2 December 1925, p. 1. 18. Georghallides, History of Cyprus, p. 45. 19. See Chapter 1. 20. Eleftheria, 5 March 1930, p. 2. Eleftheria, 21 May 1930, p. 2. 21. Hobsbawm, J. Eric (2002). The Age of Revolution 1789– 1848, Athens: Cultural Foundation of the National Bank of Greece, p. 31 [in Greek]. 22. Katsiaounis, Labour, p. 85. 23. Stasinos, 2 April 1883, p. 1. 24. ‘Suffrage extension’, Eleftheria, 9 December 1912, p. 1. 25. ‘Peculiar legislation’, Laiki 12 February 1926, p. 1. ‘Universal suffrage’, Laiki 2 April 1926, p. 1. 26. ‘The duties of the CPC’, Neos Anthropos, 6 November 1926, p. 3. 27. Cyprus Blue Book 1883 –4, p. 124. 28. See articles 21 and 25 in the proclamation for the first elections of 1883. 29. Thirty years into the British colonial era 73.2 per cent of the population could not read or write. Census of Cyprus 1911, p. 15. There are no figures in the previous censuses of 1881, 1891 and 1901. 30. Rokkan, Parties, p. 153. 31. Ibid, p. 240. 32. ‘The dissolution of the Legislative Council. Secret voting’, Eleftheria, 23 August 1906, p. 2. CO 883/6/9, High Commissioner Sir C. A. King-Harman to the Earl of Elgin, A Proclamation, 14 August 1906, Enclosure in No. 68. 33. The rivalry for the post was very intense and it had split Greek Cypriots in two. Two candidates representing opposing ideas and values claimed the position in a bitter confrontation that lasted ten years (1900 –9). Katalanos, Zenon. Michael, Michail (2005). ‘The Archbishopric question (1900 – 1910), its ideological context and the rise of the Church of Cyprus as a national authority within the British context of administration’, pp. 307–60, Yearbook of the Cyprus Research Center, XXXI [in Greek]. 34. Georghallides, History of Cyprus, pp. 292– 3. 35. CO 883/6/6, High Commissioner Sir W. F. Haynes Smith to Mr. Lyttleton, Confidential, 8 June 1904. 36. Eleftheria, 2 May 1925, p. 2. 37. ‘The opinion of medical doctor Themistocle Dervi’, Eleftheria, 2 February 1929, p. 1. ‘The small constituency’, Eleftheria, 16 March 1929, p. 1.

NOTES TO PAGES 54 –62

217

38. The literal meaning of the term means the ‘leader of the nation’. The term suggests the holder both of spiritual and secular authority and was assigned to the Church of Cyprus and particularly to the archbishop. 39. Lipset, Political Man, p. 197. 40. Ibid, p. 227. 41. Lyssiotis, Marios (1990). ‘An analysis of the Cyprus Legislative Council’, The Cyprus Review, 2 (2), pp. 67 – 8. 42. Koudounaris, Aristides (1995), Biographical Dictionary of the Cypriots, 1800– 1920, Nicosia [in Greek]. 43. Lyssiotis, ‘Cyprus Legislative Council’, p. 65. 44. Weber, Max (1987). Politics as Vocation, Athens: Papazisis Publications, p. 106 [in Greek]. 45. Lyssiotis, ‘Cyprus Legislative Council’, pp. 62, 65. 46. Faustmann, ‘Clientelism’, p. 46. 47. Tzermias, History, p. 85. 48. The term is used by Mouzelis for the case of Greece. Mouzelis, Nicos (1995). ‘Modernity, late development and civil society’, in Hall, John (eds), Civil Society: Theory, History, Comparison, Great Britain: Polity Press, p. 1. 49. Heywood, Introduction, p. 315. 50. ‘Variety of perceptions’, Eleftheria, 23 November 1927, p. 1. 51. Lemarchand, Rene and Legg, Keith (1972). ‘Political clientelism and development: a preliminary analysis’, Comparative Politics, 4, (2), p. 149. For clientelism in general see also Hopkin, Jonathan (2006). ‘Clientelism and party politics’, in Katz and Crotty (eds), Party Politics. 52. Randall, ‘Political parties and social structure in the developing world’, p. 393. 53. Mouzelis, ‘Modernity’, p. 231. 54. Faustmann, ‘Clientelism’. 55. Ibid, pp. 44 – 6. 56. Meynaud, Jean (2002). Political Forces in Greece 1946 –1965, Volume A, Athens: Savvallas Publications, pp. 66 – 7 [in Greek]. 57. Richter, History, p. 369. 58. ‘The opinion of medical doctor Themistocle Dervi’, Eleftheria, 2 February 1929, p. 1. 59. Papademetris, Panayiotis and Petrides, Petros (1979 – 80). Historic Encyclopedia of Cyprus 1878– 1978, Nicosia: Epiphaniou Publications, Vol. III, p. 184. 60. Cited in Katsiaounis, Rolandos (1995). ‘Social and political change in Cyprus: 1878– 1924’, Yearbook of the Cyprus Research Centre, XXI, Nicosia, p. 229. 61. Lefkis, The Roots, p. 133. 62. Richter, History, pp. 15 – 6, 99 – 100. 63. Faustmann, ‘Clientelism’. Choisi, Jeannete (1995). ‘The Greek Cypriot elite: its social function and legitimization’, The Cyprus Review, 7 (1), pp. 34 – 68. 64. Kirchheimer, Otto (1966). ‘The transformation of the western European party systems’, in LaPalombara and Weiner (eds), Political Parties, p. 183. 65. Lemarchand and Legg, ‘Clientelism’, pp. 154, 171.

218

NOTES TO PAGES 62 –72

66. Mouzelis, ‘Modernity’, pp. 226–7. 67. Yiallourides, ‘Cyprus party system’, p. 166. 68. ‘The Cypriot polity’, Eleftheria, 26 October 1907, p. 1. ‘What Cypriots want from England’, Eleftheria, 31 August 1907, p. 1. 69. Leonidas Stringos, Interview in Haravgi, 22 August 1976. The members of this cell were: Costas Christodoulides (Skeleas), Christodoulos Christodoulides, Leonidas Stringos, Demetris Chrysostomides, Soleas (or Soliatis) and another two persons whose names cannot be recalled. In a short period of time, Christos Savvides and Charalambos Solomonides also joined. 70. Miller, Warren (1970). ‘Majority rule and the representative system of government’, in Allardt and Rokkan (eds), Mass Politics, p. 284. 71. Heller, Agnes (1993). ‘On formal democracy’, in Keane, John (eds), Civil Society and the State, London: Verso Publications, p. 144. 72. Heywood, Introduction, pp. 321– 2. Taagepera, Rein (2007). ‘Electoral systems’, in Boix, Carles and Stokes, Susan (eds) Comparative Politics, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 678– 702. 73. Nohlen, Dieter (2007). Party System and Electoral Systems, Salonika: Epikentro Publications, pp. 20, 30 [in Greek]. 74. Lipset and Rokkan, ‘Cleavage structures’, p. 5. 75. Rokkan, ‘The structuring of mass politics’, p. 180. 76. Lyssiotis, ‘Cyprus Legislative Council’, p. 55.

Chapter 3 Political Origins 1. Panayiotou, ‘Lenin in the coffee-shop’, p. 273. 2. Pyrsos, 17 January 1923, p. 1 and 26 February 1923, p. 1. 3. The then Greek ruling class pursued a policy of abstention in the early 1920s from the Legislative Council protesting against the British for not yielding to their demand for union with Greece. 4. Katsiaounis, ‘Change’, pp. 246, 250. 5. The newspaper Pyrsos (The Torch) referred to all these phenomena and called for the workers to awake and resist by refusing to submit to the bourgeoisie and by organising. See Pyrsos, 17 January 1923, p. 1 and 26 February 1923, p. 1. 6. Geary, European Labour Movement, pp. 33 – 4. 7. Hobsbawm, Special People, p. 20. 8. Katalanos, Zenon, p. 72. 9. ‘The demonstration in Nicosia’, Foni tis Kyprou (Voice of Cyprus), 12 January 1888, p. 1. 10. Katalanos, Zenon, p. 96. 11. Katsiaounis, ‘Antitheses’, p. 24. See also Katsiaounis, Labour, p. 155. 12. Katsiaounis, Labour, p. 151. 13. Hobsbawm, Age of Revolutions, pp. 302– 3.

NOTES TO PAGES 73 –77

219

14. Jones, Peter (1991). The 1848 Revolutions, 2nd Edition, UK: Longman Publishings, pp. 8 – 10. In the British Chartist movement, after the weavers the biggest groups were the shoemakers, who were double the number of construction workers. The French revolutionary crowds in 1789 included a proportionally greater percentage of printers, carpenters, locksmiths and builders in relation to the total Parisian population. See also Hobsbawm, Special People, pp. 38 – 9. 15. Hobsbawm, Special People, pp. 47 – 53. 16. Georghallides, History of Cyprus 1918 –1926, p. 54. 17. Katsiaounis, Labour, p. 43. 18. Ibid., pp. 47, 119. 19. Phantis gives the examples of the Brotherhood of Shoemakers of Limassol in 1889 and the ‘Elpis’ [Hope] Association of Servants in Nicosia in 1890. See Phantis, The Cypriot Trade Union Movement, p. 30. 20. Ziartidis, Andreas (former general secretary of the Pancyprian Federation of Labour, PEO) (1986). The Evolution of the Cypriot Trade Union Movement, Municipality of Nicosia Publications, p. 119 [in Greek]. See also Ioannou, Michalakis (former General Secretary of the Cypriot Confederation of LabourSEK) (1986). The Evolution of the Cypriot Trade Union Movement, Municipality of Nicosia Publications, p. 114 [in Greek]. 21. On the subject of the revival of the guilds, see Katsiaounis, Labour, pp. 166– 74. 22. Ostrogorski refers to the role of the labour clubs in the case of England. See Ostogorski, Political Parties, pp. 198– 201. In Cyprus the first such attempt took place around 1910 on the initiative of intellectuals who had studied abroad and participated in trade union affairs. See Phantis, The Cypriot Trade Union Movement, p. 53. See also Ioannou, Michalakis (2002). The Labour Struggles of SEK, Nicosia: SEK Publications, p. xx, [in Greek]. Such associations were founded by, among others, Spyros Araouzos, Evelthon Pitsillidis, Zenon Evgeniou and later, in the 1920s, by Michalis Michailides and Georgios Chadjipavlou (Panergatikos). 23. Ioannou, Struggles of SEK, p. xx; Phantis, The Cypriot Trade Union Movement, p. 31; Servas, Responsibilities, p. 114. 24. Katsiaounis, Labour, p. 134. 25. Hobsbawm, Special People, pp. 210– 11, 219, 229. 26. Molyneux, Marxism and the Party, pp. 14– 15. 27. Lipset, Political Man, p. 232. See also Rokkan, Parties, p. 127. 28. Yiallourides, ‘The Cypriot party system’, pp. 170, 176. 29. Attalides, ‘Parties in Cyprus’, p. 134. 30. Ibid., pp. 142– 3. 31. ‘Farmers’ meeting in Lefkoniko’, Eleftheria, 14 August 1920, p. 2. 32. Eleftheria, 5 January 1924, p. 1. See also ‘On agrarian affairs’, Neos Anthropos, 1 January 1925, p. 4.

220

NOTES TO PAGES 77 –84

33. The National Council was the executive organ of the Political Organisation of Cyprus that was founded in 1921 with the aim to pursue union with Greece and comprised of the prelates and bourgeois politicians and MPs. 34. ‘The agricultural congress at Lefkoniko: the decisions taken’, Eleftheria, 16 April 1924, p. 2. 35. See for example, ‘The farmers’ friend!’, Eleftheria, 17 May 1924, p. 3. 36. The individuals concerned were Kostas Georgiadis (Morphou), Socrates Michailides (Evrychou), G. Velaris (Zodia), Mehmet Ratip (Potamia), N. Groutaris (Lefkara), C. Evangelides (Aradippou), Ali Vechpi (Mari), K. Rossides (Aghios Theodoros), T. Savvides (Lefkonikos), Hakki Efendi (Genagra), H. Modinos (Omodos), P. Theodorou (Foinikaria), X. Atem (Mallia), C. Papanikopoulos (Chryssochous), G. Mouzalas (Houlou), Faik Bey (Terra), Chadjithomas (Aghios Amvrossios), Ali Chadjihoussein (Fota). See ‘The agricultural congress: the decisions taken’, Eleftheria, 16 April 1924, p. 2. 37. ‘The agricultural congress’, Eleftheria, 16 April 1924, p. 2. 38. ‘Agricultural Executive Council’, Eleftheria, 20 September 1924, p. 2. 39. ‘A Greek Cypriot meeting in Nicosia’, Kypriakos Fylax (Cyprus Guard), 24 December 1924, p. 2. See also Attalides, ‘Parties in Cyprus’, p. 137. 40. Kypriakos Fylax, 24 December 1924, p. 2. 41. Rossides, Kyriakos (1925). The Politics of the Agricultural Party, Famagusta: Nea Salamina Press, p. 16 [in Greek]. 42. ‘The calling of the 2nd Pancyprian Agricultural Congress’, Neos Anthropos, 1 July 1925, p. 2. 43. ‘Rossides’ speech at the 2nd Pancyprian Congress’, Laiki, 2 July 1925, pp. 3 – 4. 44. Rossides, The Politics of the Agrarian Party, pp. 6, 10. 45. Ibid., pp. 12 – 15. 46. Ibid., p. 17. 47. Ibid., pp. 16, 25. 48. Yiallourides, ‘Cyprus party system’, p. 175. 49. ‘This is the road for the villagers’, Neos Anthropos, 15 June 1925, p. 1. 50. ‘Vote on peasants’ debts’, Eleftheria, 12 May 1926, p. 2. 51. Eleftheria, 20 May 1925. 52. Laiki, 11 September 1925. 53. Eleftheria, 10 March 1926. 54. Nea Laiki, 26 November 1926. 55. Georghallides, The Governorship of Storrs, p. 187. 56. ‘The Jews in Cyprus’, Eleftheria, 13 April 1900, p. 3. See the answer by the chief secretary of the Government of Cyprus to a question by C. Sozos, a member of the Legislative Council, in 1904, in Katalanos, Zenon, p. 345. The Jews first came to Cyprus in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to escape the persecution they were suffering in other European countries, and in the context of the plan for the island’s colonialisation by the British.

NOTES TO PAGES 84 –85

221

57. ‘Bolshevism in Cyprus’, Eleftheria, 11 December 1920, p. 2. 58. In its edition of 12 February 1923, p. 1, the newspaper Pyrsos (Torch), the organ of the Cypriot Labour Party (the forerunner of the CPC) referred to the former’s foundation five years earlier, i.e., around 1919, without giving any further details. 59. Phantis, The Cyprus Trade Union Movement, p. 54. See also Servas, ‘Data on the Study of the CPC’, p. 127. 60. Katsiaounis, ‘Changes’, p. 245. 61. Other important figures of the demoticist movement that were associated with these socialist circles included Aimilios Chourmouzios, Antonis Indianos, etc. 62. These three individuals were Leonidas Stringos, Christodoulos Christodoulides and Demetris Chryssostomides. See Philippides, Zacharias (1982). ‘The foundation and consolidation of a class-based trade union movement’, Neos Demokratis, January– February, p. 79. 63. Lefkis, The Roots, pp. 49 – 52. See also Kirix (Herald), 3 May 1919, p. 3; Kirix, 13 September 1919, p. 2. 64. Richter, ‘The Cypriot communist party’, p. 103. 65. ‘Labour movement’, Pyrsos, 26 February 1923, p. 4 and 8 April 1923, p. 3. 66. Pyrsos, 8 January 1924, p. 3. See also Perdios, Minos (1968). Essay on the History of the Communist Party of Cyprus and AKEL, unpublished manuscript, p. 20 [in Greek]. 67. Servas, ‘Data on the study of the CPC’, p. 128. 68. Liasis Pieris, unpublished interview, maintained in AKEL’s museum. 69. Servas, Elements on the study of the CPC’, p. 128. See also Lefkis, Roots, pp. 57 – 63. Lefkis cites the names of these first communists: Leonidas Stringos, then an employee of the house of G. Koudounares; Christodoulos Christodoulides, employee of the Popular Savings Bank (later Popular Bank); Demetris Anastasiou, employee of the Chryssostomides brothers; Yiannis Papangelou (Lefkis), employee of the Khedivial Mail Line agency; Milios Chourmouzios, a journalist; Kleanthis Christophou, employee of the Lanitis company; Georgios Demetriades, employee of the Lanitis company; Anninos Georgiou, employee of the Droussiotis and Schizas tobacco factory; Michalakis Mikellides, employee of the house of G. Pavlides; Kostas Christoudoulides, a carpenter; Christos Savvides (brother of Ploutis Servas), tailor’s employee; Kostas Antoniadis, tailor’s employee; Charalambos Solomonides, barber; Georgios Soliatis, bakery employee; Charalambos Skapaneas, carpenter; and some others whose names were forgotten because they operated clandestinely. He also refers on p. 110 to the names of Kostas Skapaneas (youth movement cadre), Milios Chourmouzios, Kleious Christodoulides, Leonidas Christodoulides (postal clerk), Kallirois Ieropoulou (schoolteacher), Kostas Drakos (agrarian cadre), and Kleanthis Silvestrou (trade unionist). Skapaneas was later expelled from the Party ‘because he

222

70. 71. 72. 73.

74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79.

80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86.

NOTES TO PAGES 85 –87 evolved into a Trotskyist and there were suspicions that in the end he became a policy spy’. See Perdios, Essay, p. 20. Hobsbawm, Age of Revolutions, p. 259. Lefkis, The Roots, p. 62. Hobsbawm, Age of Revolutions, p. 169. The founding of the Communist Party in Russia began at the suggestion of Lenin himself, which he made in the newspaper Iskra. It was, according to Lenin, the only way to organise a party under conditions of absolutist rule. In other words, the Party began from the organisation of a publication which appeared regularly and was closely linked with all the local groups. Iskra paved the way for the creation of the Party both ideologically and organisationally, creating the organisational framework of the future party. See Vladimir, Lenin (1964). What to Do?. Nicosia: Sputnik Publications, p. 110 [in Greek]. ‘The trial belongs to you’, Pyrsos, 20 August 1923, p. 2. Pyrsos, 25 June 1923, pp. 1 –2. Katsiaounis, ‘Change’, p. 250. ‘Alea jacta est’, Pyrsos, 27 December 1922, p. 1. Panebianco, Angelo (1988), Political Parties: Organization and Power, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pyrsos, 19 December 1922, p. 1. A letter from Panos Fassouliotis, written to the archbishop of Cyprus before the Pancyprian National Assembly which the latter had summoned for 21 May 1923, refers to the CLP as expressing the socialist section of Cypriot society. See Pyrsos, 25 June 1923, pp. 1– 2. The first issue of Pyrsos was published on 19 December 1922 and had on its masthead the phrase ‘Organ of the Cypriot Labour Party’. Its last issue was dated 19 January 1925. Cyprus Blue Book 1923, p. 165 and Cyprus Blue Book 1924, p. 165. Papademetris and Petrides, Encyclopedia, Volume 5, p. 470; Yiallourides, ‘Cyprus party system’, p. 172; Servas, Responsibilities, p. 75. Lefkis, The Roots, p. 87. The announcement of the Party’s foundation was published in Pyrsos on 17 January 1923, p. 2. ‘Labour movement’, Pyrsos, 12 February 1923, p. 4. Pyrsos, 19 December 1922, p. 1. Lefkis, The Roots, pp. 65 – 7, 70 – 1. This self-deception also appears in other positions expressed by the newspaper in its early stages. The issue of 12 February 1923, p. 2, approved the government’s intention of not electing local government authorities any longer, but having them appointed each time by the high commissioner from a list of four candidates. Lefkis also writes that the British colonial government had played a role in influencing Fassouliotis’ insistence on a link with the British Labour Party, as the government had succeeded in approaching him and convincing him that this would be the best development for the Cypriot labour movement.

NOTES TO PAGES 87 –93

223

87. ‘Russia-Cyprus’, Pyrsos, 9 July 1923, p. 1. The same article supported a peaceful revolution via the legislative route through the voting of pro-peasant and pro-worker legislation. 88. Perdios, Essay, p. 21. 89. Georghallides, History of Cyprus 1918 –1926, p. 309. 90. Lefkis, The Roots, p. 71. 91. ‘Labour movement’, Pyrsos, 28 May 1923, p. 3. Centres of the Agrarian Section were Koilani, Pissouri, Akaki, Morphou and Aghia Fylla. 92. ‘A tax on income’, Pyrsos, 12 February 1923, p. 2. 93. ‘Expropriation’, Pyrsos, 26 November 1923, p. 1. 94. ‘Report by the CPC to the Labour government’, Pyrsos, 21 February 1924, p. 2. 95. Zambas, Theoris (2009). The Historical Route of the CPC-AKEL in Famagusta 1920– 1960, Larnaca, pp. 20, 23 [in Greek]. 96. Lefkis, The Roots, p. 76. Attalides, ‘Parties in Cyprus’, pp. 135–6. 97. Liasis Pieri, unpublished interview. 98. Neos Anthropos, 15 January 1925, p. 1. Fassouliotis published two more issues of Pyrsos, after which it ceased publication. The CPC newspaper, Neos Anthropos (New Man), in a later article, referring to the Fassouliotis group, notes that the Party succeeded in purging the splitter elements which had been functioning within it. See ‘The Cypriot question’, Neos Anthropos, 1 July 1925, p. 4. 99. Paratiritis began publication in November 1925 and was initially presented as a socialist review and the organ of the socialist labour-agrarian party. From its second issue, the newspaper began to publish part of its material in English. In its third issue, it described itself as an Anglo-Greek review without the word ‘socialist’. Later, in 1927, it appeared only in Greek. 100. ‘Informers’, Neos Anthropos, 15 June 1926, p. 3. 101. ‘The hermaphrodites’, Neos Anthropos, 1 July 1926, p. 1. The same newspaper, in its issue of 16 July 1927, published an article under the title ‘The labour policy of the worker-agrarians like Fassouliotis’, in which the CPC commented on the manifesto of the Worker-Agrarian Party, noting that its basic position was cooperation between capital and labour, which for the CPC meant a denial of class struggle. 102. Lefkis, The Roots, pp. 83, 86. Yiavopoulos was exiled a year later, in July 1925, for his activity in the CPC. 103. Servas, ‘Data on the study of the CPC’, p. 128. 104. Lefkis, The Roots, pp. 98 – 9, 113. 105. On this line of argument, see Rashke and Katsoulis, Parties, p. 31.

Chapter 4 The Communist Party of Cyprus 1. Panayiotou, ‘Lenin in the coffee-shop’, p. 273. 2. Lefkis, The Roots, pp. 183– 96.

224

NOTES TO PAGES 93 – 96

3. Neos Anthropos, 18 September, 1926. The participants are listed in Perdios, Essay, p. 29 and in Lefkis, The Roots, pp. 213– 19 as Charalambos Vatyliotis (Vatis), Costas Christodoulides (Skeleas), Christos Savvides, Charalambos Skapaneas, Costas Drakos, Charalambos Solomonides, Georgios Soliatis, Christodoulos Artemiou, Katina Nikolaou-Toumazou, Platon Toumazos, Yiannis Papangelou (Lefkis), Kleanthis Kiouppis, Costas Erotas, Leonidas Christodoulides, and Anninos Georgiou. The representatives of the student and working youth who were present were: Ploutis Servas, Markos Markoullis, M. Mikellides, G. Solomonides, Efstathios Xinaris and Kyriakos Koukkoullis. The doctors Nikolaides and Vassiliou also participated. The congress elected a central committee and a secretary general (C. Skeleas). Ezekias Papaioannou, later secretary general of AKEL (1949– 88), gives a different number of participants, raising to 16 the number of representatives from Party organisations in the towns and the countryside. See Papaioannou, Ezekias (1951). ‘25 years of struggle’, Demokratis, 4 (9 –10), September– October, p. 173 [in Greek]. 4. The decisions of the first pancyprian congress were published in the CPC’s newspaper, Neos Anthropos, from 18 September to 24 December 1926. 5. Duverger, Parties, pp. xxx – xxxiv, 23 – 36. See also LaPalombara and Weiner, ‘Origin of Parties’, pp. 404– 5. 6. ‘Denial’, Pyrsos, 17 January 1923, p. 1. 7. ‘Class struggle in today’s society’, Neos Anthropos, 14 April 1925, p. 4. 8. ‘The congress of the CPC examined in depth all the economic and social issues of Cyprus and reached the conclusion that the workers and peasants could only gain concessions and achieve the ultimate independence of the island through intense struggle and action under the leadership of the CPC.’ See Neos Anthropos, 18 September 1926, p. 1. 9. ‘Our programme’, Neos Anthropos, 1 January 1925, p. 1. 10. ‘Manifesto of the CPC for the Panhellenic games’, Neos Anthropos, 25 April 1925, p. 1. 11. ‘Manifesto of the party congress to the working masses’, Ergatis, 31 August 1929, p. 1. 12. ‘Report on the agrarian question. Positions for the 1st Congress’, Neos Anthropos, 23 November 1926, p. 4. 13. Katsiaounis, Constitutional Treaty, p. 31. 14. See note 4 for the participants. 15. ‘Our programme’, Neos Anthropos, 1 January 1925, p. 1. See also ‘From our viewpoint’, Neos Anthropos, 15 January 1925, p. 3. 16. Papademetris and Petrides, Encyclopedia, Volume V, p. 474. 17. ‘Parliamentarians and people’, Neos Anthropos, 15 June 1926, p. 1. 18. ‘Our programme’, Neos Anthropos, 1 January 1925, p. 1. 19. ‘The secret meetings and the Legislative Council?’, Neos Anthropos, 3 February 1928, p. 1.

NOTES TO PAGES 96 –101

225

20. Lefkis, The Roots, p. 201. Giorgos Christodoulides, a veteran higher cadre of AKEL, notes that in the period after the October events, many CPC members were arrested, including Turkish Cypriots. He refers particularly to Ahmet Zekki from Limassol. See Christodoulides, Giorgos (2005) ‘Faintheartedness in the ranks of the CPC’, in Haravghi, 22 April. 21. Fournaris, Costas (1980). ‘Questions of strategy and tactics’, Neos Demokratis, Issue 61, October [in Greek]. 22. Lenin, Vladimir (1964). Left-wing Communism – An Infantile Disorder, Athens: Themelio Publications, pp. 12 – 13 [in Greek]. 23. In August 1927, an extraordinary congress of the Party was called that, according to the newspaper, Neos Ergatis, also put forward the slogan of a united front for the liberation of Cyprus. See Neos Ergatis, 31 August 1927, p. 3. The Party’s second congress was held in early 1928. Its decisions included a decision-directive to the central committee ‘to strive with all its forces for the organisation of a United Front whose ultimate aim will be the liberation of the island’. See ‘Decision on the political and economic positions’, Neos Anthropos, 6 December 1928, p. 2; ‘The Governmental threat and the need for a united front’, Neos Anthropos, 8 January 1927, p. 1. 24. ‘Union or autonomy’, Neos Anthropos, 26 October 1925, p. 2. 25. An indication of the CPC’s belief in the united front is its position against the exile of the parliamentarian, N. K. Lanitis, in 1925 by the colonialist power, even though the Party had clashed with this politician on a number of occasions over various issues. See ‘About the unfree’, Neos Anthropos, 15 August 1925, p. 2. 26. See for example, ‘To the Cypriot people’, Neos Anthropos, 1 October 1925, p. 1. The article ends with the slogan ‘Long live the united anti-imperialist front’. 27. ‘Positions of the 1st Pancyprian Congress of the CPC on the economic and political situation’, Neos Anthropos, 18 September 1926, p. 2. 28. ‘Let us resist with our united front’, Neos Anthropos, 19 March 1927, p. 1. 29. ‘United front’, Neos Anthropos, 11 February 1928, p. 1. 30. Lenin, Vladimir (2003). Regarding the Proletariat Party, Athens: Synchroni Epochi Publications, p. 102 [in Greek]. 31. Lenin, What To Do?, pp. 147, 170, 172. 32. ‘Report on the organisational question, Positions of the 1st Pancyprian Congress’, Neos Anthropos, 10 December 1926, p. 4. The existence of parallel legal and illegal communist party machines is regarded as very important in the battle for the conquest of power. See Molyneux, Marxism and the Party, pp. 77, 91. 33. Neos Anthropos, 6 December 1928, p. 1. 34. ‘The new period’, Neos Anthropos, 21 November 1925, p. 1. 35. ‘The pseudo-agrarians and their works’, Neos Anthropos, 16 July 1926, p. 2. 36. Indicative of this conservatism is the article by Themistocles Dervis entitled ‘Major social scourges: the problem of homosexuality’, in the newspaper Laiki [Popular], 14 August 1925, p. 1.

226

NOTES TO PAGES 101 –105

37. The party ideology is regarded as a belief system that goes to the heart of a party’s identity. See Mair, Peter and Mudde, Cas (1998). ‘The party family and its study’, Annual Review of Political Science, 1, p. 220. 38. Neos Anthropos, 1 January 1925, p. 1. 39. Mavratsas, Caesar (2003). National Unity and Political Pluralism, Athens: Katarti Publications, p. 66 [in Greek]. 40. Loizides in Eleftheria, 26, 30 November and 6 December 1930. 41. ‘Union or autonomy’, Neos Anthropos, 26 October 1925, p. 2. See also ‘The Peasant Issue of Cyprus’, Neos Anthropos Library, Issue 1, Communist Party Publications, 1925, AKEL’s museum. 42. ‘Our programme’, Neos Anthropos, 1 January 1925, p. 1. ‘The agrarian question in Cyprus’, Neos Anthropos, 18 February 1925, p. 1. 43. ‘Report on the agrarian question, Positions for the 1st Congress’, Neos Anthropos, 23 November, p. 4 kai 10 December 1926, p. 4. 44. Hobsbawm, Age of Capital, p. 215. Reference to the difficulty the CPC encountered in infiltrating the peasants is made in Perdios, Essay, p. 36. Reference is also made to the conservatism of the Cypriot peasant in Georghallides, History of Cyprus 1918– 1926, p. 55. 45. Perdios, Essay, p. 33. 46. ‘The agrarian question in Cyprus’, Neos Anthropos, 18 February 1925, p. 1. ‘To the Cypriot people’, Neos Anthropos, 1 October 1925, p. 1. 47. Perdios, Essay, p. 37. 48. ‘For who to come?’ Neos Anthropos, 24 October 1927, p. 1. ‘Who is to blame? The entire Parliament’, Neos Anthropos, 16 December 1926, p. 1. ‘Manifesto of the CPC to the parliamentarians’, Neos Anthropos, 7 November 1928, p. 4. ‘Yet another worthless piece of paper’, Neos Ergatis (New Worker), 20 February 1929, p. 1. 49. ‘The duty of the rural strata’, Neos Anthropos, 1h March 1925, p. 1. 50. ‘Report on the agrarian question, Positions for the 1st Congress’, Neos Anthropos, 23 November, p. 4 kai 10 December 1926, p. 4. 51. Katsiaounis, Constitutional Treaty, p. 32. 52. ‘Labour laws!’ Neos Anthropos. 14 April 1925, p. 1. The newspaper Ergatis (Worker) published the government’s reply to a letter from the MP, Chadjipavlou, asking for labour legislation. The government maintained that under present conditions, this was unnecessary. See ‘Government mockery and the people’s duty’, Ergatis, 20 August 1927, p. 1. 53. ‘On the mines at Amiantos’, Neos Anthropos, 1 May 1925, p. 2. 54. Liasis Pieri, unpublished interview. 55. Hobsbawm, J. Eric (1994). Nations and Nationalism: From 1870 to Date. Programme, Myth, Reality, Athens: Kardamitsa Publications, p. 67 [in Greek]. 56. ‘The Cyprus Question’, Neos Anthropos, 15 June, p. 4 and 1 July 1925, p. 4. Neos Ergatis, 9 September 1929, p. 2.

NOTES TO PAGES 105 –110

227

57. ‘The government threat and the need for a united front’, Neos Anthropos, 8 January 1927, p. 1. ‘Slap in the face from imperialism’, Neos Ergatis, 29 March 1929, p. 1. ‘Entering the fourth year’, Neos Anthropos, 1 January 1928, p. 1. 58. ‘Our programme’, Neos Anthropos, 1 January 1925, p. 1. 59. ‘Autonomy or enslavement’, Neos Anthropos, 15 March 1925, p. 1. 60. ‘Manifesto of the CPC for the Panhellenic games’, Neos Anthropos, 25 April 1925, p. 1. 61. ‘Positions of the 1st Pancyprian Congress on the economic and political situation’, Neos Anthropos, 18 September 1926, pp. 1 – 2. 62. Phantis, Andreas (1976). ‘The national problem and the party of the working class’, Neos Demokratis, March [in Greek]. 63. ‘Only with uncompromising struggle’, Nέo6 Ergάth6, 9 September 1929, p. 1. 64. Loizides in Eleftheria, 26, 30 November and 6 December, 1930. 65. ‘Time to mobilise’, Neos Anthropos, 15 January 1925, p. 1. 66. ‘No, we don’t want this’, Neos Anthropos, 1 March 1925, p. 3. 67. ‘Quickly, very quickly’, Neos Anthropos, 25 April 1925, p. 2. 68. ‘Manifesto of the CPC on the Pan-Hellenic games’, Neos Anthropos, 25 April 1925, p. 1. 69. Papaioannou, ‘25 years of struggle’, p. 10 [in Greek]. 70. Phantis, The Cyprus Trade Union Movement, p. 79. Perdios, in the Essay, p. 53, notes in the same spirit that the CPC’s appeals to the nationalist leaders were easily rejected due to the broader policy which the Party pursued towards them. 71. Servas, ‘Data on the study of the CPC’, p. 129. 72. ‘Positions on the agrarian question’, Neos Anthropos, 18 September 1926, p. 2. 73. Richter, History, p. 375. Richter, ‘The Cypriot communist party’, p. 107. 74. Yiallourides, ‘Cyprus party system’, p. 173. 75. Servas, Responsibilities, p. 77. 76. Richter, ‘The Cypriot communist party’, pp. 102, 106. 77. Carr Edward H. (1986). The Twilight of the Comintern 1930– 1935, London: Palgrave Macmillan, p. 406. 78. Katsiaounis, Rolandos (2007). ‘Cyprus 1931– 1959: The politics of the anticolonial movement’, Yearbook of the Cyprus Research Centre, XXXIII, Nicosia, p. 445. 79. History of the CPC – AKEL, unpublished document of the central committee of AKEL, no author, p. 148. 80. Neos Anthropos, 15 September 1925, p. 1. ‘To the people of Cyprus’, Neos Anthropos, 1 October 1925, p. 1. 81. ‘Duties of the CPC’, from the documents of the first congress, Neos Anthropos, 6 November 1926, p. 3; ‘Our programme’, Neos Anthropos, 1 January 1925, p. 1. 82. ‘Risen from the dead’, Neos Anthropos, 1 January 1925, p. 3. 83. ‘The National. . . Conclave’, Neos Anthropos, 1 February 1925, p. 3. 84. Neos Anthropos, 15 September 1925, p. 1. 85. Phantis, ‘The Cypriot trade union movement’, p. 79. 86. ‘Christianity and communism’, Pyrsos, 10 December 1923, p. 2.

228

NOTES TO PAGES 110 –115

87. ‘Plutocracy and clericalism’, Neos Anthropos, 25 April 1925, p. 2. 88. ‘The church as an organ of the capitalist system’, Ergatis, 10 August 1927, p. 4. 89. ‘Clergy and politics’, Neos Anthropos, 15 June 1925, p. 3; ‘Priest and parliamentarian’, Neos Anthropos, 2 September 1925, p. 1. 90. For the way the Church of Cyprus acquired its vast property and economic surface see Sant Cassia, ‘Religion, politics, ethnicity in Cyprus’, pp. 5 –12. 91. ‘Report on the ecclesiastical question’, Neos Anthropos, 1 October 1926, p. 2. 92. ‘What is our stand with regard to religion?’, Neos Anthropos, 1 March 1925, p. 4. 93. Ostrogorski, Political Parties, p. 285. 94. Lipset, ‘Political cleavages’, p. 41. 95. Katsiaounis, Constitutional Treaty, p. 33. 96. Tzermias, History, p. 95.

Chapter 5 Organisational Structuring: A Parallel Society 1. Lenin, What To Do, p. 165. 2. ‘Report on the organisational question. Thesis of the 1st Congress’, Neos Anthropos, 10 December 1926, p. 4. 3. The CPC was fully aware of this principle. ‘In organisation lies strength’, Neos Anthropos, 15 March 1925, p. 3. 4. Michels, Parties, pp. 79, 81. De Laveleye wrote at the end of the the nineteenth century that ‘parties like armies need obedience, discipline, unity, devotion to the flag. This is the price of success in parliamentary battles, just as on the battlefield’. See De Laveleye, Emile (1871). ‘The parliamentary regime and parties in Italy’, in Scarrow (eds), Perspectives, p. 152. 5. Lenin, What To Do, p. 212. 6. Lipset, Political Man, pp. 203–4. See also Krouwel, ‘Party models’, pp. 254–5. Ostrogorski compared the auxiliary and rival organisations – such as the women’s organisations, youth organisations, etc. – with irregular troops, in contrast to the Party organisations which were like battle-ready regular units. See Ostrogorski, Political Parties, p. 252. Poguntke notes that historically, these organisations reached the apogee during the golden days of the mass parties in Europe. At this time, dense networks of collateral organisations created almost ‘waterproof sub-cultures’, embracing individuals from the beginning to the end of their lives and almost hindering communication across the borders of these sub-cultures. See Poguntke, Thomas (2006). ‘Political parties and other organisations’, in Katz and Crotty (eds) Party Politics, p. 396. 7. Neumann explains the need for an analytical distinction between parties of individual representation (elite) and parties of incorporation (mass). To the first category belong most of the parties of the English-speaking democracies and the Scandinavian countries as well as most of the centrist and conservative parties, with the exception of the religious parties. These parties saw their

NOTES TO PAGES 115 –117

8. 9.

10.

11. 12. 13.

14. 15. 16. 17.

18. 19. 20.

229

main function as ensuring votes in elections. In contrast, parties of incorporation aimed to bring the rest of the world in step with their own basic philosophy. See Neumann, Sigmund (1956). ‘Toward a comparative study of political parties’, in Neumann, Sigmund (ed.), Modern Political Parties, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 404– 5. Lenin, Proletariat Party, pp. 17, 47. ‘Correspondence with the 6th and 10th party cells’, Neos Anthropos, 8 January 1927, p. 2. ‘Correspondence with the 15th cell of the Party Youth Movement and the 6th cell of the CPC’, Neos Anthropos, 21 May 1927, p. 3. ‘Announcement by the Central Committee of the Communist Youth Movement to all party cells’ Ergatis, 20 August 1927, p. 3. ‘Positions on the peasant question’, Neos Anthropos, 18 September 1926, p. 2; ‘Report on the peasant question’, 10 December 1926, p. 4. See also Perdios, Essay, p. 37. At the second agricultural congress of K. Rossides, to which I have already referred, the CPC sent Costas Drakos as its representative. Drakos asked for large landowners, money-lenders and all non-peasants to be excluded from the Agrarian Party. See Neos Anthropos, 1 July 1925, p. 2. Census of 1931, pp. 2 – 4. ‘Our programme’, Neos Anthropos, 1 January 1925, p. 1. The first peasants’ associations were founded in Koilani and Germasoya in Limassol province. See Perdios, Essay, p. 35. ‘Instructions on the foundation of peasant associations’, Neos Anthropos, 15 March 1925, p. 4. The draft version states that both men and women could become members and that these associations were subordinated both to the peasant union of their own district and to the Pancyprian Peasant Union. Koullouras Demetris, unpublished interview, kept in AKEL’s museum. ‘Proclamation to the young workers and peasants’, Neos Anthropos, 1 August 1926, p. 3. Unpublished interviews of Koullouras Demetris, Liasis Pieri and Polycarpou Savvas. ‘Decision on the youth issue’, Neos Anthropos, 1 October 1926, p. 2. See also Perdios, Essay, pp. 23, 39. Neos Anthropos, 1 July 1926, p. 3, published an announcement by the Communist School Student Youth to poor pupils, calling on them to organise. It also mentions that the secretary general of the youth movement was G. Mavromichalis, who was arrested by the police for signing this manifesto. ‘Announcement of the Central Committee of the Communist Youth to all the cells’, Ergatis, 20 August 1927, p. 3. On the cells as a mode of organisation, see below. ‘The 2nd Congress of the Communist Youth of Cyprus’, Neos Anthropos, 14 January 1928, p. 3. ‘Declaration of support for Neos Anthropos’, insert entitled Neos Bolshevikos in Neos Anthropos, 25 April 1928. See also Charalambos Solomoides’ letter to the Colonial Secretary, 3 May 1928, kept at AKEL’s museum.

230

NOTES TO PAGES 117 –120

21. ‘Proclamation of the Worker Youth of Limassol on the organisation of red sports’, Neos Anthropos, 17 August 1926, p. 3. Neos Anthropos, 18 October 1926, p. 3. See also Lefkis, The Roots, p. 173. Eleftheria, 26 February 1927, p. 3. In April 1927 a theatrical performance of the club was attended by 800 people. See Neos Anthropos, 14 April 1927, p. 3. 22. Unpublished interviews of Koullouras Demetris and Liasis Pieri. Neos Anthropos informs us on several such ‘Red walks’. See for instance Neos Anthropos, 19 March 1927, p. 3. 23. ‘The 2nd Conference of the Communist Youth’, Neos Anthropos, 14 January 1928, p. 3. The congress was organised on 4– 5 January 1928. 24. ‘Decision of the CC of the Communist Youth of Cyprus concerning the faction from the Limassol section’, insert in Neos Anthropos, 25 April 1928. 25. Klio Christodoulides, interview in Haravgi 22 August 1976. 26. Zambas, CPC-AKEL Famagusta, p. 22. See also Savvas Polycarpou unpublished interview. Other members included Irene Solomonides, Maritsa Konteatou, Maria Koukkoulli, Christina Skelea, Katina Nicolaou, Kocolaou and Anna Plita. 27. Liasis Pieri, unpublished interview. 28. Klio Christodoulides, interview in Haravgi 22 August 1976. 29. Duverger, Parties, pp. 63 –71. 30. Molyneux, Marxism and the Party, p. 67. 31. ‘Decision on the organisational question’, Neos Anthropos, 1 October 1926, p. 2. 32. See the interviews by Prodromos Papavassiliou and Christos Roussis, veteran cadres of CPC-AKEL in Varossi and Larnaca, with Costas Graikos for the archive of the PEO, undated. 33. Neos Anthropos, 10 December 1926, p. 4. Article 5 of the CPC statute, dealing with organisation and administration, foresaw that ‘in any industrial, agricultural or mining enterprise, village or urban neighbourhood where there are at least three members, they organise a cell. The cell is a self-sufficient party organisation with its own life and is run by its secretary.’ The statute was published in Neos Anthropos, 24 December 1926, p. 4. 34. ‘Proclamation of the CC of AKEL on the 60 years of CPC-AKEL’ (1986). Neos Demokratis, issue 91 [in Greek]. For an extensive elaboration on the subject see Petas, Christos (1992), The Movement of the Cultural Clubs 1931– 1945, Nicosia [in Greek]. 35. ‘The celebration of May 1st at the Labour Centre, Turkish workers linked in fraternity with their Greek brothers’, Neos Anthropos, 21 May 1927, p. 2. The article refers to the Turkish worker, Ali Ferouzi, who spoke to the meeting and was elected to the committee which submitted the resolution to the British commissioner in Limassol. 36. Koullouras Demetris, unpublished interview. 37. Neos Anthropos, 13 June 1930. 38. Sub-inspector of police to the local commandant of police Nicosia, 10 August 1931, kept in AKEL museum.

NOTES TO PAGES 120 –124

231

39. Soz, 13 August 1931, pp. 1– 2. 40. Katsiaounis, ‘Cyprus 1931– 1959: the politics of the anti-colonial movement’, p. 445. 41. G. Christodoulides, ‘The Turkish section of the CPC’, in Haravghi, 10 May 2005. 42. Varnavas, Pantelis (1997). Common Labour Struggles of Greek and Turkish Cypriots, Nicosia: Publications of the Pancyprian Labour Federation, pp. 49 – 62 [in Greek]. 43. Lenin, What To Do, p. 110. 44. Michels, Parties, p. 196. 45. Neos Anthropos, 1 January 1925, p. 1. 46. An insert in Neos Anthropos that circulated inside Ergatis on 31 August 1927 lists a series of books which were available at very low prices from the Party offices. 47. On page 3 of the first issue it is mentioned that the newspaper was written by an editorial committee, with Charalambos Solomonides as the publisher and Costas Skeleas as the editor. 48. ‘Entering the fourth year’, Neos Anthropos, 1 January 1928, p. 1. Servas writes that circulation at one point reached 1,500 copies. See Servas, ‘Data on the Study of the CPC’, p. 128. 49. Cyprus Blue Book 1928, p. 183. See also Cyprus Blue Book 1929, p. 189. 50. Klio Christodoulides, interview in Haravgi 22 August 1976. 51. ‘Decision on the party press’, Neos Anthropos, 1 October 1926, p. 2. 52. Psaras Efthimios, interview to Kostas Graikos, archive of PEO (undated). 53. This is noted by Ostrogorski for the case of Britain. See Ostrogorski, Political Parties, p. 192. 54. Rokkan, Parties, pp. 414– 15. 55. Liasis Pieri, unpublished interview, kept in AKEL’s museum. 56. ‘To our subscribers’, Neos Anthropos, 18 February 1925, p. 4. 57. See a letter from an anonymous subscriber entitled ‘The circulation of our newspaper is hindered’, Ergatis, 10 August 1927, p. 2. 58. ‘Arbitrary actions by the post office’, Neos Ergatis, 18 April 1929, p. 3. 59. O Ergatis, 26 September 1927. 60. ‘Libel trial’, Eleftheria, 16 July 1927, p. 3. 61. ‘The Neos Anthropos trial’, Neos Anthropos, 15 Maίoy 1925, p. 3. ‘Neos Anthropos in court’, Neos Anthropos, 1 July 1925, p. 3. ‘Contributions to our publisher’s fine’, Neos Anthropos, 1 June 1926, p. 2. The case was brought by the teachers’ association of the Greek Secondary School of Limassol in relation to the publication of information about teachers beating pupils. 62. Perdios, Essay, p. 26. 63. This newspaper also appeared several times in 1928, in parallel with the publication of Neos Anthropos. It was designed as a newspaper for peasants as part of an attempt by the CPC to infiltrate the rural strata. 64. Panayiotou, Antreas (2008). ‘The social history of the communist movement in Cyprus’, Politis, 9 November.

232

NOTES TO PAGES 124 –127

65. Lefkis, The Roots, p. 60. See also Perdios, Essay, pp. 62– 3, 66, 71– 2. 66. Philippides, Zakharias (1982). ‘The establishment and consolidation of classbased trade union movement’, Neos Democratis, January– February, p. 81 [in Greek]. 67. The newspaper called on its readers to contribute articles. For an example, see ‘Correspondence’, Neos Anthropos, 15 January 1925, p. 3, which asks workers and peasants, apart from congratulating the newspaper, to refer to their living conditions, their oppression, etc. Later the paper established a regular column entitled ‘The voice of our workers and peasants’, in which it published readers’ letters on various issues. 68. Lipset writes that the control of the official means of communication within an organisation constitutes a major source of administrative strength at the disposal of officials in a bureaucratic hierarchy. This ‘monopoly’ of the channels of communication is a basic condition for shaping attitudes and behaviours. See Lipset, Political Man, p. 394. 69. ‘How Neos Anthropos should be written’, Neos Anthropos, 18 February 1925, p. 3. 70. Lenin, Proletariat Party, pp. 14 – 7. 71. Ibid, p. 17. 72. Article 7 states: ‘Supreme power within the party lies with the party Congress, followed in turn by the Central Committee (CC), the District Assembly, the Local Committee (LC), and the General Assembly of the cell. The Party congress meets in a place determined by the CC and consists of the representatives of the sections who are elected by the district assembly. The number of representatives corresponds to the number of members of each section, with a ratio to be determined each time by the CC. The duties of Congress are as follows: a) to control the activity of the CC, b) to decide on programmatic issues and party tactics, c) to take the final decision on all issues which emerge within the party, d) to monitor the CC’s economic management, e) to elect the CC and the Central Control Committee of the party. The party Congress is called by the CC regularly each year or exceptionally whenever it wishes or when there is a request by at least two Party sections, whose application should define the issue with which the Congress will be concerned.’ See Neos Anthropos, 24 December 1926, p. 4. 73. Lenin, What To Do, p. 173. 74. ‘The statute of the CPC’, Neos Anthropos, 24 December 1926, p. 4. 75. One of the CPC’s founder members, Charalambos Skapaneas, was expelled from the Party for ‘factionalist actions and abuse’. See ‘Decision of the CC of the CPC on the expulsion of a member’, Neos Anthropos, 24 March 1928, p. 1. 76. Neos Anthropos, 24 December 1926, p. 4. 77. According to Krouwel, a characteristic of communist parties was the creation of an extra-parliamentary leadership, prior to the creation of the parliamentary and governmental wing. This had as a consequence that the parliamentary wing was controlled, disciplined and supervised by the extra-parliamentary leadership. See Krouwel, ‘Party models’, p. 255. The

NOTES TO PAGES 127 –130

78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91.

92. 93. 94. 95.

96.

233

strength of the extra-parliamentary leadership in the ranks of the labour movement is also underlined by Michels, Parties, p. 216. ‘How our cells should work’, Neos Anthropos, 24 October 1927, p. 4; 2 November 1927, p. 4; 20 November 1927, p. 4; 30 November 1927, p. 4; 10 December 1927, p. 4. ‘Theses for the organisational question of the 2nd Pancyprian Congress’, Neos Anthropos, 6 December 1928. History of the Trade Union Movement, unpublished document of PEO. CPC’s Paphos Local Committee Announcement, Paphos, 20 April 1931, kept in AKEL’s museum. History of the CPC – AKEL, unpublished document of the central committee of AKEL, no author, pp. 93 – 4. Victoras Georgiou-Mikros, Stelios Lapertas and Kotsios Chrysanthou are reported as the leaders of the Paphos cell. Ibid., p. 94. Iacovos Nicolaou, Stephanos Kyprianou and Platon Toumazos are cited as the pioneers in Varosi. Ibid., p. 95. Head of these efforts in Nicosia were Evripides and Costas Iacovou, Antonis Paraskeva, Spyros Antoniou and Giorgos Mountzomenos, etc. ‘Our party’s extraordinary congress’, O Ergatis, 31 August 1927, p. 3. Neos Anthropos, 6 December 1928. ‘Decision on the Central Committee’s activity report’, Neos Anthropos, 6 December 1928, p. 2. See also Koullouras Demetris, unpublished interview. Perdios, Essay, pp. 73, 86, 91. See also Richter, ‘The Cypriot Communist Party’, p. 111. Perdios, Essay, p. 73. Ibid., p. 91. Lenin, What To Do, pp. 152– 3. Michels, writing about German social democracy, notes that the Party – just like that other branch of the modern labour movement, trade unionism – needed employees who worked professionally and exclusively to serve this machine-monster: newspaper editors, secretaries of local Party organisations, accountants, booksellers and other employees. The first permanent and waged leadership cadres in the ranks of the European labour movement were appointed in 1840 by the British metalworkers’ union. See Michels, Parties, p. 386. ‘Statute of the CPC’, article 12, Neos Anthropos, 24 December 1926, p. 4. Lefkis, The Roots, pp. 60 – 2, 113, 115, 184– 5. Zambas refers to the case of Iakovos Nikolaou from Varossi who was transferred to Limassol as a waged cadre thanks to his prominent Party activity. See Zambas, CPC-AKEL Famagusta, p. 56. P. Papavassiliou, in an interview to C. Graikos for the PEO archive, mentions that one such waged cadre in the late 1930s was Andreas Ziartidis (former general secretary of the PEO and a long term leadership cadre of AKEL). See Agathangelos Emmanuel, unpublished interview with Costas Graikos for the PEO archive.

234

NOTES TO PAGES 130 –135

97. Perdios, Essay, p. 40. 98. ‘Labour news’, Neos Anthropos, 1 January 1926, p. 3. See Lefkis, The Roots, p. 130. At the lecture held at the Trust Club in Nicosia, about 80 workers were present and a provisional committee was elected with the role of finding a building and registering other workers. 99. Xynaris Efstathios, undated interview with Costas Graikos for the PEO archive. Xynaris was a leading cadre of the Communist Youth. 100. Michels, Parties, p. 386. Michels himself had been a member of the German Social Democratic Party. 101. Katz, S. Richard and Mair, Peter (1993). ‘The evolution of party organizations in Europe: three faces of party organization’, The American Review of Politics, 14, pp. 593– 617. The authors identified three layers within parties with varying resources, opportunities and authority attached to each of them: party on the ground, party in central office and party in public office. 102. Cited in Molyneux, Marxism and the Party, p. 158. 103. Michels, Parties, pp. 93 – 4. 104. Rashke and Katsoulis, Parties, p. 32. 105. Lipset, ‘Political cleavages’, pp. 33 – 4. 106. Lipset, Political Man, pp. 89, 92, 104. 107. Geary, European Labour Movement, pp. 121– 4. 108. See Chapter 3 on the vocations of the first communists. 109. Geary, European Labour Movement, pp. 112– 17. 110. Rokkan, Parties, p. 201. This is more apparent in the case of the British Labour Party. 111. Agathangelos Emmanuel, a veteran CPC cadre, in an unpublished interview with Costas Graikos for the archive of the Pancyprian Federation of Labour, notes that he spent two years on trial as a candidate before becoming a regular member. 112. Lenin, Proletariat Party, p. 105. 113. ‘The CPC Statute’, Neos Anthropos, 24 December 1926, p. 4. 114. Katina Nikolaou, unpublished interview. 115. ‘The 1st Pancyprian Congress of the CPC’, Neos Anthropos, 18 September 1926. In this article, the newspaper notes that representatives of the Communist Women’s Club were present at the founding congress. 116. Lefkis, The Roots, p. 215. 117. Leonidas Stringos, interview in Haravgi, 22 August 1976. 118. Cyprus State Archive, SA1/607/1931, Communist Activities, Police Reports, etc. 119. Storrs to Passfield, 4 June 1931, quoted by Georghallides, Storrs, p. 651. 120. Richter, History, p. 458. 121. Local Commandant of Larnaca to the Chief Commandant, Confidential, No. 48/25, 14 October 1932. 122. AKEL’s local committee, 20 April 1931, Ktima, Paphos. The statement is signed by Costas Chrysanthou and is kept in the Party’s museum.

NOTES TO PAGES 136 –139 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133.

134. 135.

136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143.

144. 145.

235

Richter, ‘The Cypriot communist party’, p. 110. Perdios, Essay, pp. 73, 86, 91; Richter, ‘The Cypriot communist party’, p. 111. Ioannou, The Left and the Cyprus Problem, p. 16. Lenin, Proletariat Party, p. 105. Meynaud, Political Forces, p. 260. ‘Persecuted and injured communists’, Eleftheria, 19 August 1931, p. 2. Perdios, Essay, p. 23. Neos Anthropos, 14 April 1925, p. 3. Lipset, Political Man, pp. 198– 9. Michels, Parties, p. 346. In an interview with Costas Graikos for the archive of the PEO, Efthimios Psaras, a veteran cadre of the CPC and PEO, mentions that in Famagusta the movement was mainly led by intellectuals and employees rather than workers, and hence did not have the desired intervention at the mass level. His view concerning Famagusta is confirmed by Prodromos Papavassiliou, also in an interview with Graikos. We have already referred to the professions of the first members of the CPC in Chapter 3, which is indicative of this social composition. Hobsbawm, Special People, p. 109. Lenin introduced the concept of the political education of the masses. He wrote that this ‘concerns agitation among the people at every opportunity, with the aim of developing the political consciousness of the working people’. See Lenin, What To Do, pp. 72, 103. Lefkis refers to speeches given by workers to workers, something which was attractive for the members of the working class. He gives the example of a speech given by a woman at the LLC. See Lefkis, The Roots, p. 143. Eleftheria, 15 September 1926, p. 3. The lecture referred here was given by Vatyliotis at the Chadzipavlou Theatre, on the subject of the situation of the workers and peasants in the USSR. See also Perdios, Essay, p. 73. The personal information in the Party leadership cadres are drawn from a variety of sources, mainly from Koudounaris, Biographical Dictionary. Perdios, Essay, p. 29. Foni tis Kiprou (Voice of Cyprus), 24 January 1925. Perdios, Essay, p. 84. Graikos, Costas (1994), The October Riots and the CPC, Nicosia [in Greek]. Chryssanthou, Chryssanthos (2012). ‘The leadership of the Left in Cyprus, 1920– 1940’, unpublished paper presented at the conference ‘The Cypriot Left in the First Era of British Colonialism, 1922– 1941’. Conference organised by the University of Cyprus and the Research Institute Promitheas in Nicosia, 24 – 25 April [in Greek]. See an undated interview with Costas Graikos for the PEO archive by Gregoris Spyrou, a veteran cadre of CPC and AKEL. See also Perdios, Essay, p. 86. Richter, ‘The Cypriot communist party’, p. 111. This was used against him later because he did not reveal this information to the Party.

236

NOTES TO PAGES 139 –142

146. Christodoulides Giorgos, in Haravgi, 27 April 2005. 147. Ibid. Agathangelos Emmanuel, a veteran CPC cadre, in an interview with Costas Graikos for the PEO archive, described Servas as opiniated and authoritarian. Ioannou, The Left and the Cyprus Problem, p. 21. 148. Agathangelos Emmanuel, interview with Costas Graikos for the PEO archive. 149. Perdios, Essay, p. 29. 150. Chryssanthou, ‘Leadership of the Left’. 151. Perdios, Essay, p. 73. 152. See Chapter 6. 153. Lefkis, The Roots, pp. 106– 7. 154. According to Lipset, this commitment was also the reason why, throughout the world, socialists and communists played such a disproportionate role in the creation of most trade unions. See Lipset, Political Man, p. 420. 155. Mudde, Cas (2007). Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 274. 156. Schain et al. (2002), pp. 16 –17, cited in Mudde, Populist Radical Right, p. 274. The original reference concerns the parties of the radical right, but a similar analogy can be drawn for the communist parties. 157. ‘The new profession of the worker-peasants’, Neos Anthropos, 1 July 1926, p. 2. ‘With lies and slander it is not possible to fool labour forever’, Neos Anthropos, 16 July 1926, p. 2. These publications deny any organic relationship of the Party with the CPG and any guidance from Moscow. 158. Richter, ‘The Cypriot communist party’, p. 110. 159. Zambas, CPC-AKEL Famagusta, pp. 23 – 4. 160. Perdios Minos, in Haravgi, 22 August 1976. 161. Lefkis, The Roots, pp. 204– 5. 162. Leonidas Stringos, interview in Haravgi, 22 August 1976. 163. ‘The eleventh plenary session of the ECCI’, in Degras, Jane ed., (1965), The Communist International 1919– 1943, Documents, Vol. III, London: Oxford University Press, p. 150. 164. Graikos, Costas (1994). The CPC and the October Riots, Nicosia, p. 28 [in Greek]. See also Ioannou, Fifis (2005). This is How the Cyprus Problem Started, Athens: Filistor Editions, pp. 19 – 20 [in Greek]. 165. Psaras Efthimios, undated interview with Costas Graikos for the PEO archive. 166. Carabot Philip (2008), ‘The position of the Communist Party of Greece on the Cyprus issue in the era of Venizelist bourgeoisie’, in Papapolyviou and Kazamias (eds), Venizelos and Cyprus, p. 165 [in Greek]. 167. Richter, ‘The Cypriot communist party’, pp. 100, 107. Fifis Ioannou, later secretary general of AKEL, agrees with Richter’s position. See Ioannou, Cyprus Problem, op. cit., p. 15. Efstathios Xynaris, Communist Youth cadre, in an interview with Graikos for the PEO archive, maintains precisely the opposite, i.e. that the CPC was under the guidance of the CPB and immediately after the October Revolution was placed under the supervision of the CPG. 168. Efstathios Xynaris, interview with Costas Graikos for the PEO archive.

NOTES TO PAGES 143 –146

237

169. Zambas writes that Vatis had to swallow a letter from the British Communist Party when he was arrested by the police. Zambas, CPC-AKEL Famagusta, p. 24. 170. Leonidas Stringos, interview in Haravgi, 22 August 1976. 171. Ioannidis, Christophoros (1980). ‘The international relations of AKEL today’, Neos Demokratis, issue 61, October, p. 28 [in Greek]. 172. G. Christodoulides, ‘The CPC reorganised, the Pancyprian Trade Union Committee founded’, in Haravghi, 29 April 2005. 173. Report of the caretaker committee to the Fifth Congress of the CPC, document kept in AKEL’s museum, 11 November 1944, pp. 1 – 22. 174. Leventis, Giorgos (2002). Cyprus: The Struggle for Self-Determination in the 1940s, Frankfurt and Main: Peter Lang, p. 62. 175. ‘Open letter to the Governor of Cyprus’, O Ergatis, 31 August 1931. 176. Hobsbawm, Special People, pp. 74, 155. See also Geary, European Labour Movement, p. 31. Geary gives examples of the different types of mobilisations in different countries and different social contexts. 177. Geary, European Labour Movement, p. 27. 178. Lenin, What To Do, p. 138. 179. Geary, European Labour Movement, p. 139. 180. Lipset, ‘Introduction’, p. x1viii. 181. Christos Roussis, a veteran cadre of the CPC and AKEL in Larnaca, in an interview with Graikos for the PEO archive, refers to the CPC’s attempt in 1931 to create a labour centre in Larnaca. Agathangelos Emmanuel, also in an interview with Graikos, notes that he went to Mavrovouni (in the Nicosia area) in 1937 with Pavlakis Georgiou to organise the miners after a number of Party cadres working in the area were expelled from the company. P. Papavassiliou mentions that in Varossi there was a CPC cell that worked on trade union organisation and consisted of Christos Savvides, Christos Katsiaounis and Georgios Leventis. 182. Indicative of this attempt was an announcement issued by the LLC on 22 February 1925 and published in Neos Anthropos, 1 March 1925, p. 2. This mentions that no bourgeois politician will be allowed to make speeches at the centre, because the bourgeois plutocratic class is responsible for the misery of the working class. 183. Phantis, The Cypriot Trade Union Movement, pp. 68 – 9. 184. Perdios, Essay, pp. 21 – 2. See also ‘From the Limassol labour movement’, Neos Anthropos, 15 January 1925, p. 4. These sources mention the names of Christos Savvides and Costas Skeleas and refer to their role in the creation of the tailors’ and carpenters’ unions in Limassol. The person elected to the LLC’s committee was Nikos Yiavopoulos. At that time, the LLC had 257 members. 185. ‘The foundation of the Working Youth of Limassol’, Neos Anthropos, 14 April 1925, p. 2. 186. ‘Lecture by G. Chryssafinis at the Limassol Labour Centre’, Eleftheria, 23 June 1926, p. 3. One of the most prominent speakers was the Greek writer Nicos Kazantzakis, who spoke on the issue of the Soviet Union in a lecture that lasted two and a half hours. See Neos Anthropos, 1 June 1926, p. 3.

238

NOTES TO PAGES 146 –149

187. ‘Proclamation of the Limassol Labour Centre’, Neos Anthropos, 25 April 1925, p. 2. Celebrations were also organised in the Varosi (Famagusta) labour centre. In 1990 Michael Ignatieff, writing about Easter in the Observer, noted that secular societies have never succeeded in producing substitutes for religious rituals. May Day is perhaps the only unquestioned breach made by a secular movement in the Christian (or other official) calendar of feasts. Quoted in Hobsbawm, Special People, p. 164. 188. Perdios, Essay, p. 23. 189. Koullouras, unpublished interview. 190. Phantis, The Cypriot Trade Union Movement, p. 82. See also Liasis Pieri, unpublished interview. 191. Neos Anthropos, 1 January 1926, p. 3. 192. Neos Anthropos, 18 September, 1926, p. 3 (establishment of Varossi Labour Centre). Neos Anthropos, 24 December 1926, p. 3 (establishment of Larnaca Labour Centre). 193. Perdios, Essay, p. 73. See also Philippides, ‘Establishment’, p. 80. 194. Chronos, 18 June 1927. 195. Neos Ergatis, 12 August 1929, p. 1. 196. ‘Decision on the action of the CC’ and ‘Decision on the professional question’, Neos Anthropos, 1 October 1926, p. 1. See also Perdios, Essay, p. 30. Indicative of this mentality was the article in the newspaper, Pyrsos, publishing the names of the six-member committee of the tailors’ union, who were referred to as comrades. Lefkis writes that in the elections for the council of the unions in late 1925, Costas Skeleas was elected as secretary of the labour centre at a time when he was also the secretary general of the CPC. See Lefkis, The Roots, p. 131. 197. ‘Decision on the professional question’, Neos Anthropos, 1 October 1926, p. 1. 198. Phantis, The Cypriot Trade Union Movement, p. 61. 199. For example, in November 1925 the CPC the Party celebrated for a first time in Cyprus the anniversary of the Russian socialist revolution at the premises of the LLC. See Neos Anthropos, 21 November 1925, p. 1. 200. Perdios, Essay, p. 89. 201. Philippides, ‘Establishment’, p. 80. 202. Phantis, The Cypriot Trade Union Movement, p. 69. See also Ziartides, ‘Trade union development’, p. 120. 203. Cox, Kevin (1970). ‘Geography, social contexts, and voting behaviour in Wales, 1861– 1951’, in Allardt and Rokkan (eds), Mass Politics, p. 153. 204. For the Party’s involvement in the trade unions in this period see Chapter 7. 205. Phantis, The Cypriot Trade Union Movement, pp. 100– 1. The first strike in Cyprus took place in 1895, involving 500 ditch-diggers in Yermasoyia when the government cut 1 piastre from their daily wage. With the emergence of the first unions, the second known strike took place: that of the Limassol tailors in 1922, under the guidance of the communist, Christos Savvides. 206. Attalides, ‘Parties in Cyprus’, p. 144. See also G. Christodoulides, ‘CPC reorganises, PSE founded’, Haravghi, 29 April 2005.

NOTES TO PAGES 151 –154

Chapter 6

239

Political Integration

1. Geary, European Labour Movement, pp. 25 – 6, 93, 272. 2. Heller, Agnes (1993). ‘On formal democracy’, in Keane, John (ed), Civil Society and the State. 3. Lipset, Political Man, p. 73. 4. Geary, European Labour Movement, pp. 172– 4. 5. CO 537/701, Information regarding Communism in Cyprus, Governor to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, 3 November 1926. 6. Carabot, ‘The position of the communist party of Greece on the Cyprus issue’, p. 168. 7. See the speech by the Governor of Limassol, Surridge, during the May Day celebration at the LLC. ‘Red May Day’, Eleftheria, 6 May 1925, p. 3. 8. Liasis Pieri, unpublished interview. 9. ‘The pseudo-communists’, Nea Laiki, 22 January 1926, p. 1. 10. See for example, ‘The struggle gets tougher’, Neos Anthropos, 20 June 1927, p. 1. ‘Capital and government ally’, Neos Anthropos, 21 July 1927, p. 1. ‘Government trickery and the duty of the people’, O Ergatis, 20 August 1927, p. 1. 11. Local Commandant of Larnaca to Chief Commandant, Confidential, No. 48/25, 14 December 1932, kept in AKEL’s museum. See also unpublished interviews by Koullouras Demetris, Polycarpou Savvas and Liasis Pieri and ‘The forbidden books’, Neos Anthropos, 12 September 1928, p. 4. Thirteen such books were published. 12. Phantis, The Cyprus Trade Union Movement, pp. 72 – 4. On the surveillance at the LLC, see Lefkis, The Rots, p. 125. The Party itself in the proclamation of the first pancyprian congress denounced the ‘war’ being waged against it. See Neos Anthropos, 1 October 1926, p. 2. See also Perdios, Essay, pp. 24, 51. On 21 May 1927 (p. 3) Neos Anthropos accused the police of prohibiting a theatrical performance in Larnaca. A front page article on 14 April 1928 was entitled ‘We are bravely confronting white terror’. On 4 August, under the front page title ‘Terror rages’, the newspaper published a number of letters from workers who denounced searches of their homes, humiliating behaviour, the confiscation of books, etc. On 28 August 1928 the newspaper denounced the censorship of its correspondence and claimed that the authorities had placed under surveillance all the Party members and the acquaintances and all the newspaper’s subscribers, regardless of whether or not they were Party members. See Neos Anthropos, 28 August 1928, p. 1. See also ‘Arrest of communists and confiscation of their correspondence and books’, Eleftheria, 25 November 1925, p. 3. 13. See for example, Neos Anthropos, 30 November 1925, p. 3; O Ergatis, 10 August 1927 p. 1; Neos Anthropos, 11 February 1928, p. 2; Neos Anthropos, 13 June 1928, p. 2. 14. Neos Anthropos, 4 August 1930, p. 3.

240

NOTES TO PAGES 154 –158

15. ‘Trials of communists’, Eleftheria, 1 April 1931, p. 3. 16. ‘Two communist refugees deported’, Eleftheria, 17 June 1931, p. 2. 17. Director of Education to Hon. Colonial Secretary, 15 August 1931, kept in AKEL’s museum. 18. Richter, History, p. 355. Articles 57, 61, 89 and 90 note that individuals over 16 years of age who are members of an illegal association, or spread its principles, or publish or accept its material, or spread propaganda and carry out actions against the regime, or organise meetings of more than three people are guilty of a criminal offence. See Nέo6 Ergatis, 29 March 1929, p. 4. 19. Phantis, The Cyprus Trade Union Movement, pp. 64 –6. 20. ‘Pan-Limassol alarm’, Eleftheria, 6 November 1928, p. 3. 21. Holland, Britain, p. 33. 22. On these theories, see Geary, European Labour Movement, pp. 164– 80. 23. Ibid., p. 13. 24. Katsiaounis, ‘Antitheses’, p. 35. 25. On this issue see the articles by Savvas Loizides, a leading cadre of EREK, in Eleftheria on 26 and 29 November and 6 December 1930. 26. ‘By honourable labour’, Eleftheria, 29 April 1925, p. 1. 27. CO 537/701, Information regarding Communism in Cyprus, Governor to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, 3 November 1926. 28. Klio Christodoulides, interview in Haravgi, 22 August 1976. 29. ‘The crabs of communism’, Eleftheria, 7 January 1925. The article was signed by Ioannis Clerides, the father of Glafkos Clerides (President of the Republic of Cyprus 1993– 2003). See also ‘Communism’, Eleftheria, 28 January 1925, p. 2. 30. ‘Issues’, Alitheia, 10 July 1925, p. 2. 31. DIAYE: 1931, File A/22/III, A. Kyrou, Consul of Greece to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Confidential, 19 June 1931, quoted in Protopapas, Vassilis (2002). ‘The Informal Composition of a Two-Party System: Parties and Municipal Elections, Cyprus 1940– 1955’, Master’s Dissertation, University of Athens, pp. 30 – 1. 32. ‘Protest by newspaper editors’, Eleftheria, 3 May 1930, p. 1. 33. Neos Anthropos, 1 February 1925, p. 3. 34. Panayiotou, ‘Lenin in the coffee-shop’, p. 274. Perdios, Essay, p. 50 notes that the bourgeois newspapers and politicians slandered the Party by accusing it of atheism, abolishing marriage and breaking up the family. See also ‘Red Russia. The degradation of religion’, Eleftheria, 24 January 1925, p. 5. A priest in the village of Vatyli (Famagusta) preached on how the communists profess the common ownership of women. See Neos Anthropos, 24 October 1927, p. 3. 35. ‘Vain attempt’, Eleftheria, 8 July 1925, p. 3. 36. ‘New Labour Centre’, Eleftheria, 1 August 1925, p. 3; ‘Labour Centre’, Eleftheria, 19 August 1925, p. 3; ‘The new Labour Centre’, Eleftheria, 5 September 1925, p. 3. According to Eleftheria, the three contractors were

NOTES TO PAGES 158 –161

37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64.

241

Nicholaos Makrides (Kaimakliotis), Polykarpos Michailides (Karpes) and Neophytos Lanitis. Liasis Pieri, unpublished interview. For this party see Katsourides, Yiannos (2010), ‘The Origins of the Party System in Cyprus’, PhD Thesis, University of Cyprus, pp. 313–9 and Chapter 3. ‘The crabs of communism’, Laiki, 8 January 1926, p. 1. Ibid. Ibid. ‘Hit Communism’, Laiki Dinamis (Popular Power), 15 May 1931. ‘Labour movement’, Eleftheria, 22 May 1926, p. 3. ‘Labour Federation Elections’, Eleftheria, 14 May 1927, p. 3. ‘The Labour Federation’, Eleftheria, 27 August 1927, p. 3. ‘And the workers appeal to the governor’, Eleftheria, 14 September 1927, p. 3. Beaud, Michel (2008). The History of Capitalism, Athens: Electra Publications, p. 268 [in Greek]. G. Christodoulides, ‘Heroism and self-sacrifice’, Haravghi, 20 April 2005. ‘Capital and government make an alliance’, Neos Anthropos, 21 July 1927, p. 1. Phantis, The Cyprus Trade Union Movement, pp. 76 –7. Savvas Polycarpou, unpublished interview. ‘Swashbuckling’, Neos Anthropos, 1 May 1925, p. 3. Neos Anthropos, 15 June 1925, p. 3. G. Christodoulides, ‘The so-called communist bells’, Haravghi, 21 April 2005. Savvides, Georgios (1976). ‘The CPC and the policy of the united antiimperialist front’, Neos Demokratis, issue 46, March, p. 31 [in Greek]. Neos Anthropos, 21 July 1927, p. 3. ‘The labour issue. The communist finger. The need for a government and political purge’, Eleftheria, 4 July 1928, p. 1. ‘The people should reject the celebrations of the occupying power’, Neos Anthropos, 14 January 1928, p. 1. See for example, a series of publications in Neos Anthropos on 28 September 1928, p. 1; 11 October 1928, p. 1; 25 October 1928, p. 1; 7 November 1928, p. 4, entitled ‘Pro-Easter and anti-Easter camps’. ‘CPC manifesto to the Cypriot people’, Neos Anthropos, 25 October 1925, p. 3. ‘All non- traitors into the struggle’, Neos Anthropos, 14 November 1928, p. 1. See Protopapas, The Informal Composition of a Two-Party System, pp. 30– 1. ‘And a communist episode’, Eleftheria, 28 March 1931, p. 2. ‘Trials of communists’, Eleftheria, 1 April 1931, p. 3. ‘Conviction of communists’, Eleftheria, 25 April 1931, p. 3. Costas Drakos, Communique of the Central Committee of the CPC, Limassol, 4 April 1931. ‘The communists provoke and attack’, Eleftheria, 1 August 1931, p. 2. ‘Unprecedented popular uprising. Communists persecuted and injured’, Eleftheria, 19 August 1931, p. 2. Demetris Koullouras unpublished interview.

242

NOTES TO PAGES 161 –164

65. ‘Due to the comrades’, Eleftheria, 26 August 1931, p. 3. 66. The members of these groups, who were imprisoned after this, are listed in Phantis, The Cyprus Trade Union Movement, p. 78. They were Georgios Heracles (Gennaios), Petros Christodoulou (Portis), Christakis Vovides, Michalis Kouloumbras, Yiannis Kouparis (all from the Kaimakli area in Nicosia), Theodoros Kallas, Kodros Christou and Kyriakos Christodoulou. 67. History of PSE-PEO, p. 38. 68. Perdios, Essay, pp. 74 – 5. 69. Neos Anthropos, 30 November 1927, p. 3. 70. ‘The transgressors. Education and communism’, Eleftheria, 25 April 1931, pp. 1 – 2. 71. ‘Communism and equality’, ‘Communism and religion’, ‘Communism and private property’, ‘Communism and the fatherland’ in Eleftheria, 10 June 1931, p. 1; 4 July 1931, p. 1; 5 August 1931, p. 1; and 26 August 1931, p. 1 respectively. 72. ‘Proceedings of the Holy Synod. Communism’, Eleftheria, 6 May 1931, p. 3. 73. ‘Towards anti-communist measures. Meeting of union representatives’, Eleftheria, 17 June 1931, p. 2. 74. ‘Excommunication of the atheist teacher’, Eleftheria, 2 May 1931, p. 3. Anthias was the composer of AKEL’s anthem in 1941. 75. Tefkros Anthias (1931), ‘Libel of infidelity, Salutation to the CPC and the Proletariat’, 16 May. 76. Panayiotou, ‘The social history of the communist movement in Cyprus’, pp. 9 – 10. 77. Cited in Ioannou, ‘Development’, pp. 383– 4. 78. ‘Communism in Cyprus: the voice of danger and the fear of capitalists’, communique´ of the central committee of the CPC signed by C. Skeleas, Nicosia 26 July 1931. 79. See for instance Neos Anthropos, 15 May 1926, p. 1. ‘In the home of the absurd’, Neos Ergatis, 5 February 1929, p. 1. 80. Many issues of Neos Anthropos include scornful and aggressive references to and unflattering descriptions of the pro-Unionist politicians. Here are some examples: ‘sold-out institutions and self-elected pseudo-leaders’ (15 January 1925, p. 1), ‘idiotic National Council’ (3 April 1925, p. 3), ‘false leaders’ (25 April 1925, p. 1), ‘fair weather patriots’ (1 July 1925, p. 3), ‘charlatans’ (15 September 1925, p. 2), ‘saint parliamentarians’ (2 November 1927, p.1), ‘proUnionist thugs’ (Neos Ergatis, 20 February 1929, p. 1). 81. Savvides, ‘The CPC and the policy of the united anti-imperialist front’, p. 32. 82. Perdios, Essay, p. 68. 83. ‘Why you should not vote for the old politicians’, Neos Anthropos, 15 September 1925, annex. ‘To the Cypriot people’, Neos Anthropos, 1 October 1925, p. 1. 84. Neos Anthropos, 15 September 1925, p. 1; ‘To the Cypriot people’, Neos Anthropos, 1 October 1925, p. 1. 85. Neos Anthropos, 1 October 1925, p. 1.

NOTES TO PAGES 165 –170 86. 87. 88. 89.

243

Lefkis, Roots, pp. 133– 5. ‘Essential clarification’, Neos Anthropos, 15 February 1926, p. 3. ‘Praiseworthy decision’, Eleftheria, 13 March 1926, p. 3. Neos Anthropos, 16 July 1926, p. 2 and ‘Need for sincerity’, Neos Anthropos, 1 May 1926, p. 3. 90. Eleftheria, 20 March 1926, p. 3. 91. Lefkis, Roots, pp. 134– 9. See also Perdios, Essay, p. 58. 92. The three candidates were Panagiotis Myrmidones, tailor (270 votes), Christos Savvides, tailor (249 votes), and Spyros Mina, blacksmith (264 votes). The last two were members of the CPC. See ‘Need for sincerity’, Neos Anthropos, 1 May 1926, p. 3. 93. Lefkis, Roots, pp. 139– 40. ‘The municipal elections in Limassol’, Neos Anthropos, 1 May 1926, p. 2. 94. Perdios, Essay, pp. 58 – 9. 95. ‘Decision on the activity of the CC’, Neos Anthropos, 1 October 1926, p. 1. 96. Lefkis, Roots, pp. 174– 9. ‘The Labour Centre candidates who must be supported by all’, Neos Anthropos, 19 March 1927, p. 1. The list consisted of Costas Skeleas (carpenter), Kleanthis Sylvestros (builder), Charalambos Solomonides (barber), Antonis Militses (barrel-maker), Stephanos C. Savva (tailor), Panagiotis Myrmidones (tailor) and Spyros Minas (blacksmith). 97. Perdios, Essay, p. 60. 98. ‘The results of the municipal elections’, Neos Anthropos, 14 April 1927, p. 3. 99. Eleftheria, 18 March 1930, p. 2. ‘Pre-election movement in Limassol’, Eleftheria, 22 March 1920, p. 3. See also Perdios, Essay, p. 68. 100. The candidate was Costas Drakos. ‘Parliamentary by-election’, Nea Laiki, 20 June 1930, p. 3. See also Perdios, Essay, pp. 69 – 70. 101. ‘Parliamentary elections: the candidates’, Eleftheria, 7 October 1930, p. 2. The CPC candidates were: Petros Odiatis (Limassol district), Costas Drakos (Koilani-Avdimou district), Sophocles Mikros from Tsada (Paphos district) and Vassilis Tangas (Lefkara district). 102. Papademetris and Petrides, Encyclopedia, Volume 5, p. 379. 103. ‘From Larnaca, the parliamentary elections’, Eleftheria, 1 October 1930, p. 3. 104. Information about the election results can be found in Eleftheria, 18 October 1930, pp. 2 – 3. No result is given for the Morphou constituency where Costas Drakos ran as a candidate. 105. ‘Disapproval of the communists’, Eleftheria, 16 May 1931, p. 3. 106. ‘Submission of candidacies’, Eleftheria, 20 May 1931, p. 2. 107. Neos Anthropos, 11 April 1928, p. 4. 108. Eleftheria, 22 April 1931, p. 3. 109. Papademetris and Petrides, Encyclopedia, Volume 5, p. 391. 110. Lipset, Political Man, pp. 242, 263. 111. Bruce, Steven (2007). Sociology, Athens: Greek Letters Publications, pp. 12 –13 [in Greek]. 112. Rokkan, Parties, p. 422.

NOTES TO PAGES 171 –176

244

113. Lipset, Political Man, pp. 273– 4. 114. Nohlen, Party System and Electoral Systems, p. 52. See also Lipset, Political Man, op. cit., p. 73. 115. On these forms of protests, see Allardt, ‘Types of protest and alienation’, p. 50. 116. Katina Nikolaou, unpublished interview.

Chapter 7

The Years of Illegality and Taking Off

1. Psaras Efthimios, interview with Costas Graikos, PEO archive (undated). See also Perdios, Essay, p. 83. 2. Mavros, Iosif, ‘The CPC and the October Riots’, unpublished document, 9 November 1983, kept in AKEL’s museum. 3. Local Commandant of Nicosia to Chief Commandant of Police, Confidential Report No. 626/31, 25 October 1931. CO 67/240/15 Governor Storrs to Secretary of State for Colonies Despatch No. 493, 2 December 1931. See also Savvides, ‘The CPC and the policy of the united anti-imperialist front’, p. 31. 4. CO 67/240/15 Governor Storrs to Secretary of State for Colonies Despatch No. 473, Enclosure No. 8, 20 November 1931. See also Mavros Iosif, unpublished document. The unknown author of the History of the CPC – AKEL, p. 173 writes that a third person, C. Kononas, was also part of the delegation. 5. The History of the CPC – AKEL, unpublished document, unknown author, pp. 178– 9. 6. The Cyprus Gazette, No. 2307, Friday, 18 August 1933. 7. See for example CO 883/8/5, No. 41397/31, No. 108, Telegram, Governor to the Secretary of States, 26 October 1931. CO 67/242/4, No. 41397/X, Riots in Cyprus: Reports by Commander in Chief Mediterranean, Enclosure No. 2 No. 1797/120/9, 16 November 1931. 8. CO 67/240/15 Governor Storrs to Secretary of State for Colonies Despatch No. 493, 2 December 1931. CO 67/240/14, No. 41397/G Part I, 1931 Riots in Cyprus: Deportations. 9. CO 67 240/14, No. 41397/G Part I, 1931 Riots in Cyprus: Deportations, 17 November 1931. 10. CO 67/254/1, Classified, Sir H. R. Palmer to Sir J. Shuckburgh, 14 February 1934. For the trials see for example Eleftheria, 24 January and 21 February 1934. 11. Perdios, Essay, pp. 84 – 6. 12. Katsiaounis, Rolandos (2011). ‘The Communist Party of Cyprus in the decade 1931– 1941’, unpublished paper presented at the conference ‘The Cypriot Left in the First Era of British Colonialism, 1922– 1941’. Conference organised by the University of Cyprus and the Research Institute Promitheas, Nicosia 24 – 25 April [in Greek]. 13. Perdios, Essay, pp. 81 – 2.

NOTES TO PAGES 176 –181

245

14. The History of the CPC – AKEL, unpublished document, unknown author, pp. 191– 4. 15. Local Commandant of Limassol to Chief Commandant of Police, Confidential Report No. 2/25/29, 18 August 1932. 16. Cited in Richter, ‘The Cypriot communist party’, p. 109. See also Papademetris and Petrides, Encyclopedia, Period 1931– 46, Volume 1, p. 149. 17. Demetris Koullouras, unpublished interview. 18. Papademetris and Petrides, Encyclopedia, Period 1931– 46, Volume 1, p. 146. See also Perdios, Essay, p. 86. 19. Katsiaounis, ‘The Communist Party of Cyprus in the decade 1931– 1941’. 20. Katsiaounis, ‘Cyprus 1931 – 1959: the politics of the anti-colonial movement’, p. 447. 21. CO 67/251/3, Classified, Sir Edward Stubbs, Governor of Cyprus, to Sir Philip Cuncliffe-Lister, Secretary of State for the Colonies, 24 June 1933. 22. CO 67/256/7, Palmer to Parkinson, 2 January 1934. 23. Protopapas, The Informal Composition of a Two-Party System, p. 46. 24. M. L. Santamas (1986), British Awards in Cyprus, 1878– 1960, Nicosia. 25. CO 67/254/4, Classified, Palmer to Parkinson, 10 January 1934. 26. Holland, Britain, p. 33. 27. Chronos (Time), 6 September 1933, cited in Katsiaounis, ‘Antitheses’, p. 31. 28. Papademetris and Petrides, Encyclopedia, Period 1931– 46, Volume 1, p. 150. 29. Savvas Polycarpou, unpublished interview. 30. Local Commandant of Limassol to Chief Commandant of Police, Confidential Report No. 2/27/29, 26 July 1932. 31. Koullouras Demetris, unpublished interview. Savvas Polycarpou, unpublished interview. 32. ‘Communist Movements’, Eleftheria, 3 August 1932, p. 3. 33. Papademetris and Petrides, Encyclopedia, Period 1931 – 46, Volume 1, pp. 147– 8. 34. ‘Seizure of communist proclamations in Nicosia’, Eleftheria, 1 February 1933, p. 2. 35. Local Commandant of Limassol to Chief Commandant of Police, Confidential Report No. 2/25/29, 20 July 1932. 36. Katsiaounis, ‘Antitheses’, p. 35. 37. Papademetris and Petrides, Encyclopedia, Period 1931– 46, Volume 1, p. 148. 38. CO 67/250/12, No. 19773, Criminal Code (Amendment) Law 1933 (secret), p. 43. 39. The Cyprus Gazette, No. 2307, 18 August 1933. 40. Katsiaounis, Constitutional Treaty, p. 61. 41. Cited in Katsiaounis, Constitutional Treaty, p. 61. 42. Ziartides, ‘Trade union development’, p. 115. Phantis, The Cypriot Trade Union Movement, p. 69. Richter, History, p. 613. The first union to be registered under the new law was the union of the shoe-makers of Nicosia on 11 May 1932, followed by the barber clerks on 8 April 1936, the builders of Famagusta on

246

43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49.

50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63.

64.

NOTES TO PAGES 181 –185 14 August 1936, the union of the private employees of Nicosia on 13 February 1937, the union of pressmen of Nicosia on 23 February 1938, and builders of Nicosia on 27 August 1938. By the end of 1938 five more unions were registered: the baker workers of Nicosia, the coopers of Limassol, the woodworkers of Famagusta, the woodworkers of Nicosia and the railroad workers of Nicosia. During 1939 and the first days of January 1940, 32 more unions were registered. Servas, Responsibilities, p. 118. Attalides, ‘Parties in Cyprus’, p. 144. G. Christodoulides, ‘The CPC reorganises, the PSE is established’, Haravgi, 29 April 2005. Panayiotou, ‘The social history of the communist movement in Cyprus’, p. 12. Panayiotou, ‘Lenin in the coffee-shop’, p. 269. CO 67/265/11, Classified, Sir H. R. Palmer, Governor of Cyprus, to J. H Thomas, Secretary of State for the Colonies, 1 May 1936. CO 67/265/11, Classified, Sir H. R. Palmer, Governor of Cyprus, to J. H Thomas, Secretary of State for the Colonies, 1 December 1936. Classified, J. H. Ashmore, Commander of Police (2012) ‘Report on Communism in Cyprus, 1 January – 30 June 1939, 27 July 1939, cited in Protopapas, Vassilis’, The Electoral History of Cyprus: Politicians, Parties and Elections in Anglokratia 1878–1960, Athens: Themelio Publications, p. 345 [in Greek]. Michaelides, Michalis, The Turkish Cypriot Presence in Labour Movement of Cyprus, unpublished Study, p. 14. Chronos, 29 September 1933. Chronos, 4 October 1933. Richter, History, p. 613. See also Katsiaounis, Constitutional Treaty, p. 62. Servas, Responsibilities, p. 115. History of PSE-PEO, pp. 43 – 7. Phantis, The Cypriot Trade Union Movement, pp. 92 – 4· G. Christodoulides, ‘The CPC reorganises, the PSE is established’, Haravgi, 29 April 2005. Phantis, The Cypriot Trade Union Movement, p. 121. Papademetris and Petrides, Encyclopedia, Period 1931– 46, Volume A, p. 337. Ziartides, ‘Trade union development’, p. 120. Petas, The Movement of the Cultural Clubs 1931– 1945. The History of the CPC – AKEL, unpublished document, unknown author, p. 205. AKEL (1978), AKEL: The Party of the Working People, Nicosia: AKEL’s Publications, p. 79. Georgis, Giorgos (2012). ‘Cypriot leftists participation in the Spanish Civil War’, unpublished paper presented at the conference ‘The Cypriot Left in the First Era of British Colonialism, 1922– 1941’. Conference organised by the University of Cyprus and the Research Institute Promitheas, Nicosia 24– 25 April. Ibid. However, Papaioannou, the former secretary general of AKEL (1949–88) and a volunteer himself, reports that there were no Cypriot volunteers from

NOTES TO PAGES 185 –188

65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73.

74. 75. 76.

77. 78. 79. 80.

81. 82. 83. 84.

247

Cyprus. See Papaioannou, Ezekias (1988). Remembrances of my Life, Nicosia: Pyrsos Publications, p. 46. Papaioannou, Remembrances of my Life, p. 41. Georgis, ‘Cypriot leftists participation in the Spanish Civil War’. CO 67/251/7, Sir Edward Stubbs, Governor of Cyprus, to Sir Philip CuncliffeLister, Secretary of State for the Colonies. Cyprus Gazette (Extraordinary), No. 2321, 28 October 1933. Cyprus Gazette, No. 2380, 13 July 1934. ASKI, F-20/21/40, p. 2, 6 August 1951. Eleftheria, 15 April 1941. Foni tis Kiprou, 19 April 1941. Perdios, Essay, Volume II, p. 20 ASKI, F-20/21/14, p. 11. ASKI, F-20/21/46, p. 7, 18 October 1951. See also Christophorou, Christophoros (2006). ‘The emergence of modern politics in Cyprus (1940 – 1959)’, in Faustmann, Hubert and Peristianis, Nicos (eds) Britain in Cyprus, Colonialism and Post-Colonialism1878 – 2006, Mannheim and Mohnesee: Bibliopolis, pp. 295– 314. Protopapas, The Electoral History of Cyprus. Ioannou, The Left and the Cyprus Problem, p. 21. See also, ASKI F-20/21/14, ‘A brief report on Cyprus and AKEL’, signed by F. Ioannou and A. Ziartides, November 1948. Ibid., p. 21. Christophorou, ‘The emergence of modern politics in Cyprus’, p. 300. The full list of participants in the founding congress included the following: Ploutis Servas, Lissandros Tsimillis, Miltiades Christodoulou, Minos Perdios, Costas Kononas, Stavros Pantziaris, Nikolas Stratos, Tefkros Anthias, Giorgos Mannouris, Antreas Fantis, Lazaros Christophides, Pavlos Georgiou, Kipridimos, Savvas Ioannou, Christos Savvides, Costas Ioakim, Giorgos Vassiliades, Giorgos Christodoulides, Charalambos Solomonides, Demetris Stephanides, Marcos Marcoullis, Giorgos Christophorou, Vassos Vassiliou, Fofo Vassiliou, Lefkios Zenon, Achilleas Argyrides, Zenon Rossides, Phedias Kyriakides, Phedonas Koladikis, Michalis Constantinides, Adam Adamantos, Georgios Ladas, Costas Siakkalis, Andreas Stavrinos, Kyriakos Ierodiakonou, Costas Carnaos, and Saveris Saveriades. Aneksartitos (Independent), 15 April 1941. AKEL (1941), Founding Declaration, 14 April 1941. Ioannou, The Left and the Cyprus Problem, p. 22. ‘Report of the Central Committee of AKEL’, in Aneksartitos, 6 December 1941. Those members were allocated as follows: Limassol 382 members, Nicosia 371 members, Famagusta 366 members, Larnaca 102 members, Paphos 40 members and Kyrenia 23 members. ‘AKEL’s Congress’, Aneksartitos, 5 October 1941. Ioannou, The Left and the Cyprus Problem, p. 28. Ibid. Ibid.

248

NOTES TO PAGES 189 –194

85. Phantis, Andreas (1993), The Constitutional Treaty, Nicosia, p. 50 [in Greek]. 86. Ioannou, The Left and the Cyprus Problem, p. 28. A similar opinion is shared by Phantis, who imputes Servas with contempt and disobedience towards the decisions of the Party. Phantis, The Constitutional Treaty, p. 50. 87. Katsiaounis, Constitutional Treaty, p. 138. 88. Ibid., p. 141. 89. Adams, Thomas W. (1971). AKEL: The Communist Party of Cyprus, Stanford, California: Hoover Institution Press, pp. 24 – 5. 90. Ibid., p. 139. 91. CO/67323/4, Top Secret, ‘The political Situation in Cyprus September 1945’, cited in Katsiaounis, Constitutional Treaty, p. 141. 92. The History of the CPC – AKEL, unpublished document, unknown author, pp. 346– 9. 93. Report of the caretaker committee to the Fifth Congress of the CPC, document kept in AKEL’s museum, 11 November 1944, pp. 1 – 22. 94. Proceedings of the fifth congress of the CPC held in Famagusta on 11 November 1944, kept in AKEL’s museum. 95. Ibid. Among the participants there were ten members from Famagusta district, six from Nicosia, seven from Larnaca, three from Paphos, three from Limassol and three other members that were invited to participate. Only the first names of the participants are given, probably because they feared that if seized by the police this would not disclose the identity of the members and thus make it harder for the police to arrest them. 96. PEO Interviews Archive, unpublished. 97. AKEL Founding Declaration, in Aneksartitos 15 April 1941. 98. ASKI, F-20/21/14, pp. 9– 10. 99. Perdios, Essay, Volume II, p. 18. 100. AKEL (1943a). Proceedings from the 2nd Congress, 30 –31 January, Famagusta. 101. AKEL (1943b). Plea for Party Members for Voluntary Recruitment in the Military Forces, Decision of the Central Committee, in AKEL: The Party of the Working People, p. 99. 102. AKEL (1944). ‘Political Decision of the 3rd Congress, 23 April, Larnaca’. 103. AKEL (1945). Proceedings from the 4th Congress, 18 – 20 August, Nicosia. 104. ASKI, F-20/21/22, p. 4, 7 June 1951. 105. See Katsiaounis, Constitutional Treaty. 106. ASKI, F-20/21/3, p. 4, 31 July 1948. 107. ASKI, F-20/21/34, p. 20, 19 July 1951. 108. ASKI, F-20/21/14, p. 24. See also Perdios, Essay, p. 65. 109. ASKI, F-20/21/14, p. 11. 110. Aneksartitos, 8 May 1943. 111. ‘On the Celebration of the 25th of March’, Eleftheria 20 March 1942. The reference directly refers to Turkish Cypriot members of AKEL. 112. ‘The First Congress of AKEL’, Aneksartitos, 8 October 1941. 113. ‘Theses of AKEL, in Aneksartitos, 16 –17 April 1941.

NOTES TO PAGES 194 –205

249

114. See for example, ‘A day’s labour for the defense of Cyprus’, Aneksartitos, 30 August 1941. 115. Protopapas, The Electoral History of Cyprus.

Conclusion 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

Agent of Social Change and Radicalisation

Attalides, ‘Political parties in Cyprus’, p. 137. Anagnostopoulou, ‘Church’, p. 224. Carrabott, p. 168. Lipset, Political Man, p. 136. Attalides, ‘Political parties in Cyprus’, p. 144. The concept of the horizontally organised movement includes parties and unions in which membership is based on homogeneous sociological criteria, mainly class. The opposite is vertical forms of organisation, usually of clientelistic networks, where connections are made at a personal level. On the model of union mobilisation, see Geary, European Labour Movement, p. 71. Lipset and Rokkan, ‘Cleavage structures’, p. 49. Christophorou, ‘The emergence of modern politics in Cyprus’. On this subject see Lipset, ‘Political cleavages’, p. 29. Rokkan, ‘The structuring of mass politics’, pp. 180– 1. Servas, Responsibilities, p. 116. Lenin, What to Do? Giovanni, Sartori (1970). ‘The typology of party systems’, in Allardt, Erik and Rokkan, Stein (eds), Mass Politics, p. 342. Sartori, ‘Sociology’, p. 172. LaPalombara and Weiner, ‘The origin of parties’, pp. 10 – 11. Rokkan, ‘The structuring of mass politics’, p. 207. Panebianco, Political Parties: Organization and Power. Katsiaounis, ‘Antitheses’, p. 31. Geary, European Labour Movement, p. 98. See also Lipset, ‘Political cleavages’, p. 27. Lipset and Rokkan, ‘Cleavage structures’, p. 22. Geary, European Labour Movement, p. 28. Lipset, Political Man, p. 24. Panayiotou, ‘Lenin in the coffee-shop’, p. 273. Perdios, Essay, p. 91. Christophorou, ‘The emergence of modern politics in Cyprus’ pp. 298– 301.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The National Archives of the United Kingdom Colonial Office: CO 67: Original Correspondence, Cyprus: CO 67/113, CO 67/219/13, CO 67/223/6, CO 67/223/17, CO 67/225/6, CO 67/227/6, CO 67/227/14, CO 67/240/14, CO 67/240/15, CO 67/242/4, CO 67/250/12, CO 67/251/3, CO 67/251/7, CO 67/254/1, CO 67/254/4, CO 67/256/7, CO 67/265/11, CO/67/323/4. CO 537: Colonial Office and predecessors: Confidential General and Confidential Original Correspondence: CO 537/701. CO 883: War and Colonial Department and Colonial Office: Confidential print Mediterranean: CO 883/2/4, CO 883/6/5, CO 883/6/6, CO 883/6/9, CO883/8/3, CO 883/8/5.

Population Censuses Cyprus 1891, 1901, 1911, 1921, 1931.

Cyprus Blue Books 1884–85, 1886–87, 1888–89, 1892–93, 1895–96, 1900–01, 1901–02, 1903–04, 1904–05, 1905–06, 1908–09, 1911–12, 1915–16, 1916–17, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1926, 1928, 1929, 1930.

Cyprus State Archives, Nicosia (Kratikάά Arx1ίίa Kύproy, L1ykvsίίa) Secretariat Archives: (SA1): SA1/607/1931.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

251

Contemporary Social History Archives, Athens (Arx1ίίa Sύύgxronh6 Koinvnikήή6 Istorίίa6, Auήήna) K. 371: F-20/21/3, F-20/21/14, F-20/21/22, F-20/21/34, F-20/21/40, F-20/21/46.

Documents kept in AKEL’s museum Sub-inspector of police to the Local Commandant of Police Nicosia, 10 August 1931. Local Commandant of Larnaca to the Chief Commandant, Confidential, No. 48/25, 14 October 1932. Director of Education to Hon. Colonial Secretary, 15 August 1931. Mavros, Iosif, The CPC and the October Riots, unpublished, 9 November 1983. Local Commandant of Nicosia to Chief Commandant of Police, Confidential Report No. 626/31, 25 October 1931. Local Commandant of Limassol to Chief Commandant of Police, Confidential Report No. 2/25/29, 18 August 1932. Local Commandant of Limassol to Chief Commandant of Police, Confidential Report No. 2/27/29, 26 July 1932. Local Commandant of Limassol to Chief Commandant of Police, Confidential Report No. 2/25/29, 20 July 1932. ‘The Peasant Issue of Cyprus’, Neos Anthropos Library, Issue 1, Communist Party Publications, 1925. Charalambos Solomonides letter to the Colonial Secretary, 3 May 1928. AKEL’s local Committee, 20 April 1931, Ktima, Paphos. The statement is signed by Costas Chrysanthou.

Pancyprian Federation of Labour (PEO) archives (Arx1ίίa Pagkύύpria6 Ergatikήή6 Omospondίίa6, PEO) Archive of unpublished interviews with PEO veterans. History of the Trade Union Movement, unpublished PEO document.

Newspapers The Cyprus Gazette Pyrsό6, [Pyrsos] (Torch) Nέo6 Άnurvpo6, [Neos Anthropos] (New Man) O Ergάth6, [O Ergatis] (The Worker) Nέo6 Ergάth6, [Neos Ergatis] (New Worker) El1y u1rίa, [Eleftheria] (Freedom) Laikή, [Laiki] (Popular) Nέa Laikή, [Nea Laiki] (New Popular) Laikή Dύnami6, [Laiki Dinamis] (Popular Power) An1jάrthto6, [Aneksartitos] (Independent) Fvnή th6 Kύproy , [Foni tis Kiprou] (Voice of Cyprus)

252

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

Alήu1ia, [Alitheia] (Truth) Stasίno6, [Stasinos] Kypriakό6 Fύlaj, [Kypriakos Fylax] (Cyprus Guard) Kήry j, [Kirix] (Herald) Xaraygή, [Haravgi] (Dawn) Xrόno6, [Chronos] (Time)

Books and articles Adams, W. Thomas (1971). AKEL: The Communist Party of Cyprus. California, CA: Hoover Institution Press. AKEL (1978). AKEL: The Party of the Working People, Nicosia: AKEL’s Publications. Allardt, Erik (1970). ‘Types of protest and alienation’, in Allardt, Erik and Rokkan, Stein (eds), Mass Politics. New York, NY: Free Press, pp. 45 – 63. Altay, Nevzat (2005). Nationalist Amongst the Turks of Cyprus: The First Wave, University of Oulu. Anagnostopoulou, Sia (1999). ‘The Church of Cyprus and its Ethnarchical role: 1878 – 1960. The religioucisation of Cypriot political activity: enosis’, Contemporary Issues [in Greek], 68 – 70, pp. 198– 227. Anthias, Tefkros (1931). ‘Libel of infidelity, Salutation to the CPC and the Proletariat’, 16 May. Apeyitou, Eleni (2003). ‘Turkish Cypriot nationalism: its history and development (1571– 1960)’, The Cyprus Review, 15 (1), pp. 67 – 98. Attalides, Michalis (1986). Parties in Cyprus (1878 – 1955). [in Greek], Nicosia: Municipality Publications, pp. 123–53. Beaud, Michel (2008). History of Capitalism, 53. Athens: Electra Publications [in Greek]. Brown, Vivienne (2003). ‘The development of the economy’, in Hall, Stewart and Gieben, Bram (eds). The Emergence of Modernity. Economy, Society, Politics, Culture. Athens: Savvallas Publications, pp. 193– 257 [in Greek]. Bruce, Steven (2007). Sociology. Athens: Greek Letters Publications. Carabot, Philip (2008). ‘The Position of the Communist Party of Greece on the Cyprus Issue in the Era of Venizelist Bourgeoisie’, in Papapolyviou, Petros and Kazamias, Giorgos (eds), Venizelos and Cyprus. Athens: Katsaniotis, pp. 154– 79 [in Greek]. Carr, Edward H. (1986). The Twilight of the Comintern 1930– 1935, London: Palgrave Macmillan. Charalambous, Giorgos (2007). ‘The strongest communists in Europe: accounting for AKEL’s electoral success’, Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 23 (3), pp. 425– 56. Choisi, Jeannete (1995). ‘The Greek Cypriot elite: its social function and legitimization’, The Cyprus Review, 7 (1), pp. 34 –68. Christodoulides, Giorgos (2005). ‘The so-called communist bells’, Haravghi, 21 April. ——— (2005). ‘Faintheartedness in the ranks of the CPC’, Haravghi, 22 April. ——— (2005). ‘The Turkish section of the CPC’, Haravghi, 10 May. ——— (2005). ‘The CPC reorganised, the Pancyprian Trade Union Committee founded’, Haravghi, 29 April.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

253

——— (2005). ‘Heroism and self-sacrifice’, Haravghi, 20 April. ——— (2006). ‘Party Change and Development in Cyprus (1995 – 2005)’, South European Society and Politics, 11 (3– 4), pp. 513– 42. Christophorou, Christophoros (2006). ‘The emergence of modern politics in Cyprus (1940– 1959)’, in Faustmann, Hubert and Peristianis, Nicos (eds), Britain in Cyprus, Colonialism and Post-Colonialism 1878– 2006. Mannheim and Mohnesee: Bibliopolis, pp. 295– 317. ——— (2008). ‘A new communist surprise – what’s next? Presidential elections in the Republic of Cyprus, February 2008’, South European Society and Politics, 13 (2), pp. 217– 35. ——— (2012). ‘The leadership of the Left in Cyprus, 1920 –1940’, unpublished paper presented at the conference ‘The Cypriot Left in the First Era of British Colonialism, 1922– 1941’. Conference organised by the University of Cyprus and the Research Institute Promitheas in Nicosia, 24 –25 April [in Greek]. Cox, Kevin (1970). ‘Geography, social contexts, and voting behaviour in Wales, 1861– 1951’, in Allardt, Erik and Rokkan, Stein (eds), Mass Politics. New York, NY: Free Press, pp. 117– 59. Daalder, Hans (1990). ‘The reach of the party system’, in Mair, Peter (eds), The West European Party System, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 78 – 90. Degras, Jane (eds), (1965). The Communist International 1919– 1943, Documents. Vol. III, London: Oxford University Press. Demetriou, Kyriakos (1999). Victorian Texts on Cyprus 1878– 1891, Nicosia, Kykkos Monastery Research Centre. De Laveleye, Emile (1871). ‘The parliamentary regime and parties in Italy’, in Scarrow, Susan (ed.), Perspectives on Political Parties, pp. 147– 56. Digklis, Pavlos (2010). AKEL: Speaking Boldly and Frankly, Basingstoke: Palgrave Press [in Greek]. Dunphy, Richard and Bale, Tim (2007). ‘Red flag still flying?’, Party Politics, 13 (3), pp. 129– 46. Duverger, Maurice (1954). Political Parties, London: Methuen & Co. Ltd. Englezakis, Venediktos (1984). ‘The Church of Cyprus during the 18th and 19th centuries’, Nicosia Municipality Publications, pp. 309– 26 [in Greek]. Faustmann, Hubert (1998). ‘Clientelism in the Greek Cypriot community of Cyprus under British rule’, The Cyprus Review, 10 (2), pp. 41 – 77. Fournaris, Costas (1980). ‘Questions of strategy and tactics’, Neos Demokratis, Issue 61, October [in Greek]. Frangoudes, Giorgos (1911, republished in 2002). History of the Archbishopric Question, 1900– 10, Alexandria: Aihmi Publications [in Greek]. Geary, Dick (1988). European Labour Movement (1848– 1939), Salonika: Paratiritis Publications [in Greek]. Georghallides, George (1979). A Political and Administrative History of Cyprus 1918– 1926 with a Survey of the Foundations of British Rule, Nicosia: Cyprus Research Centre. ——— (1984). ‘The Last Years of Turkocratia in Cyprus, the Transfer of Cyprus to the British and the Consequences’, Nicosia: Nicosia Municipality Publications, pp. 15 – 31 [in Greek.] ——— (1985). Cyprus and the Governorship of Sir Ronald Storrs, Nicosia: Cyprus Research Centre.

254

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

——— (1994). ‘British colonialism 1878– 1960. A brief reappraisal’, Nicosia: Nicosia Municipality Publications, pp. 79 – 92 [in Greek]. Georgis, Giorgos (2012). ‘Cypriot leftists participation in the Spanish Civil War’, unpublished paper presented at the conference ‘The Cypriot Left in the First Era of British Colonialism, 1922–1941’. Conference organised by the University of Cyprus and the Research Institute Promitheas, Nicosia 24–25 April [in Greek]. Graikos, Costas (1994). The October Riots and the CPC. Nicosia [in Greek]. Guttsman, W.L. (1960). ‘Social stratification and political elite’, The British Journal of Sociology 11 (2), pp. 137– 50. Held, David (2003). ‘The evolution of the modern state’, in Hall, Stewart and Gieben, Bram (eds). The Emergence of Modernity. Economy, Society, Politics, Culture. Athens: Savvallas Publications, pp. 115-91 [in Greek]. Heller, Agnes (1993). ‘On formal democracy’, in Keane, John (eds), Civil Society and the State, London: Verso Publications, pp. 129– 45. Heywood, Andrew (2006). Introduction to Politics, 2nd Edition, Athens: Polis Publications [in Greek]. Hill, George (1952). A History of Cyprus, Vol. IV, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. History of PSE-PEO (1991), Nicosia: PEO Publications [in Greek]. History of the CPC—AKEL. Unpublished document of the central committee of AKEL, no author. Hobsbawm, J. Eric (1994). Nations and Nationalism: From 1870 to Date. Programme, Myth, Reality, Athens: Kardamitsa Publications [in Greek]. ——— (1998). On History, Athens: Themelio Publications [in Greek]. ——— (2000). Age of Capital 1848– 1875, Athens: Cultural Foundation of the National Bank of Greece [in Greek]. ——— (2001). Special People, Athens: Themelio Publications. ——— (2002). The Age of Revolution 1789– 1848, Athens: Cultural Foundation of the National Bank of Greece [in Greek]. Holland, Robert (1999). Britain and the Cyprus Revolt, Athens: Potamos Publications [in Greek]. Hopkin, Jonathan (2006). ‘Clientelism and party politics’, in Katz, Richard and Crotty, William (eds), Party Politics. London: Sage Publications, pp. 406–12. Ioannidis, Christophoros (1980). ‘The international relations of AKEL today’, Neos Demokratis, issue 61, October. Ioannou, Fifis (2004). The Left and the Cyprus problem. Nicosia: Intercollege Press [in Greek]. ——— (2005). This is How the Cyprus Problem Starteds, Athens: Filistor Editions [in Greek]. Ioannou, Michalakis (1986). The Evolution of the Cypriot Trade Union Movement, Nicosia: Nicosia Municipality Publications, pp. 113– 18 [in Greek]. ——— (2002). The Labour Struggles of SEK. Nicosia: SEK Publications [in Greek]. Ioannou, Yiannis (2007). ‘Socioeconomic development and nationalism: nationalism and advertising in the Cypriot press, 1900– 1931’, Yearbook of the Cyprus Research Centre, XXXIII, Nicosia, pp. 383– 413 [in Greek]. Jones, Peter (1991). The 1848 Revolutions. 2nd Edition, UK: Longman Publishings. Katalanos, Nicolaos (2003, first publication 1914). Cyprus Album Zenon. Nicosia [in Greek].

BIBLIOGRAPHY

255

Katsiaounis, Rolandos (1994). ‘Vote and stand in the first parliamentary elections of British colonialism in 1883’, Yearbook of the Cyprus Research Centre, XX, Nicosia, pp. 309– 45 [in Greek]. ——— (1995). ‘Social and political change in Cyprus: 1878 –1924’, Yearbook of the Cyprus Research Centre, XXI, Nicosia. ——— (1996). Labour, Society and Politics in Cyprus During the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century, Texts and Studies of the History of Cyprus, XXIV, Nicosia: Cyprus Research Center. ——— (2000). The Constitutional Treaty of 1946– 48, Nicosia: Cyprus Research Centre [in Greek]. ——— (2004). ‘Social, national and political antitheses in Cyprus during British colonialism 1878– 1950’, Nicosia: Nicosia Municipality Publications, pp. 19 – 43 [in Greek]. ——— (2007). ‘Cyprus 1931–1959: The Politics of the Anti-Colonial Movement’. Cyprus Research Centre Yearbook, XXXIII, Nicosia, pp. 441–69. ——— (2011). ‘The Communist Party of Cyprus in the decade 1931– 1941’, unpublished paper presented at the conference ‘The Cypriot Left in the First Era of British Colonialism, 1922– 1941’. Conference organised by the University of Cyprus and the Research Institute Promitheas, Nicosia 24 – 25 April [in Greek]. Katsourides, Yiannos (2010). ‘The Origins of the Party System in Cyprus’. PhD Thesis, Nicosia: University of Cyprus. ——— (2012). ‘Travelling against the tide: the Cypriot communist left in the post1990s era’, Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 13 (2), pp. 187–209. Katz, S. Richard and Mair, Peter (1993). ‘The evolution of party organizations in Europe: three faces of party organization’, The American Review of Politics, 14, pp. 593– 617. Kirchheimer, Otto (1966). ‘The transformation of the western European party systems’, in LaPalombara, Joseph and Weiner, Myron (eds), Political Parties and Political Development. New Jersey, NJ: Princeton University Press. pp. 177– 200. Kitschelt, Herbert (2006). ‘Movement parties’, in Katz, Richard and Crotty, William (eds), Handbook of Party Politics, London: Sage Publications, pp. 278–90. Koudounaris, Aristides (1995), Biographical Dictionary of the Cypriots, 1800– 1920, Nicosia [in Greek]. Krouwel, Andre (2006). ‘Party models’ in Katz, Richard and Crotty, William (eds), Handbook of Party Politics. London: Sage Publications. pp. 249– 69. Kyrris, Costas (1984). ‘An anatomy of the Ottoman regime in Cyprus 1570– 1878’, Nicosia: Nicosia Municipality Publications, pp. 65 – 82 [in Greek]. LaPalombara, Joseph and Weiner, Myron (1966). ‘The origin and development of political parties’, in LaPalombara, Joseph and Weiner, Myron (eds), Political Parties and Political Development, New Jersey, NJ: Princeton University Press. pp. 3–42. Lefkis, Yiannis (1984), The Roots, Limassol [in Greek]. Lemarchand, Rene and Legg, Keith (1972). ‘Political clientelism and development: a preliminary analysis’, Comparative Politics, 4, (2), pp. 149– 78. Lenin, Vladimir (1964). What to Do? Nicosia: Sputnik Publications [in Greek]. ——— (1964). Left-wing Communism – An Infantile Disorder, Athens: Themelio Publications [in Greek]. ——— (1976). One Step Back, Two Steps Forward, Athens: Sygxroni Epoxi Publications [in Greek].

256

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

——— (2003). Regarding the Proletariat Party, Athens: Synchroni Epochi Publications [in Greek]. Leventis, Giorgos (2001). ‘Self-government – enosis or immediate enosis: the influence of Zakhariadis on the shift in AKEL’s strategy (November 1948– January 1949)’. The Cyprus Review, 13 (1), pp. 75 – 87. Lipset, Seymour Martin and Rokkan, Stein (1967). ‘Cleavage structures, party systems and voter alignments: an introduction’, in Lipset and Rokkan (eds), Party Systems and Voter Alignments. New York, NY: Free Press. pp. 1 – 64. Lipset, Seymour (1970). ‘Political cleavages in developed and emerging polities’, in Allardt, Erik and Rokkan, Stein (eds), Mass Politics, New York, NY: Free Press. pp. 23 – 44. ——— (1963). Political Man, New York, NY: Anchor Books. Loizos, Peter (1986). ‘Changes in the structure of society’, Nicosia: Nicosia Municipality Publications, pp. 93– 106. Lyssiotis, Marios (1990). ‘An analysis of the Cyprus Legislative Council’, The Cyprus Review, 2 (2), pp. 55 – 69. Macridis, Roy (1967). ‘Introduction: the history, functions, and typology of parties’, in Macridis R (eds) Political Parties, London: Harper and Row Publishers. pp. 9 – 24. Mair, Peter and Mudde, Cas (1998). ‘The party family and its study’, Annual Review of Political Science, 1, pp. 211–29. Mair, Peter (2006). ‘Cleavages’, in Katz, Richard and Crotty, William (eds) Handbook of Party Politics, London: Sage Publications, pp. 372– 3. Markides, Diana (2008). ‘British friendship with Venizelos and Venizelos friendship with Britain in the case of Cyprus, 1906–1931)’, in Papapolyviou, Petros, and Kazamias, George (eds), Proceedings of Conference, Eleftherios Venizelos and Cyprus, Athens: Kastaniotis Publications [in Greek]. Mavratsas, Caesar (2003). National Unity and Political Pluralism, Athens: Katarti Publications [in Greek]. Mayer, Nonna (2005). Electoral Behaviour, Athens: Savvallas Publications [in Greek]. McPherson, Crawford Brough (1986). Democratic Theory: Essays in Retrieval, Athens: Gnoseis Publication [in Greek]. Meynaud, Jean (2002). Political Forces in Greece 1946– 1965, Volume A, Athens: Savvallas Publications [in Greek]. Michael, Michail (2005). ‘The Archbishopric question (1900 – 1910), its ideological context and the rise of the Church of Cyprus as a national authority within the British context of administration’, Yearbook of the Cyprus Research Center, XXXI, pp. 307– 60 [in Greek]. Michaelides, Michalis, The Turkish Cypriot Presence in Labour Movement of Cyprus, unpublished study. Michels, Robert (1997). Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy, New York, NY: The Free Press. Miller, Warren (1970). ‘Majority rule and the representative system of government’, in Allardt, Erik and Rokkan, Stein (eds), Mass Politics. New York, NY: Free Press. pp. 284– 311. Molyneux, John (1986). Marxism and the Party, 3rd edition, Great Britain: Bookmarks Publications.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

257

Mouzelis, Nicos (1987). Parliamentarism and Industrialisation in the Semi-periphery, Athens: Themelio Publications [in Greek]. ——— (1995). ‘Modernity, late development and civil society’, in Hall, John (eds), Civil Society: Theory, History, Comparison, Great Britain: Polity Press. pp. 224– 47. Mozaffar, Shaheen (2006). ‘Party, ethnicity and democratization in Africa’, in Katz and Crotty (eds), Handbook of Party Politics. London: Sage Publications. pp. 239– 47. Mudde, Cas (2007). Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Neumann, Sigmund (1956). ‘Toward a comparative study of political parties’, in Neumann, Sigmund (eds), Modern Political Parties. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 395– 421. Newman, Michael (2006). Socialism. A Short Introduction, Athens: Greek Letters Publications. Nohlen, Dieter (2007). Party System and Electoral Systems. Salonika: Epikentro Publications [in Greek]. Noussis, Christophoros (1951). ‘Credit capital in Cyprus countryside’, Democratis, 4 (12), pp. 227– 31 [in Greek]. Ostrogorski, Moisei (1982). Democracy and the Organisation of Political Parties, Volume I, England: Transaction Books. Panayiotou, Andreas (2006). ‘Lenin in the coffee-shop: the communist alternative and forms of non-western modernity’. Postcolonial Studies, 9 (3), pp. 267– 80. ——— (2008). ‘The social history of the communist movement in Cyprus’, Politis, November, pp. 1 – 22. Panebianco, Angelo (1988). Political Parties: Organization and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Papademetris, Panayiotis and Petrides, Petros (1979 – 80). Historic Encyclopedia of Cyprus 1878– 1978, Vol. 1 – 7. Nicosia: Epiphaniou Publications. Papageorgiou, Spyros (1984). AKEL: the Duplicate of KKE. Athens: Ladias Publications [in Greek]. Papaioannou, Ezekias (1951). ‘25 years of struggle’, Demokratis, 4 (9 –10), October, pp. 170– 76 [in Greek]. ——— (1988). Remembrances of my Life. Nicosia: Pyrsos Publications. Papapolyviou, Petros (1997). Cyprus and the Balkan Wars. Contribution to the History of Cypriot Volunteerism, Nicosia: Cyprus Research Centre [in Greek]. Perdios, Minos (1968). Essay on the History of the Communist Party of Cyprus and AKEL. unpublished manuscript [in Greek]. Persianis, Panayiotis (1978). Church and State in Cyprus Education, Nicosia: Violaris Printing Works. Petas, Christos (1992). The Movement of the Cultural Clubs 1931– 1945. Nicosia: Printco Printing House [in Greek]. Phantis, Andreas (1976). ‘The national problem and the party of the working class’, Neos Demokratis, March, pp. 11 – 20 [in Greek]. ——— (1993). The Constitutional Treaty. Nicosia: Printco Printing House [in Greek]. ——— (2005). The Cypriot Trade Union Movement during British Colonialism, 1878– 1960, Volumes I and II, Nicosia [in Greek].

258

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

IN CYPRUS

Philippides, Zacharias (1982). ‘The foundation and consolidation of a class-based trade union movement’, Neos Demokratis, January– February, pp. 72 – 83. Poguntke, Thomas (2006). ‘Political parties and other organisations’, in Katz, Richard and Crotty, William (eds) Handbook of Party Politics. London: Sage Publications, pp. 396– 405. Protopapas, Vassilis (2002). ‘The Informal Composition of a Two-Party System: Parties and Municipal Elections, Cyprus 1940– 1955’. Master’s Dissertation, University of Athens. ——— (2012). The Electoral History of Cyprus: Politicians, Parties and Elections in Anglokratia 1878– 1960. Athens: Themelio Publications. Randall, Vicky (2006). ‘Political parties and social structure in the developing world’, in Katz, Richard and Crotty, William (eds), Handbook of Party Politics. London: Sage Publications. pp. 387– 95. Richter, Heinz (2003). ‘The Cypriot Communist Party and the Comintern’, The Cyprus Review, 15, pp. 99 –119. ——— (2007). History of Cyprus. Volume A (1878 – 1949). Athens: Estia Publications [in Greek]. Rokkan, Stein (1970). Citizen, Elections, Parties. New York, NY: McKay Co. ——— (1968). ‘The structuring of mass politics in the smaller European democracies: a developmental typology’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 10 (2), pp. 173–210. Rossides, Kyriakos (1925). The Politics of the Agrarian Party. Famagusta: Nea Salamina Press [in Greek]. Sant Cassia, Paul (1986). ‘Religion, politics and ethnicity in Cyprus during the Turkocratia (1571– 1878)’, European Journal of Sociology, 27(1), pp. 3 – 28. Santamas, M. L. (1986). British Awards in Cyprus, 1878– 1960. Nicosia. Sartori, Giovanni (1990). ‘The sociology of parties: a critical review’, in Mair, Peter (eds), The West European Party System, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 150–84. ——— (1970). ‘The typology of party systems’, in Allardt, Erik and Rokkan, Stein (eds), Mass Politics. New York, NY: Free Press, pp. 322– 52. Savvides, Georgios (1976). ‘The CPC and the policy of the united anti-imperialist front’, Neos Demokratis, issue 46, March, pp. 28– 32. Scarrow, Susan (2006). ‘The 19th century origins of modern political parties: the unwanted emergence of party-based politics’, in Katz, Richard and Crotty, William (eds), Handbook of Party Politics. London: Sage Publications, pp. 16 – 24. ——— (2002) (eds). Perspectives on Political Parties, USA: Palgrave. Seligman, Lester (1964). ‘Elite recruitment and political development’, The Journal of Politics, 26 (3), pp. 612– 26. Servas, Ploutis (1951). ‘Data on the study of the history of the Communist Party of Cyprus at its early stages of development’, Democrat, 4 (6), pp. 127–9 [in Greek]. ——— (1985). The Cyprus Problem: Responsibilities, 2nd edition, Athens: Grammi Publications [in Greek]. Siavelis, Peter (2006). ‘Party and social structure’, in Katz, Richard and Crotty, William (eds), Handbook of Party Politics. London: Sage Publications. pp. 359– 70. Sophocleous, Andreas (1995). Contribution to the History of the Cypriot Press, Vol. A, 1878– 1890, Nicosia: Intercollege Press [in Greek].

BIBLIOGRAPHY

259

——— (1997). The First Greek Newspapers of Nicosia: From the early Years of British Colonialism until the Annexation of Cyprus in 1914, Nicosia: Intercollege Press [in Greek]. Spourdalakis, Michalis (1990). On the Theory and Study of Political Parties, Athens: Exantas Publications [in Greek]. Storrs, Ronald (1945). Orientations, London: Nicholson and Watson. Surridge, B. J. (1930), A Survey of Rural Life in Cyprus, Nicosia: Government’s Printing Office. Taagepera, Rein (2007). ‘Electoral systems’, in Boix, Carles and Stokes, Susan (eds) Handbook of Comparative Politics, New York, NY: Oxford University Press. pp. 678– 202. Tzermias, Pavlos (2001). History of the Republic of Cyprus, Vol. I, Athens: Libro Publications [in Greek]. Varnavas, Pantelis (1997). Joint Greek and Turkish Cypriots Labour Struggles, Nicosia: PEO Publications [in Greek]. ——— (1989). Memoirs of a Mine Worker, Nicosia: PEO Publications [in Greek]. Vassalo, Francesca and Clyde, Wilcox (2006). ‘Party as a carrier of ideas’, in Katz and Crotty (eds), Handbook of Party Politics. London: Sage Publications, pp. 413– 21. Yiallourides, Christodoulos (1993). ‘The Cyprus Party System’, in Rascke, Joakim and Katsoulis, Elias (eds), The Political Parties of Western Europe. Salonika: Paratiritis Publications, pp. 159– 205 [in Greek]. Weber, Max (1987). Politics as Vocation, Athens: Papazisis Publications, [in Greek]. Zambas, Theoris (2009). The Historical Route of the CPC-AKEL in Famagusta 1920– 1960. Larnaca [in Greek]. Ziartidis, Andreas (1986). ‘The evolution of the Cypriot trade union movement’, Nicosia: Municipality of Nicosia Publications, pp. 119–22 [in Greek].

INDEX

Achna (village), 25 Adamantos, Adamos, 187 Adams, Thomas, 2 Adiallahtoi, 38, 39 Agrarian class, 23, 30, 35, 103 Agrarian Council, 79 Agrarian Executive Committee, 80 Agrarian Party, 75, 77, 79, 80, 81, 83 Agricultural Question, 102, 103 Agricultural Bank, 26, 77, 78, 88, 103 Agricultural College, 139 Agricultural congress, 77, 78, 80 Akanthou (village), 163 AKEL, 1, 2, 4, 15, 88, 107, 119, 120, 128, 129, 141, 173, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 199, 203, 204, 205 Alexandria, 85 Alitheia (Truth) newspaper, 156 Allies, 194 America, 145 Amiantos (village), 90, 147 Anaphotis, Kostas, 135 Aneksartitos (The Independent) newspaper, 187 Anorthosis reading club, 157 Anthias, Tefkros, 153, 163, 174 Anthropotis (Humanity) newspaper, 87

Archiepiscopal Question, 35, 40, 52, 54, 56 Archives of Contemporary Social History (ASKI), 4 Argyrou, Vaggelis, 128 Asia Minor disaster, 35 Asia Minor, 130 Association of Greek Builders of Limassol, 158 Astro (Star) printing office, 85, 122 Athens, 4, 56, 84, 85, 87, 90, 93, 138, 139, 143, 193 Attalides, Michalis, 2, 76 Austria, 203 Avanti Popolo song, 146 Avgi (Down) magazine, 85 Bale, Tim, 2 Balkan Workers – Peasant Federation, 106 Balkan office, Comintern, 175 Balkan Wars, 35 Balkans, 40, 59, 140 Bank of Cyprus, 29 Basque Country, 5 Bolsheviks, 110, 158 Bolshevism, 84 Boulli, Aziz Salim, 120

INDEX Bourgeoisie, 8, 12, 14, 25, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, 38, 42, 43, 51, 62, 70, 95, 96, 115, 157, 163 Boy Scouts, 35 British Crown, 19, 45 British Labour Party (BLP), 8, 87, 88, 89, 150, 189 Carnaos, Ioannis, 179 Catalonia, 10 Chadjipavlou, Giorgos, 158, 165 Charalambous, Giorgos, 2 Chilmi, Hassan, 182 Christian, 5, 45, 47, 48, 73, 76, 109, 110, 154, 157, 163 Christodoulides, Christodoulos, 90 Christodoulidou, Klio, 117, 122, 156 Christodoulides, Kostas (Skeleas), 93, 117, 137, 138, 140, 142, 143, 144, 146, 153, 161, 167, 175, 176 Christofias, Demetris, 1 Chrysostomides, Demetris, 88, 90, 137, 138, 140 Christophorou, Christophoros, 2 Chryssochou Street, 159 Church of Cyprus, 8, 15, 18, 23, 35, 39, 47, 48, 58, 59, 60, 70, 72, 74, 83, 88, 93, 95, 96, 101, 103, 104, 105, 106, 109, 110, 111, 142, 150, 156, 160, 162, 163, 171, 172, 174, 177, 186, 193, 194, 196, 197, 198, 199, 201, 203, 204 Class cleavage, 4, 5, 40 Class structure, 14, 24, 35, 59 Class struggle, 12, 101 Cleavage theory, 6 Clientelism, 19, 44, 59, 60, 61, 65, 197, 198 Clientelistic relationships, 14, 19 Ciftlik, 18 Colonial Office, 50 Colonialism (British), 17, 18, 19, 38, 39, 63, 101, 174 Commercial Club, 80

261

Committee of Cypriot Affairs, 185 Communist International (Comintern), 3, 87, 105, 107, 113, 141, 142, 143, 175 First Communist International (London), 12 Communist Party of Britain (CPB), 113, 142, 143, 184, 185, 190 Communist Party of Egypt, 143 Communist Party of Greece (CPG), 85, 93, 113, 131, 142, 143, 144, 160, 190, 191 Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 89, 143 Communist Women’s Club, 93, 117 Communist Youth of Cyprus, 93, 117 Cononas, Costas, 137, 139, 176 Cypriot Farmers Union (EAK), 195 Cypriot Farmers Union (EKA), 195 Cypriot Labour and Peasant Party, 88 Cyprus Labour Party (CLP), 14, 69, 86, 87 Cyprus Question, 81 Cyprus Worker – Agrarian Democracy, 106 Cyprus Workers’ Confederation (SEK), 199 Debts moratorium, 78 Democratic Front of Spain, 184 Democratic Government of Spain, 185 Dervis, Themistocles, 177 Derynia (village), 204 Diallahtikoi, 38, 39 Digklis, Pavlos, 2 Director of Education, 154 District Court in Limassol, 182 District Educational Committees, 60 Drakos, Costas, 124, 153 161, 168, 169 Dunphy, Richard, 2 Duverger, Maurice, 38, 94, 118, 202 Eastern Mediterranean, 105

262

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

Egypt, 20, 37, 87, 139, 140 Electoral behaviour, 13 Electoral participation, 56 Eleftheria newspaper, 154, 156, 160, 165, 167, 168, 169 Engels, Friedrich, 12 Enosis, 14, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 53, 54, 70, 76, 83, 86, 89, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 102, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112, 120, 155, 163, 174, 175, 181, 190, 192, 193, 194, 197, 203 Eptanisa islands, 20 Ergatis newspaper, 122, 124, 143 Ethnarch, 18 Ethnarchy, 54, 86, 99, 155, 163, 168, 171, 174, Europe, 15, 31, 40, 72, 91, 145, 155 Evkaf, 18 Evridiades, Odysseas, 79 Executive Committee (Agrarian Party), 79, 80, 88 Executive Committee (Comintern), 142 Executive Council, 39, 45, 58, 65, 160 Famagusta (Varosi), 25, 26, 55, 77, 127, 131, 136, 157, 176, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 186, 187, 204 Fassouliotis, Panos, 84, 85, 87, 89, 90, 91, 159, 166 Fettulah, Ahmet, 119 Feudal regime, 19 France, 145, 185 Franchise, 7, 14, 43, 44, 45, 49, 50, 51, 53, 56, 58, 63, 64, 102, 108, 109, 151, 165 French Revolution, 5 Galatopoulos, Christodoulos, 135, 168, 169 Geary, Dick, 153, 203 General Union of Cypriot Workers, 147 Georgallides, Georgios, 83 German Social Democratic Party, 121

IN CYPRUS

Germany, 136, 145, 151, 203 Geroskipou, 127 Gramsci, Antonio, 132 Greece, 3, 4, 14, 20, 35, 36, 37, 38, 51, 60, 62, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 98, 106, 107, 117, 121, 135, 138, 140, 143, 144, 154, 160, 175, 190, 192, 193, 194 Greek Builders Union, 158 Greek Committee, 38 Greek Educational System, 60 Greek Independence Day, 161 Greek Revolution, 18 Hadjipavlou, Giorgos, 83, 84, 158, 165, 168 Haravgi, 141, 143 Haynes-Smith, High Commissioner, 22, 49 Hitler, Adolf, 187 Hobsbawm, Eric, 71, 86 Hodja, Mustafa Naim, 120 Holy Synod, 83, 156, 162, 163 Houlousi, Ahmet, 120 Idionymo Law, 160 Iliades, Giagkos, 84 Imperialism (British), 83, 175, 193 Imperialism (western), 98 Industrial Revolution, 5 Industrialisation, 73 Imprekor magazine, 143, 184 Ioannou, Fifis, 2, 188, 189 Italy, 145, 194, 203 Kakoyiannis, Panayiotis (Sir), 177 Katsiaounis, Rolandos, 2, 34, 120, 189 Katz, Richard, 132 Kemal, Ahmet, 119 King-Harman, High Commissioner, 52 Kition, Bishop of, 77, 168 Kition, 168 Koilani, 124

INDEX Koilani-Avdimou, 167 Koullouras, Demetris, 116, 119, 146, 176 Ktima (village), 168 Kyrenia, 55, 127, 147, 162, Kyriakides, Phedias, 187 Kyrou, Alexis, 157, 160 Labour – Agrarian Party (LAP), 89, 90 Labour Federation (LF), 159, 166, labour movement (Cyprus), 40, 42, 89, 90, 140, 145, 149, 156, 159, 160, 163, 180, 181, 183, 193, 199 Labour Party (Nicosia), 87 Laiki Dynamis (Popular Force) newspaper, 163 Laiki newspaper, 51, 83 Language Question, 84 Lanitis, K. N., 154 Lapithos, 80 Larnaca, 28, 55, 71, 128, 136, 138, 146, 161, 168, 187 Law on Clubs, 74 Lefkara, 168, 169 Lefkis, Yiannis, 2, 61, 87, 93, 130, 142, 166 Lefkoniko (village), 77 Legislative Council, 26, 32, 36, 39, 42, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 79, 81, 82, 83, 99, 104, 108, 109, 116, 167, 187, Lenin, 9, 12, 99, 114, 120, 126 Leventis, Giorgos, 2, 143 Limassol, 27, 28, 55, 61, 69, 71, 74, 77, 84, 85, 88, 90, 93, 116, 119, 122, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 136, 138, 139, 145, 146, 147, 154, 156, 158, 159, 161, 164, 165, 167, 169, 170, 172, 176, 179, 182, 187, 188, 189, 204 Limassol Labour Centre (LLC), 43, 89, 90, 117, 119, 136, 137,

263

146, 148, 152, 153, 160, 164, 165, 166, 167 Limassol Lawyers Association, 154 Limassol public gardens, 176 Limassol Secondary School, 116 Lipset, Seymour Martin, 4, 5, 40, 197, 199, 203 Lyssiotis, Marios, 57 Macedonia, 158 Mahairiotis, Gennadios, 162 Mair, Peter, 132 Marcoullis, Marcos, 189 Margo (village), 84 Markoullis, 141 Marx 12, 92 Marxism, 84, 202 Marxist theory, 12, 85, 100, 111, 139, 140 Mavros, Iosif, 174 Mavrovouni (village), 182 Mayoral Council, 48 Megali Idea (Grand Idea), 35 Meynaud, Jean, 60 Michels, Robert, 7, 11, 132, 137 Middle class, 11, 17, 28, 30, 38, 39, 51, 181, 186, 191, 203, Middle East, 20 Mikros, Sofoclis, 168 Ministry of Colonies, 46, 53, 93 Molyneux, John, 9 Morphou, 169 Moscow, 105, 117, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 176 Moulousi, Moustafa, 175 Mouzelis, Nicos, 59, 62 Mukhtars, 21, 49, 52 Muslims, 45, 48, 50, 73, 77, 119, 120 National Archives (London), 4 National Council, 55, 77, 81, 83, 109, 160, 194

264

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

National Organization Cyprus, 83 National Question, 88, 101, 105, 111, 172, 192, 200 NATO, 194 Nea Laiki newspaper, 83, 84, 153 Neos Anthropos (New Man) newspaper, 4, 89, 110, 115, 117, 121, 122, 123, 124, 135, 138, 153, 157, 167, 169, 178 Neos Bolshevikos (Young Bolshevik) newspaper, 117 Neos Ergatis (New Worker) newspaper, 122, 124 Nicosia, 55, 71, 72, 74, 79, 80, 84, 87, 103, 128, 129, 130, 136, 139, 146, 154, 158, 159, 161, 162, 176, 177, 183, 188, 191 Nikolaides, S. Evanthis, 168 Nikolaou, Katina, 134, 172 October Revolution, 199 October riots, 49, 138, 139, 169 Odiatis, Petros, 169 Oikonomides, Michalakis, 185 Order in Council 30 Nov. 1882, 45 Ostrogorski, Moisei, 110 Ottoman, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 28, 35, 38, 45, 48, 49, 73 Ottoman Bank, 24, 26 Pagkipriaki, 185 Palmer, Richard, 135, 177, 179 Panayiotou, Andreas, 2, 63, 181, 203 Pancyprian Federation of Women Organisations (POGO), 195 Pancyprian Organisation of Democratic Women (PODG), 195 Pancyprian Trade Union Committee, 183 Panebianco, Angelo, 202 Panergatikos, Syllogos, 83 Pan-Hellenic Games, 95, 106, 107 Papademetris, Panayiotis, 61, 168, 183

IN CYPRUS

Papageorgiou, Spyros, 2 Papaioannou, Ezekias, 107, 185 Paphos, 55, 127, 135, 168, 169 Parallel society, 15, 114 Paraskevaides, Efthivoulos, 80 Paratiritis (Observer) newspaper, 89 Party of Cypriot Workers (Egypt), 87 Paschalis, Neoptolemos, 160 Passfield, Lord, 36 Paternalism, 19, 68, 72 Patron-client, 19, 24, 28, 44, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 204 PEO (Pancyprian Federation of Labour), 4 Perdios, Iasonas, 166 Pervolia, 168 Phaneromeni, 161 Phantis, Andreas, 2, 107, 109, 148, 183 Philippou, Loizos, 169 Pieris, Liasis, 146 Political Organization of Cyprus, 84 Political participation, 49, 54, 56, 171 Polycarpou, Savvas, 159 Pontifical Committee of Kyrenia and Morphou, 162 Popular Cooperative Union (PCU), 84, 85, 86 Popular Party (PP), 82, 83, 158, 168 Progressive Youth Organisation (AON), 195 Proletariat, 7, 12, 88, 137, 196 Proletarisation, 30, 42, 91 Psaras, Efthimios, 174 Pyrsos newspaper, 4, 85, 86, 87, 89, 115, 121 Quebec, 10 ‘Red 10’, 153 ‘Red 102’, 153

INDEX ‘Red 104’, 153 ‘Red 25’, 153 ‘Red 285’, 179 ‘Red 398’, 153 ‘Red 460’, 135 ‘Red Guard’, 161 ‘Red Sports’, 117 Richter, Heinz, 61, 135 Rizospastis (Radicalist) newspaper, 144 Rokkan, Stein, 4, 5, 8, 40, 66, 123, 170, 199, 200 Rossides, Kyriakos, 50, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 Russia, 118, 151, 157 Russian Communist Party, 118, 157 Russian Revolution, 3, 8, 14, 40, 42, 69, 84 141, 203 Sartori, Giovanni, 10, 42, 201 Savvides, Christos, 137, 138, 140, 176, 178 Scandinavia, 202 Servas, Ploutis, 2, 107, 129 137, 138, 139, 154, 155, 176, 181, 182, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 200 Skouriotissa, 90 Social banditry, 14, 71, 72 Social Question, 41, 93, 101, 102, 204 Solomonides, Charalambos, 117, 121, 124, 153, 167 Solomonides, Irene, 117 southern Europe, 59 Southern European and Balkan states, 30 Soviet Bloc, 2 Soz, Turkish newspaper, 79, 120 Spain, 145, 184, 185, 203 Spanish Civil War, 184, 185 Spourdalakis, Michalis, 12 Stages of struggle, 97 Stevenson, Malcolm, High Commissioner, 53 Storrs, Ronald, 27, 135, 152

265

Stringos, Leonidas, 85, 90, 135, 140, 142, 143, 144 Stubbs, Reginald, 177, 178, 186 Suez Canal, 20 Suffrage, 9, 40, 49, 51, 52, 83, 108, 167, 171, 172 Surridge, Brewester Joseph, 27 Tangas, Vassilis, 168 Ten Intellectuals, 187 Theodoulou, Tony, 185 Thessaloniki, 130 Tribute, 22 Trikomo (village), 26 Trotskyist group, 107 Turkey, 3 Turkish Cypriot community, 3, 37 Turkish Cypriot(s), 95, 96, 98, 103, 193, 196 Turkish invasion, 2 UK, 88, 184, 193 Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), 117, 194 United Democratic Youth Organisation (EDON), 195 United States, 138 Usury, 23, 24, 26, 70, 82, 108 Varnavas, Pantelis, 2, 120 Varossi, 134, 146, 161 Vassiliades, Georgios, 168, 186, 187 Vassiliou, Giorgos, 90 Vatyliotis, Charalambos (Vatis), 93, 105, 107, 120, 129, 139, 140, 142, 143, 153, 154, 161, 174, 175, 176 Venizelos, Eleftherios, 107 Verghi tax, 21, 50, 51 Western Europe, 5, 62, 69, 198 Worker – Peasant Party, 159 Workers Daily, British newspaper, 153 Workers’ Communist Youth League, 116

266

THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

Working Youth of Limassol, 146 World War I, 8, 24, 29, 31, 33, 42, 74, 76, 91, 92, 138 World War II, 103, 182, 186, 192, 194 Xynaris, Efstathios, 142, 146, 154

IN CYPRUS

Yiallourides, Christodoulos, 2 Yiavopoulos, Nicos, 90, 137, 138, 140, 143, 153, 156 Zambas, Theoris, 88, 141 Zekki, Achmet, 182 Zenon, A., 158, 165