The Democratic Rally’s (DISY) Government Programme Monitoring Council issued a statement today declaring that it would keep an equal distance from the two contenders for the presidential nomination. Its head had already chosen a side. At the same time, Michalis Ioannides was calling on X for “a meaningful apology” for what preceded the withdrawal of Annita Demetriou, while the candidate he supports, George Pamboridis, said on SIGMA television that the raised voices do not bother him.
“Neither by fair means nor foul”
Asked on the programme “Protoselido” whether he aligns with the leadership’s appeal, George Pamboridis said the tension does not bother him and turned the conversation to the party’s grassroots, whom he described not as concerned but as disappointed. The party, he said, won a share of the vote in the parliamentary elections that no one expected, only to find itself immediately afterwards “in a whirlwind of introversion and division”. Unity, he argued, is not built simply by invoking it, and it was not threatened by those who expressed interest in the nomination after the change to the party’s statute, but by “those who question”. “I did not question the president,” he clarified. The problem, in his view, was the centrifugal forces of 2023, which threatened to resurface, and if the scenario of that year is repeated in 2028, “we deserve our fate”. Ms Demetriou, he said, has explained her decision, and any speculation now belongs “in the realm of gossip”. He was far more willing to defend party officials who publicly declare whom they support. DISY, in his view, has filled up with “lukewarm politicians” who are afraid to take a stand, while “wrongs are not righted by silence”. On his own candidacy he left no room for doubt: he will be on the ballot on 28 November and will not withdraw “either by fair means or foul”.
This stance has its own political logic. Mr Pamboridis is up against Averof Neofytou, a former president who led the party for a decade and is familiar to the entire base. In a quiet campaign, where no one provokes and no one responds, the advantage of name recognition remains untouched. For Pamboridis, tension is a way to change the terrain, to make himself the focal point of the debate and to be measured as an equal opponent against someone many already consider the favourite.
The same applies to declarations of support. When he calls on party officials to come forward, he is essentially asking for it to be seen that he is not alone. In a members’ vote, the sense that a candidate is gaining ground can count as much as his arguments. And so far, the most prominent support he has gathered is that of the man who heads the body preparing the party’s government programme.
On the other side, Averof Neofytou appears to be choosing silence. Since the announcement of Annita Demetriou’s withdrawal, he has made no statements or public appearances, leaving unanswered both the insinuations and the debate about blackmail. Any response would give Mr Pamboridis what he is seeking: a duel on equal terms. Silence, by contrast, allows Mr Neofytou to appear as the only one observing the leadership’s appeal to the letter, while his opponent raises the tone.
Ioannides and the “faits accomplis”
Mr Ioannides’s post on X was written in response to those who had criticised him in recent days, mainly for his support of Pamboridis. He argued that until the morning of last Thursday, no one in the party knew whether one of the contenders would run through the party’s procedures or as an independent, despite two weeks of appeals from associates, friends and the leadership. He referred to Ms Demetriou’s “rival candidate”, who, he wrote, was bound by her withdrawal to run within the party and accept the members’ verdict. Political responsibility, he concluded, lies with those who created the faits accomplis, and acknowledging the mistake with a meaningful apology is “the only dignified course, if there is the political courage”.
The Council’s statement moved at an entirely different pace. It welcomed the president’s decision, writing that with it “unity ceased to be a slogan and became a concrete, shared commitment”, and pledged to make its analyses and proposals available equally to both candidates.
First ballot, old reflexes
The obsession with unity has another explanation beyond personalities. DISY is leaving the choice of presidential candidate to its members for the first time, which means that for the first time it must manage an open internal debate over policies of governance. The first weeks show a party that has not yet found a way to handle internal competition over the selection of its candidate. Every public disagreement is read as a threat, as if this were not precisely what the process the party itself established presupposes. The chaos of recent days reflects, to a large extent, political immaturity.
An internal election has value only if the candidates set themselves apart. The narrative that Neofytou and Pamboridis differ on nothing of substance may keep things calm, but it gives members no reason to prefer one over the other beyond who has whom behind them. When political substance is pushed aside, the race is decided by alignments. Tellingly, one of the few clearly political positions of the day, Pamboridis’s proposal for a “natural alliance” with the Democratic Party (DIKO) ahead of 2028, was overshadowed by the debate over whether the president had been blackmailed.
The six weeks remaining until the internal elections are enough to open a discussion about what DISY wants to do if it returns to power. They are equally enough for the race to be reduced to lists of supporters.
