Have the Democratic Rally (DISY) and its officials been caught off guard by the findings of the Independent Anti-Corruption Authority, leading them to respond inconsistently in their political messaging? Or did they simply not expect the content of the report to be turned by the opposition into a major political issue around which they would build their reactions?
There has been no surprise regarding the report itself, nor any real shock at the reaction, particularly from AKEL.
Amid what one could describe as obvious after-effects of the report’s publication, DISY, just three weeks after its clear success in the parliamentary elections, now finds itself in a strategic or at least tactical deadlock because of the report.
Like the devil fears incense
This is because, despite the seriousness of the findings and the intensity of public debate, the party leadership continues to avoid taking a clear position on the practices attributed to former President Nicos Anastasiades.
In a broader political confrontation of such phenomena of entanglement and corruption, one would normally expect at least a dignified handling of the issue. However, judging from its reactions, this does not seem to influence DISY’s overall approach of maintaining appearances.
The opportunity…
The report has already evolved into a field of fierce political confrontation between DISY and AKEL. The left-wing party is attempting to highlight its content as confirmation of what it continues to argue about Anastasiades’s tenure and the “legacy” of his governance.
On the other hand, throughout the week DISY officials have accused AKEL of attempting to create “people’s courts” and of politically exploiting a case that remains under investigation.
However, DISY’s main political problem is not its clash with AKEL, to which it attributes many shortcomings, some of which cannot be dismissed, particularly regarding the 2008 to 2013 period in government.
In reality, DISY is unable to answer the key question posed by society: what is its position on the practices and behaviours recorded in the report?
Substance, the past and “nonsense”
Instead of addressing the substance, much of the party leadership has chosen to shift the discussion to other cases of the past, believing this provides political cover.
Some have attempted to justify this approach as an awkward reaction caused by the shock of the findings. Yet this tactic, moving the debate to earlier issues, especially those preceding Anastasiades’s decade in power, merely as a reflexive response to AKEL’s criticism, has been described by veteran politician and former parliamentary spokesperson Christos Pourgourides as “nonsense” and “mildly unacceptable.”
The former DISY figure openly accused the party leadership of lacking political courage. He argued that DISY should have condemned the behaviours described in the report and clearly distanced itself from those allegedly involved.
He even suggested that Anastasiades should, pending the completion of investigations, step away from party bodies and be stripped of the title of honorary president.
The opportunity
In essence, what does the report offer DISY?
For any reasonable observer, the answer is obvious. It provides a unique opportunity for the party to complete its political emancipation from Nicos Anastasiades.
It is a chance to demonstrate self-confidence through self-criticism and to distance itself from practices that have damaged the credibility of the political system.
So far, however, the required political boldness does not appear to exist. Instead, the image is that of a leadership trying to balance between defending institutions and avoiding confrontation with its honorary president.
This amounts to a form of political tightrope-walking.
On the one hand, there is recognition of the need to investigate the allegations. On the other, there is avoidance of any substantive criticism of the individual at the centre of the case.
If DISY believes the report should not trigger political debate, then why are its consequences being discussed by lawyers, political scientists, journalists and citizens?
And if it is genuinely concerned about the political repercussions, why does it not seek answers from the person at the centre of the public debate?
Consequences for 2028
Everything unfolding since the publication of the Mafia State report does not concern only the current political moment, but primarily the future of the political system.
The issue has the potential to directly influence the political dynamics already shaping ahead of the 2028 presidential elections.
For DISY, the case could become a determining factor for its future course. If it continues to appear hesitant towards Anastasiades’s political legacy, it risks entering the next electoral period burdened by the past rather than presenting a convincing vision for the future.
Pressures and calculations
At the same time, the pressure faced by Anastasiades from broader civil society inevitably affects President Nikos Christodoulides.
The current president was a key figure in the Anastasiades administration, and his political rise was directly linked to that period. Anastasiades himself played a decisive role in shaping the conditions that led to Christodoulides’s victory in 2023.
This means that as political pressure on Anastasiades increases, so too does pressure on Christodoulides to prove that his own governance is not a continuation of the same political mindset and practices.
If he allows institutions to function freely and without political interference, he may strengthen his image as an independent leader.
However, if the perception emerges that political protection continues for individuals or practices of the past, then his administration will remain on a very fine line.
The broader test
The essence, therefore, is that the report represents:
- a critical test for institutions
- a test of political credibility for DISY
- a factor that could decisively influence the political landscape up to 2028
As the issue moves from political impressions into the realm of institutional decisions, the question is no longer just what the justice system will do.
It is also, who will find the political courage to confront the responsibilities of the past.
