Sixteen months before the 2028 presidential elections, the contest for the island’s top office has already gathered momentum, shaping government strategy, party calculations and the terms of political debate in a country where the pre-election period increasingly resembles a permanent state of politics. Speaking to Politis, five analysts examined the different faces of this reality and the less visible price it exacts from democracy. Their central concern is that constant focus on the next ballot shifts the centre of gravity away from serious policymaking and towards electoral expediency. Long-term planning gives way to short-term political calculation, difficult but necessary decisions risk being postponed for fear of the political cost, and the room for consensus on crucial reforms and on the Cyprus problem narrows. The question is whether decisions are being taken on the basis of the country’s real needs or of electoral balances, and whether the opposition is genuinely holding power to account or adjusting its stance to its plans for 2028. Political debate, meanwhile, has become increasingly centred on personalities, revolving around candidacies, alliances and electoral arithmetic rather than the policies the country needs.
A strain on public trust
Beyond the effects on governance, the analysts point to a deeper consequence, which is the erosion of trust between society and the political system. The image of an endless battle for power, they warn, reinforces a perception among citizens that the main concern of politicians and party officials is winning and keeping office rather than solving people’s problems, and that political competition is more about who will hold power than what they will do with it. Whether or not that perception reflects the whole of political reality, it feeds disillusionment, contempt for politics and distrust of institutions, while creating fertile ground for polarisation and populism. All of this unfolds at a time when daily life continues to be defined by the high cost of living, the housing problem and a series of other pressing issues that cannot wait until 2028. The question, then, concerns what the campaign leaves behind while it lasts as much as how early it began: which decisions are deferred, which priorities are sidelined and how wide the gap grows between the ambitions of the political system and the needs of society.
Yiannos Katsourides: a country without a long-term horizon
For Yiannos Katsourides, assistant professor of political science at the University of Nicosia and a political analyst, the permanent campaign has become a fixed feature of Cypriot political life, with serious consequences for policymaking, the capacity for consensus and the quality of democracy. Pre-election periods are starting ever earlier, he argues, to the point where there is no longer a clear separation between the time for governing and the time for electoral competition. It is natural, he explains, for parties to settle into the roles of government and opposition after a presidential election. What has changed, mainly over the past decade, is that political activity now takes place almost entirely in a pre-election atmosphere. “We are in a prolonged pre-election period, so we simply move from one election to the next,” he said, noting that this applies to the government and the political parties alike. Comparing the current cycle with the previous one, Katsourides recalled that Averof Neofytou’s announcement of his candidacy in December 2021 marked the start of the last campaign. This time, the manoeuvring began in late September 2026, roughly four months earlier in the electoral calendar.
The most serious cost, in his view, is that the government’s ability to pursue long-term policies is curtailed, as both government and opposition act more to gain political advantage than to advance reforms that need time. “Policymaking now lacks a long-term horizon. We think far too short-term, and short-term plans are obviously overturned very easily,” he said. He noted that the last major reform was GESY under former president Nicos Anastasiades, which had been debated for 20 years, and that decisions on pensions and education now have to be taken in a pre-election climate. Major reforms cannot be delivered without continuity and consensus, he stressed, yet when political debate is conducted on electoral terms, each side seeks to prevent the other from gaining ground.
The second major consequence concerns citizens’ trust in institutions. According to Katsourides, the image of a ceaseless struggle for power strengthens the perception that politicians are mainly interested in winning office and its privileges, alienating citizens further and opening space for forces that offer simplistic answers to complex problems. “It is a vicious circle,” he said, explaining that confrontational tactics may bring short-lived electoral gains but undermine the functioning of the political system in the long run. He is particularly concerned about the Cyprus problem. While he places most of the responsibility for the stalemate on Turkey and external factors, he believes the prolonged campaign limits the scope for domestic understanding. “Nobody can take on the Cyprus problem alone. It requires consensus,” he said. In a constantly polarised environment, he concluded, parties look for their rivals’ weaknesses rather than opportunities for cooperation, even on issues that transcend party competition.
Nasios Orinos: the case for a single presidential term
Nasios Orinos, an associate research professor and electoral analyst, believes the campaign for 2028 effectively never stopped after Nikos Christodoulides was elected. In his assessment, the need to protect the president’s political image and the prospect of re-election shape the way the country is governed, as decisions that might have been taken under different circumstances are weighed against their electoral cost. This leads him to a proposal with wider institutional implications: a single, non-renewable presidential term. “Whoever is president is vulnerable when he runs again,” he said, explaining that the prospect of re-election can discourage difficult decisions, particularly when they provoke a backlash from organised social groups. “If he is in his first term and, instead of working as he should, he is watching the cost with this or that social group, or wants to hand out money to win votes or avoid losing them, that has a cost for the country. It is clear.” He cited the practice of turning to the Presidential Palace when the relevant ministries refuse specific demands, on the assumption that a president fearful of the political cost will find it hard to say no. A president who knew he could not seek office again, Orinos argued, would have more freedom to take decisions he considered necessary, even unpopular ones.
He acknowledges that an early campaign is not wholly negative. It can cause fatigue, encourage populist approaches and affect critical decisions such as, at this stage, the budgets and pension reform, but it can also sharpen scrutiny of the government. Here he levels sharp criticism at the opposition, and at Disy in particular, arguing that it failed to use its political strength to put effective pressure on the government. “Disy also bears responsibility for the many mistakes that were made, because it did not offer the right criticism or apply pressure,” he said. Opposition, he explained, is not limited to denouncing the government’s handling of affairs; it must systematically scrutinise the executive, expose problems and put forward alternatives. Citing surveys from February 2024 that, he said, recorded public expectations of a more vigorous opposition, he pointed to the handling of wildfires, water shortages, outstanding energy issues and the Great Sea Interconnector (GSI), among other cases, where in his view the parties did not always apply the pressure required. A stronger opposition, he believes, could have forced the government to be more careful and prevented mistakes, and the early presidential race may therefore have one positive effect if it stirs parties that have so far failed in their opposition role. He sets a clear limit, however. “But you cannot remember to act as an opposition and expose the mistakes only in the final year,” he said, stressing that effective opposition is a permanent obligation to society. The country’s credit rating upgrades may be welcome, he added, but they do not automatically answer the difficulties citizens face when they go to the supermarket.
Anna Koukkides-Procopiou: lust for power and the risks to social cohesion
Anna Koukkides-Procopiou, a fellow at Yale University’s Jackson School of Global Affairs and a former justice minister, warns that the prolonged pre-election period risks drawing political life away from society’s real needs. Constant preoccupation with the next presidential election, she argues, distracts from problems that require immediate solutions and limits the ability to set long-term strategy. “The prolonged pre-election period, unfortunately, draws public debate away from the ‘here and now’, diverting attention from the burning problems of citizens’ daily lives,” she said. The problem extends to decision-making, since many necessary solutions carry a political cost that leaders appear unwilling to bear ahead of elections. “By focusing constantly on the future, we forget the present,” she said, describing a situation she considers harmful to political life and to the country’s long-term planning.
On the Cyprus problem, she believes the lack of sufficient political capital and credibility on the part of the leadership further weighs on already difficult prospects for a settlement, and that beyond geopolitical imbalances, the deficit of domestic political understanding could make it hard to manage even a possible agreement. She is equally critical of the way political competition is conducted, arguing that society is left with an image of “pervasive and unrestrained lust for power”, as the emphasis shifts from positions, arguments and programmes to candidates’ efforts to prevail over their rivals. “Instead of a fruitful contest of policy proposals, we are witnessing a parade of names and faces,” she said. Koukkides-Procopiou links this personality-driven culture to toxicity and sexism, pointing to the withdrawal of Annita Demetriou’s candidacy. “It is a sad but entirely telling sign of the dominant culture that the only woman who was a serious contender for the presidency, even as a favourite, ultimately withdrew her candidacy under the weight of unbridled, personalised and sexist toxicity,” she said.
She also warns of the dangers polarisation poses to social cohesion. A long pre-election period conducted in a climate of “war of all against all” can, in her view, open deep rifts in society and create fertile ground for interference by malicious actors. She attaches particular importance to the internet and social media, which can be used to deepen distrust, undermine institutions and destabilise, placing the phenomenon within the logic of cognitive warfare, the attempt to influence how a society thinks and acts. The threat, she believes, becomes even greater in times of crisis, when citizens are under pressure and more inclined to question institutions and democracy itself.
Venetia Papa: what the debate pushes aside
Venetia Papa, assistant professor of journalism and digital media at the Department of Communication and Internet Studies of the Cyprus University of Technology, approaches the issue through political communication and the media, and argues that an early presidential debate is not necessarily bad for democracy. Discussion of future policy choices, alternative governing proposals and social priorities can enrich public debate and citizen participation. The problem arises, she explains, when political discussion is constantly organised around potential candidates, party alliances and electoral arithmetic, a phenomenon described in the international literature as the permanent campaign, in which the boundaries between governing and electoral strategy become increasingly blurred. In this process, the media are not mere observers or conduits of political developments but active participants in shaping the public agenda, influencing which issues gain prominence and which are left on the margins. “The constant reproduction of scenarios about the 2028 presidential elections does not necessarily reflect a social priority,” she said, explaining that it may in fact help to create one.
In her assessment, the most significant democratic cost of the early race lies in the shift from evaluating the current government to predicting the next election, so that politics is presented as a competition of personalities and strategies rather than a contest of policy proposals. This is the logic of horse-race coverage, in which reporting focuses on the electoral contest itself: who is ahead, who is slipping, which alliances are forming and who has the best chance of winning. Social media can amplify this dynamic, since digital platforms often favour a personality-driven presentation of politics. Papa also highlights their other side, however, noting that they can serve as spaces for participation, bring forward issues absent from the traditional political agenda and allow citizens to take a more active part in public debate. For this reason she does not believe a long pre-election period automatically leads to fatigue or disengagement. “A constant and premature debate does not inevitably lead to political fatigue or to citizens’ disengagement from the electoral process,” she said, adding that the outcome depends on the content of the debate, the quality of the arguments and whether the problems that genuinely concern society are brought to the fore. She closes with a question addressed to parties and media alike. “The critical question, therefore, is not how early the debate on the next elections begins, but which issues it pushes out of the public sphere,” she said. Seen this way, the media’s responsibility extends beyond covering the presidential manoeuvring to systematically scrutinising those currently in power and highlighting the substantive policy choices at stake.
Christos Michaelides: fatigue without abstention
Christos Michaelides, executive chairman of the Cypronetwork research group, also points to the gap between the political system’s intense activity and society’s real priorities, though he is cautious about drawing firm conclusions on voter behaviour so far ahead of the election. He makes clear that he has no specific research data on how citizens view the early presidential race and believes current polls can capture general trends rather than settled choices. “Today we can only see trends,” he said, noting that important questions, including the final candidacies and party alliances, remain open. That uncertainty affects how polling should be read, since the picture may change considerably once the field becomes clear. He referred to possible candidacies by well-known figures such as Nikos Christodoulides, Andreas Mavroyiannis and Averof Neofytou, stressing that these are hypothetical scenarios rather than confirmed choices. If figures with high name recognition ultimately prevail, he believes recognition will carry less weight than it would for a new candidate, for example one coming from Akel, and policy positions, programmes and alliances will matter more.
He accepts that the prolonged campaign may tire the electorate, without necessarily causing a significant fall in turnout. “This certainly brings some fatigue among people, but without meaning it will be dramatic in any direction,” he said. He recalled that similar signs of an early presidential race were recorded before the previous elections, while turnout in presidential contests remains comparatively higher, and so he does not expect electoral fatigue to translate into a serious change in turnout. What he considers more significant is that society has not yet fallen into the same pre-election rhythm as the parties. Citizens remain primarily concerned with problems affecting their daily lives, above all the cost of living, and the early start to the presidential race is linked mainly to the strategic aims of candidates and the parties backing them rather than to any corresponding public demand. This, he said, is also why current polls should be treated with caution: they may record interest and early preferences, but they are no reliable forecast of the result of an election that is still more than a year away. For Michaelides, the defining feature of the moment is that citizens continue to judge politics first through its consequences for their daily lives, not solely through the manoeuvring for the next presidential election.
