*By George Koumoullis
What I have observed as a columnist over the past decades is that, despite the tragedy of 1974, we continue to manufacture labels. We have failed to learn from our ordeal. It is a nightmarish déjà vu that revives memories of a dark period in our history. Anyone who engages in self-criticism is branded an "unpatriot", while anyone who insists on historical truth is labelled a "Turkophile".
The phenomenon is particularly evident on social media. Anyone wishing to verify this need only spend a few minutes browsing Facebook. Not, of course, beneath my own articles, as I have made sure to delete such "comments".
It is an old political industry that produces neither ideas nor solutions, but instead cultivates the silencing of dissenting views and fuels polarisation within Cypriot society.
Although I was never a member of AKEL, I feel particular disgust when I see AKEL supporters, or left-wingers more generally, being called "unpatriots" by people who belong politically or ideologically to a camp that continues to romanticise EOKA B and avoids meaningful self-criticism over its role in the Cyprus tragedy of 1974.
The political heirs of an organisation linked to the coup that brought the Turks to Cyprus now present themselves as the exclusive custodians of patriotism. Those who caused the greatest catastrophe in our homeland now have the unfathomable audacity to label others "unpatriots" and distribute certificates of national loyalty. O tempora! O mores!
The belief that patriotism belongs exclusively to a particular ideological camp is profoundly anti-democratic. The far right believes it holds a monopoly on love of country, while all others are suspect and accused of betraying national interests.
History, however, teaches exactly the opposite.
The clearest example comes from occupied Greece during World War Two. The National Liberation Front (EAM), in which the Left played a leading role, was the largest resistance organisation fighting against the German, Italian and Bulgarian occupation forces. This is a fact that no historian can dispute.
Thousands of EAM fighters were imprisoned, tortured and executed in the name of liberating their country. The tragic irony is that after the war many of them were treated as "anti-national", "bandits" or people whose national loyalty was questioned. This is a subject often avoided during commemorations of the anniversary of 28 October.
Equally omitted is the fact that when the Germans invaded Greece they found willing collaborators exclusively on the Right. The prime minister who worked closely with the German occupiers was Georgios Tsolakoglou, who came from the conservative, anti-communist and monarchist camp of his era.
I should add, however, that the fact Tsolakoglou belonged to the Right does not mean the Right as a whole should be identified with collaborationism. During the occupation there were conservatives, centrists, royalists and leftists who joined the resistance, just as there were individuals from conservative circles who collaborated with the occupiers.
Likewise, in Cyprus, the tragedy of 1974 was not caused by those who were labelled "unpatriots" but by a coup that was organised in the name of patriotism and the salvation of Hellenism.
Patriotism is therefore not judged by slogans, labels or flag-waving. It is measured by commitment to democracy, freedom and the true interests of one's country. And these do not belong exclusively to either the Right or the Left. They belong to all citizens.
Where does this leave us?
It leaves us with the conclusion that loving one's country does not mean belonging to a particular political camp. Every country has patriots with differing political views who want what they believe is best for their homeland. Two people can love Cyprus equally while disagreeing over how the Cyprus problem should be resolved.
One of the most paradoxical aspects of the public debate on Cyprus is the ease with which some narrow-minded figures on the far right describe anyone who attempts to approach history with basic objectivity as a "Turkophile" or "Turk-lover".
Merely mentioning mistakes made by the Greek Cypriot side, or referring to the traumatic experiences of Turkish Cypriots, is often enough for someone to be accused of adopting the Turkish narrative.
It would be a troubling state of affairs if recognising facts were considered proof of pro-Turkish sympathies.
Historical truth does not change according to the nationality of the person citing it.
The coup against Makarios happened. That is a fact.
Intercommunal violence occurred between 1963 and 1973 and claimed victims in both communities. That is a fact.
Both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots were victims of atrocities in 1974. That is also a fact.
An honest citizen acknowledges all of the facts, not only those that are convenient.
Self-criticism is a characteristic of mature patriotism.
No one calls a historian "pro-German" for studying Allied crimes during World War Two. Nor is someone labelled "anti-Greek" for criticising the military junta in Greece.
Otherwise, figures such as George Seferis, Mikis Theodorakis and Melina Mercouri would also have to be considered unpatriotic.
Recognising mistakes and crimes committed by Greek Cypriots does not in any way amount to adopting the Turkish narrative. It is an attempt to understand history.
To those who call me a "Turkophile", I have this to say:
"The recognition of mistakes by my own side does not make me a Turkophile. Just as condemning the junta does not make someone anti-Greek. Historical truth has no nationality. If what I am saying is inaccurate, prove it. If it is accurate, then the problem is not the facts but your inability to confront them. I suspect it is precisely this inability that reinforces the distortion I am describing."
*Economist, social scientist
