In 16 days Cyprus will assume the presidency of the Council of the European Union, while Larnaca will be a European Capital of Culture in 2030. We are within the European Union, of human rights, freedom of expression and tolerance of difference. Yet a European identity is not acquired automatically because one is born on European soil. It is earned through the adoption of European and universal principles and values. European identity is a constant struggle against irrationality and fanaticism. It is the path of progress and change. How close are we to this identity when we demand that an artist stop painting works that offend our values and our sense of aesthetics?
The past weekend was a reminder of how far we are from Europe. Cyprus looked more like Tehran than Brussels. Most traditional parties competed in extreme statements and positions over the work of an artist, which was exhibited in a private rather than a public space. They, therefore, had no right to intervene at all. The danger in this case was not the content of the work, but the authoritarianism of parties that lost all sense of limits and believed they could interfere in private space and impose artistic forms on society.
The parties that quarrelled over who is the most far right and most intolerant, along with other political forces that indulged in displays of extreme rhetoric, are heading towards the ballot box and regard the works of the visual artist George Gavriel as pre election material and a golden opportunity for mobilisation. Developments will of course prove them wrong and will show that they are out of step with reality.
To win an election because you disliked Gavriel's paintings would be pitiful. The very thought is absurd. It is a sign of political poverty and of a political vacuum that they are trying to fill with fanaticism and shouting.
Traditional parties supposedly raised the banner of responsibility against populism and stressed that seriousness must prevail. Is the political discourse they express about the art of George Gavriel responsible? How can one describe as serious a political party that pretends not to understand what freedom of expression means and seeks to stir the lowest instincts of certain citizens?
It used to trouble me and make me anxious that traditional parties were weakening and that personality driven political formations without ideology were steadily gaining ground. I believed that traditional parties were predictable and functioned as collectives, with solid structures, youth organisations and political education. My approach may have been conservative. After the weekend that has just passed, I have no anxiety at all about the trend of declining electoral support for traditional parties. If these are the parties that are losing political strength, then from my side there is no concern whatsoever.