Canadian Journal of Sociology Online July-August 2006
The war of 1974 in Cyprus was a traumatic event for Greek Cypriots. Reacting against a Greek coup aimed at uniting the island with Greece, Turkey sent its army on July 15, 1974, and in two military operations partitioned the island into separate ethnic zones. Beyond lives lost in the war, a third of the Greek Cypriot population was forced by Turkey's intervention to abandon their homes and properties. Since then Greek Cypriot leaders have championed the right of the refugees to return to their homes through the reunification of the island, and to secure the departure of tens of thousands of Turkish troops (the 'invaders') that remain stationed in the Turkish Cypriot-administered northern part of the island. By contrast, the partition of 1974 conferred substantial security for Turkish Cypriots and was welcomed by most of them. They have been reticent to reunify the island except under terms that would offer substantial Turkish Cypriot autonomy in a loose federal arrangement, as provided by the UN-sponsored Annan plan that was rejected by the Greek Cypriot electorate in the referenda in April 2004.
In reacting to their tragedy brought by the war of 1974, a number of Greek Cypriots academics and others experienced considerable soul-searching regarding Greek Cypriot and Greek roles in sparking the division of Cyprus. In an important departure from nationalist narratives, Zenon Stavrinides' The Cyprus Conflict (Nicosia, 1975) accused the Greek Cypriot leadership of following hard-line policies that ultimately contributed to the division of the island. In a bid to better know 'the other', some Greek Cypriots embarked on the study of the culture and politics of Turkish Cypriots and of 'arch enemy' Turkey. Anthropologist Yiannis Papadakis is one of those post-1974 generation Greek Cypriot scholars who took up the challenge of understanding the identity of 'the other' with gusto. He studied Turkish, and received permission to conduct field research in the Turkish sector of capital Nicosia as well as in Istanbul, Turkey. His eminently readable book is a product of this research that began more than sixteen years earlier.
Papadakis deftly mixes his personal experiences with statements and stories of the people he talked with on both sides of the ethnic divide. There are lengthy quotations in the book containing the statements of the author's respondents. At the same time Papadakis provides a reasonable historical background to help the readers understand the context. One of the notable features of his work is the attention he pays to the words commonly used by Greek and Turkish Cypriots, as well as Greeks and Turks, and similarities of their expressions. This adds to the richness of his approach. His narrative is lucid, jargon-free and, unlike many books written by Greek and Turkish Cypriots, quite humorous.
Greek and Turkish Cypriot nationalists were unhelpful and tried to obstruct the author during his field research, and will not to like the book in the unlikely event that they read it. As with others in both communities who participated in bi-communal meetings and workshops, Papadakis has had to endure allegations of treachery in his community and even suspicions that he might be spying for the 'enemy'. As one who clearly identifies with those who believe in reconciliation with and empathy toward the other community, Papadakis is no friend of the nationalists. He gives the lie to official propaganda promoted by the Greek and Turkish Cypriot governments alike. In the north, he finds many Turkish Cypriots (particularly those who identify with the parties of the left) interested in sharing power with Greek Cypriots in a reunited island, contrary to the claims made by their long-time leader Rauf Denktash. And, contrary to the propaganda of the Greek Cypriot government, he rejects claims that Greek and Turkish Cypriots lived in harmony in the post-independence period, and could easily re-establish earlier patterns of cooperation. In this context, his field research in the village of Pyla/Pile is quite revealing.
Administered by United Nations peace-keepers, this village is the only settlement where Greek and Turkish Cypriots have lived together since 1974, and has been promoted both by Greek Cypriot leaders and some international bodies as an example of harmonious co-existence. Papadakis, on the other hand, paints a different picture. Having read the author's description of the deep mistrust that characterizes the relations of the village's two communities, the reader will have doubts about its portrayal as a microcosm of future collaboration between Greek and Turkish Cypriots.
Throughout his book the author reports on the media and educational systems that have fostered negative views of 'the other'. However, he has too little to say over the role of the Orthodox church as an influential agent of socialization in Greek Cypriot society. There are a few other instances where the author could have offered fuller explanations of important events. A case in point is the role played by AKEL, the Greek Cypriot Communist Party, in joining the 'no' camp in the referendum of 2004. AKEL surprised and disappointed many in the Turkish and Greek communities given its past record as a party that promoted intercommunal collaboration and supported initiatives to resolve the Cyprus issue. Papadakis laments that "for AKEL, the lure of power proved more powerful than principles" without further elaboration. These shortcomings aside, Papadakis has written a unique book that is a pleasure to read. It should be in the bookshelf of anyone interested in understanding the people of Cyprus and their recent unhappy history.
Tozun Bahcheli
Professor of Political Science
King's University College at the University of Western Ontario
http://www.cjsonline.ca/reviews/cyprus.html
August 2006
© Canadian Journal of Sociology Online
