It’s sad! Even charitable actions don’t remain untouched in this country.
And it’s all because of politics and the sinful opportunistic behaviour that sometimes accompanies them.
The issue of the Independent Social Support Body (ISSB), which supports underprivileged students and is chaired by the President’s wife, remains at the centre of political controversy.
This is due to President Nikos Christodoulides filing a petition with the Supreme Court to annul a law passed by Parliament, which requires the publication at the end of each year of all individuals and legal entities donating more than €5,000.
It’s hard to find another country that has spent so much time on such an issue, driven purely by suspicion that a fund like this might be exploited for political gain by its administrators. But, this is Cyprus…
There are two perspectives from which one could view this matter. The first is the one presented in Parliament by Mrs. Karsera. She argued that many sponsors wish to remain anonymous, and if their identities were made public, they would stop donating more than €5,000.
While it’s difficult to fully agree with this reasoning, it’s true that there are people who genuinely prefer to keep their charitable contributions private.
This isn’t necessarily because they have ulterior motives, but rather because they are genuinely altruistic and don’t seek any recognition for their generosity.
The other perspective, however, views the management of such a fund by the President’s wife with suspicion.
Unfortunately, the actions of the Presidential office so far haven’t dispelled this distrust.
First, because since the start of his term, the new President has shown an obsession with filling the Presidential Palace with relatives and close associates.
Second, because he publicly declared that there is a long list of those who supported him, and he feels obliged to repay them.
Third, because in the 20 months of Christodoulides’ presidency, there has been a constant sense that he’s governing with a view to securing a second term.
This allows political parties to remain suspicious, fearing that Mrs. Karsera might exploit the fund for such purposes.
Naturally, one wonders why the DISY MPs who proposed the law didn’t feel the need to do so during Anastasiades’ presidency when the fund was established in 2014.
At that time, there were plenty of reasons justifying such a law. The answer, of course, is obvious to all.
Both Mrs. Karsera and the Presidential office have offered explanations to convince the public that adequate controls are in place.
They pointed out that donations are made via transfers to the Central Bank, which verifies their origin; the treasurer of the fund is the State’s Chief Accountant; the fund’s financial statements are audited by the Auditor General; and every six months, all benefits provided are submitted to Parliament.
This framework seems sufficient to ensure proper oversight, preventing the misuse of donations for political favours and ensuring that there are no suspicious donors.
However, the sins of the previous administration have fuelled ongoing distrust.
It’s telling that during Nikos Anastasiades’ presidency, one of the largest donors (€500,000) to the fund was a Saudi friend of the former president, who later emerged with numerous golden passports.
Given this, it’s clear that merely disclosing the beneficiaries isn’t enough. What matters more is who the donors are, so that any future quid pro quo can be monitored.
Whether the parties’ suspicion is excessive, bordering on populism, or whether the motives of the Presidential office aren’t entirely innocent, one thing is clear: even charity in this country is clouded by suspicion, a consequence of politicians’ past misdeeds.
If, however, the sole motivation of all those involved in this six-month dispute is the welfare of underprivileged students (who are many), then they should put their swords away and find common ground.
Let the President’s wife voluntarily step down from the fund. Let the fund be run by a committee comprised of individuals who genuinely wish to contribute to this noble cause.
The President could select these individuals, with the approval of Parliament.
In this way, the work would be praiseworthy and free from suspicion.
