Borrowers facing foreclosure in Cyprus were granted a fleeting sense of relief, only to be pulled back to reality as legislation was referred by the government as unconstitutional and is now heading to the Supreme Court.
There is a growing suspicion, both domestically and abroad, that political forces in Cyprus have perfected the art of missing opportunities to resolve long-standing issues. At the top of that list sits the Cyprus problem itself, followed closely by a range of economic and social challenges, including property repossessions. Political careers, it seems, are too often built on maintaining problems rather than solving them.
Foreclosure: populism vs policy
Political parties frequently table proposals that are impractical and populist, designed to appeal to voters but ultimately ineffective. These approaches, often wrapped in legalistic language and grand rhetoric, promise justice at some undefined future point. The familiar refrain of “you will be vindicated” begins to sound less like policy and more like prophecy.
In recent months, foreclosures were frozen, guarantors were temporarily shielded, and court rulings were prioritised before repossession proceedings. Yet these measures have unravelled, leaving vulnerable borrowers exposed once again. What was briefly perceived as a reprieve has proven to be little more than a pause before the inevitable.
Property repossession: a need for coordination
What appears to be overlooked, by both government and opposition, is that borrower distress cannot be resolved through unilateral parliamentary bills. Meaningful solutions require coordination across institutions and, crucially, financial commitment from the state.
Effective policy must originate from the Ministry of Finance, in collaboration with the Central Bank, and with the approval of the Attorney General. Pre-election proposals from MPs, however well-intentioned, lack the structural backing to deliver sustainable outcomes.
There is a clear distinction between including policy ideas in a manifesto and rushing them through parliament without proper scrutiny. Attempts to revive a “legislating parliament” model risk oversimplifying complex financial and legal realities.
Housing policy: real solutions or political theatre?
If parliament is serious about addressing foreclosure injustices, attention should shift to systemic issues such as delays in the justice system. Why has there been so little progress in accelerating legal proceedings over the past five years? Where is the concrete plan?
If the aim is to release guarantors from what many see as an unfair burden, often stemming from past systemic failures, then the state must step in decisively. This means asking hard questions: how much funding can be allocated to absorb these loans into public structures? How can safeguards be implemented to exclude strategic defaulters while protecting genuinely vulnerable parties?
Similarly, any expansion of first-home protection must involve tangible intervention. This could include state acquisition of properties, directly or indirectly, through schemes such as “Mortgage-to-Rent” or “Estia“.
Unless, of course, the persistence of these problems serves a purpose. Whether due to lack of understanding or a reliance on political stagnation, the result is the same: hope is sold, while solutions remain elusive.
As elections approach, voters would do well to remember this pattern. The real choice lies between those who can and will resolve problems – and those who simply build careers around them.
(Translated from an article by George Georgiou in Politis)
