This blog is part of our Emerging Perspectives series, showcasing original research and fresh analyses by current and former students of Near East University on regional politics, governance, and international affairs.

On 19 October, Turkish Cypriots went to the polls in a much-anticipated presidential election. Tufan Erhürman, the moderate leader of the left-leaning Republican Turkish Party (CTP), won by a landslide, securing around 63 percent of the vote. His victory rekindled a cautious sense of possibility — yet it also underscored how far the European Union (EU) has faded from the Turkish Cypriot political discourse.

It has been twenty-one years since the Republic of Cyprus joined the European Union, an event that placed the EU at the centre of Turkish Cypriot politics. In every election since then, whether municipal, parliamentary or presidential, Europe was consistently invoked by political actors to mobilise voters. This was a period during which the EU was not only an institution but signified a political idea, a hope and a future. In the latest presidential elections however, almost all references to the EU disappeared from the political discourse and election debates and were replaced by pragmatic appeals to daily life: candidates chose to speak of relations with Ankara, checkpoints and cost of living- but not of Europe. So how did this come about? How can a once-dominant discourse become silent? And what does this silence say about northern Cyprus?

In the early 2000s, the EU was symbolising new horizons; for Turkish Cypriots, it meant democracy, the end of isolation, international law and so on. The European Union was equated with many things, but most importantly, it signified a solution to the ongoing Cyprus Problem. This discourse reached its peak during the 2003 parliamentary elections when the Union was most prominently articulated by the candidates and political parties. Back in those days, resolution of the Cyprus Problem and ensuing EU membership was seen as a way to connect with the rest of the world. Left-wing discourses and propaganda during the elections referred to almost every aspect of daily life — from land deeds to isolation — and constantly invoked Europe and a solution together. Even though these were parliamentary elections, both the CTP and the BDH (Peace and Democracy Movement) invoked the EU and “Europeanness” in challenging what they called the “status quo” throughout their propaganda.

The two notable narratives these two parties utilised during this time was “Ben Avrupa’yım (I am Europe)” formulated by the CTP, and “Mevsimi Geldi Artık, Baharda Avrupa (The Season is here, Europe in springtime)” used by the BDH. The left-wing discourse perceived Europe as a way out of most of the problems and successfully mobilised voters. In this way, Europe symbolised a hopeful future, in an otherwise gloomy atmosphere marked by non-recognition.

Even right-wing discourses and propaganda were not totally against the EU. The UBP (National Unity Party), for example, did not completely reject the idea of EU membership, even though it opposed a federal solution. Indeed, it argued that EU standards were crucial for the future viability and well-being of the Turkish Cypriot community. More specifically, it argued that the criteria imposed on Turkish Cypriots for accession should be based on “our terms” and that it could only happen alongside Türkiye’s membership to the Union. On the other hand, the DP (Democratic Party) took a harsher stance toward the European Union and the party’s propaganda during the election period targeted Günter Verheugen, who was the European Commissioner for Enlargement at that time.

Although a UN blueprint known as the Annan Plan ultimately failed in a referendum to reunify the island, and the Republic of Cyprus joined the EU as a still-divided island on 1 May 2004, references to Europe (though still conditional on a solution to the Cyprus problem) did not disappear. In fact, discourses articulated by Turkish Cypriot political actors across the political spectrum began asserting that “we should be in the Union too”. Elections in the following years, 2005 parliamentary elections, 2005 presidential elections, 2006 municipal elections, and 2006 parliamentary elections saw both left- and right-wing parties trying to mobilise voters by invoking Europe. The right-wing discourse in the 2006 municipal elections for example, referred to Europe and “the real Europeanness”. There was indeed a strong feeling of disappointment following the failure of the Annan Plan, but still, there remained also a sense of belonging, and the Union was still invoked as both a normative actor and a pragmatic one. Both left- and right-wing actors repeatedly referred to the Union and its standards, especially during the municipal elections, as they promised “Municipalities with European standards”.

However, from early 2010s onwards, discourses on Europe evolved in a different way and European Union membership was framed in a more transactional way, especially within the right-wing discourses. In other words, the Union became more related with funds that were made available to the Turkish Cypriot Community as part of the annual Aid Programme, or regulations concerning trade (i.e. the Green Line Regulation) rather than a symbol of belonging. While left-wing discourses on Europe retained their initial focus and imbued the latter with a sense of belonging — arguing that the Turkish Cypriot community had political rights in Europe, and was in fact part of Europe — there was also a subtle but noticeable shift within these discourses themselves, reflecting a fading of Europe.

And unfortunately, by the time of the 2025 presidential elections, references to Europe were much less prominent, particularly in the heat of the campaign. Instead, campaigns and speeches focused more on debates over ‘two-state’ vs ‘federal solution’, domestic governance, relations with Ankara and the growing economic challenges. The leftist candidate, Tufan Erhürman, occasionally described the island as part of Europe in some of his speeches, which indicated that Europe did not fully disappear from the political landscape but these references were nonetheless rather muted. Erhürman also highlighted the plight of the children from mixed marriages who cannot obtain Republic of Cyprus citizenship, which is somehow related to the European Union, and only in a materialistic way. By contrast, Ersin Tatar made no references to the European Union and mostly focussed on the two-state solution model and relations with Turkey.

Among others, the fading of Europe across political discourses reflects a sense of fatigue and disillusionment, suggesting that Europe no longer mobilises Turkish Cypriot voters. The failure of the Annan Plan and ongoing isolation over the years years, all appear to have fuelled the scepticism towards the Union. As a result, relations between the Union and the Turkish Cypriot community have gradually shifted from a primarily identity-based form of belonging to a more subtle, bureaucratic mode of engagement. Beyond questions of identity, practical mechanisms — such as the Green Line Regulation, the Financial Aid Regulation, and various grant and scholarship schemes — structure the day-to-day interaction of the EU with northern Cyprus. Likewise, the establishment of the European Union Coordination Centre (Avrupa Birliği Koordinasyon Merkezi) reflects the institutionalisation of these relations.

To put it more bluntly, Europe that once entered the political landscape as a symbol of hope is now reduced to a matter of citizenship papers and funding. This silence is not a simple absence but rather an outcome of long-term disenchantment.  It raises the critical question of what Europe really means for Turkish Cypriots: a shared identity or merely a passport.

Indeed, the prominence of the ‘two-state solution’ debates in recent years reaching their peak with the victory of Ersin Tatar in 2020 says a lot about the fading of Europe as a key reference. From this perspective, Europe’s retreat in the latest presidential elections is significant as it reveals a deeper transformation in how Turkish Cypriots imagine their place in the world.

While a proponent of the island’s reunification is in office now, it is by no way clear whether Europe will revive and once again find a place in Turkish Cypriot politics. This will certainly depend in equal measure on Brussels and on Turkish Cypriot political actors. Without doubt, Europe must offer a genuinely hopeful future beyond mere funding and freedom of movement, while local actors need to engage with the Union beyond slogans if it is to resonate again in the north.

Osman Koçak is an associate lecturer and PhD candidate in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Near East University. His doctoral research examines discourses of Europeanisation and their impact on identity politics in northern Cyprus.