To Leshiv...

Telika, o 'Agios' Pafou eivai to megalitero leshi tis Kyprou. Efav tous oullous... ama fkei tze arxiepiskopos tote eklisamev triliza me proedro kavlavti tze arxiepiskopo leshi... tze oti pa8oume xalali mas...
Apo to Coffee Shop tis Cyprus mail:
IF FOREIGN observers had been monitoring the elections for Archbishop, they would been declared the vote null and void a long time ago. Fairer elections have taken place in Saddam’s Iraq and Idi Amin’s Uganda.Much as it pains me to do so, I have to agree with the money-bags bishop of Kykkos, Nikiforos, who has been complaining about the shenanigans perpetrated throughout the six-week procedure by the caretaker of the throne, Paphos Bishop, Chrysostomos.You have to admire Chrysostomos’ chutzpah. He has done everything in his power - cheated, lied, deceived, schemed – to ensure that nobody could ever describe the elections for Archbishop as fair. Yet today, despite having received just five per cent of the public vote, he could become our new Archbishop, thanks to his willingness to resort to every dirty trick in the unholy book.He might have proved beyond all reasonable doubt that he is not a holy man, but when it comes to scheming and tactical manoeuvring, he makes Machiavelli look like a naïve idealist. He has no qualms about lying, personally shovelling dirt on his opponents, changing the Church rules in accordance with his needs and making deals he refuses to stick to. Such an impressive record in deviousness and duplicity cannot go unrewarded.Today is the big day for him. The electoral council made up of clergy and laymen will choose between crafty Chrys and the pious Bishop of Limassol Athanassios. The two men struck an electoral pact which excluded AKEL candidate Nikiforos from the final round of the voting at yesterday’s final voting at the Archbishopric.Athanassios, with the backing of Chrys’ electors, won the contest of the lay voters and Chrys, with the backing of Athanassios’ electors, won the vote of the clergy. The unholy alliance which resulted in Nikiforos’ defeat, prompted his electors to walk out in protest. The final vote for Archbishop between the two finalists should have been held immediately after, but if it were, Athanassios would have won easily, so Chrysostomos arranged for it to be put back 24 hours, even though this was a clear violation of the Church Charter. It was the only way he would have a chance of winning. Before yesterday, he had assured us that an Archbishop would have been elected on Saturday, but he was proved a liar yet again.Now he has 24 hours to persuade Nikiforos’ disaffected electors to come to the Archbishopric and vote for him rather than Athanassios, who has the guaranteed backing of a much bigger number of electors.Having ruthlessly manoeuvred his way to the final showdown, it would be a great shame for Chrysostomos to lose today. He might be a complete rogue who cheated his way to the Archbishop’s throne but at least he never pretended to be anything else. In a perverse way, he was the most honest of the candidates.