Perhaps it was the heat or the tail end of the silly season that caused the massive meltdown the past week over an interview hosted by YouTube provocateur and MEP Fidias Panayiotou with an historian and journalist who allegedly “tarnished” the reputation of Eoka hero Grigoris Afxentiou.

Afxentiou, according to approved history, was burned alive by the British colonial rulers when they poured petrol into his hideout near Machairas Monastery in March 1957 after he refused to surrender.

Long story short, historian Michalis Michael related other accounts that were out there, including British forensic reports that Afxentiou’s body had a bullet hole in the right temple but the shot, according to the coroner, had been fired from two feet away.

Cue the meltdown from political parties and other patriots, with the rage being directed against Michael for what he said, and Fidias for giving him a platform.

Michael, in written statement on social media, said in the next 24 hours, he had been the recipient of public attacks, insults, accusations and threats “that are not based on what I actually said, but on interpretations, rumours and deliberate distortions”. He never said Afxentiou had committed suicide, he said.

Other historians and Eoka organisations argued that the alternative narrative was “colonial propaganda” but even so, it takes a certain amount of bravery to shoot yourself or ask to be shot by a comrade rather than be captured alive, and what the British did that day was an unspeakable act.

The furore then spilled over into a football match after some Apoel fans unfurled a large banner calling Fidias a “Turkish offshoot” and a “shame on Cyprus”, which prompted the police to step in and remove it, and later arrest someone.

The banner was also an allusion to a recent interview Fidias carried out with Turkish Cypriot leader Ersin Tatar in the north that created another controversy around the YouTuber – as if Greek Cypriot media had never interviewed a Turkish Cypriot leader before, even the most intransigent ones like Rauf Denktash and Dervis Eroglu. Or it’s only okay when the media does it?

Fidias didn’t respond publicly until Thursday, saying Michael had said the same things on another podcast recently but there hadn’t been any uproar. He said the fuss was only because it involved him.

There is no doubt that Fidias deliberately courts controversy, all of which has been well documented even before he was elected MEP. Whether his apparent political naivete and “truth seeking” is genuine or fake, the establishment has already decided he’s an unacceptable upstart.

What we do know is that over 71,000 people voted for him, more votes than any other Cypriot candidate received in the 2024 European elections.

We may say that 71,000 idiots voted for an idiot but we can also say the same about many of those who vote for certain “established” political parties in Cyprus – or even an unpopular president.

Last we heard, in a democracy, people are entitled to vote for whomever they wish for whatever reason. Choosing a prankster as a protest vote may come back to haunt the people who voted for Fidias but it is incumbent on the established political parties to ask themselves why instead of simply blaming Fidias for being voted in.

The ‘Fidias Phenomenon’, as it was dubbed, was born from a political system that suffers from an inability to provide solutions, especially for younger generations who, on top of being financially stymied, think differently, want different things and receive their news and information in the most untraditional way. Fidas has almost 2.7 million followers on YouTube. That’s twice the population of Cyprus.

At the same time, over the last ten years, the established parties have lost tens of thousands of voters. The only gains made party-wise in 2021 parliamentary elections were by far-right Elam, which also won a seat in Europe in 2024. Is it better that Fidias’ 71,000 voters are idiots rather than turning to the far-right to express their dissatisfaction with the political status quo? Maybe.

Neither Fidas nor Elam are a solution but they are a shot across the bow that needs to be heeded, not with insults but with change, better arguments and action.

Despite parliamentary elections being just around the corner, the parties find it easier to blame Fidias and call him a disgrace rather than engage in the kind of serious soul-searching they promised to do after being trounced in 2021 and 2024.

The juvenile reactions over the past week seem to indicate they haven’t done much of that. All they offer is the same half-century-old rhetoric people are tired of hearing delivered with the same sense of self-righteousness, self-interest and lack of self-awareness to realise that Fidias is not a Turkish offshoot but an offshoot of their own shortcomings.