President Nikos Christodoulides has always traded in soundbites. Rational argument has not often featured in his public discourse, probably because he has realised that it is only soundbites that are remembered by voters, even when these are not rooted in factual reality.

On Saturday, the president used the expression ‘the party’s over’ in Greek as a response to the criticism of his appointments to the semi-governmental organisation boards by Akel and Disy. What he meant was that the time when the seats on the SGO boards were shared out among political parties was over and meritocracy determined the appointments.

The Advisory Council, which he had established after his election processes applications for the board seats and proposes those considered the most suitable. The council’s president Giorgos Aresti said 80 per cent of the proposals were accepted by the government, something he considered pretty good going. Why was a fuss being made about 20 per cent of the appointments, he asked.

Could it be because the appointments announced last week showed that the party was not over and that the president had rewarded his loyal supporters with seats as well as people Diko chief Nicolas Papadopoulos had asked to be appointed? Akel and Disy were demanding Christodoulides displayed the transparency and accountability he had promised when he set up the Advisory Council. He had said that when he rejected a suggestion of the Council, he would explain his reasons, something he consistently failed to do.

It was perfectly justified criticism, especially a few days after Christodoulides increased the number of Diko members in his cabinet so as to tie Diko to his re-election drive. In what way was the party over for Diko, which has increased its share of the spoils of power in exchange for its votes?

The government resorted to another soundbite in an attempt to silence its critics. “It is very interesting that these announcements (by Akel and Disy) are identical,” said Christodoulides, while his spokesman Konstantinos Letymbiotis claimed that two parties has used the “the same subject, the same argument, the same accusation and more impressively the same timing.”

So, when two opposition parties criticise the government for specific actions, it means that they are in cahoots, as the president and spokesman suggested? When the government exercises nepotism, Akel and Disy must not call this out simultaneously, because it would mean they have identical views? They must take turns to criticise nepotism so as not to be accused of having the same political views. The parties were referred to be the government as DisAkel, as if they were one and the same thing.

It does not really need to be said that the government avoided responding to the accusations of nepotism and lack of transparency, because the party is over.