Tight or Loose Federation?

An interesting discussion has been going on in the Proedrikes blog. One of the interesting points that has come up is the following question: what political settlement would minimize nationalist tendencies on both sides of the island? If you prefer, what political system would maximize the chances of peaceful co-existence between T/C and G/C on the island?

Many of us, on both sides of the divide, whether having voted YES or NO in 2004, do think that a tight federation is just a recipe for disaster at this point in time (more so now that in 2004 given the post-2004 ambient atmosphere). Tight federations of the Anan type do require good faith and good faith between cousins who have learned to mostly hate each other over the last 40 (?) years probably will have the seeds of their own destruction. Afterall, can one find a successful tight federation between Christians and Muslims, between two different nationalities, between two nationalities that have been taught they were enemies as far back as 1453, at least? Does there exist a precedent of a successful federation between two peoples that have been killing each other, and the killers are free and alive, and sometimes accustomed to "hero" status?

A loose federation, on the other hand, (and like other G/C I hate to admit this, this coincides with the neo-Denktas way of thinking) may promote peaceful coexistence, just because it will essentially replicate two separate states with minimal interaction between the two nationalities AT THE GOVERNMENT LEVEL. Interaction will exist at the business and social level either for profit reasons or simply because Stravaralanders like to have a good laugh. What is more, with certain innovative ideas at the national politics level, peaceful coexistence might actually be in the interest of the politicians involved as well. I am thinking, for example, of the president and the co-president of the national government running on the same ticket and one being G/C and the other T/C, so that they will have little incentive to create trouble for each other (if they do, they will lose the next election, that is why these elections will have a different cycle from the state ones and be done every 2 years, with just one month pre-election time). You get my point, my point is innovation. But, at the same time, these two presidents are there to go to football games, receive foreign dignitaries and make speeches on the 8th of July (OK, 5th of September, if you feel strongly about this one too).

One claim is that the above state of affairs will emphasize even more the national differences and create even more hatred between the two communities. That is, a stronger central government system in a federation might work better in creating understanding between the two communities. A loose federation, by letting everyone on their own, will thus limit the chances of long-term peace. Between the two systems though, and with the current mentalities on both sides of the divide, I do think that a loose federation will actually let people realize at their own pace that what divides them is much smaller than the common problems that actually unite them. And by letting them on their own, a very loose federation might actually work much better and be much more agreeable on both sides of the divide.

Any strong views on this topic?