PASOK supporters have handed over the team to the leader and they’re waiting for him to score goals

Socialist chief George Papandreou emerges from the party congress all-powerful — as long as he is not associated with electoral defeat

By Stavros Lygeros - Kathimerini

It was almost a year ago that a million PASOK members and voters went to improvised party election centers to give George Papandreou’s election as party leader a triumphant note. As soon became apparent, they were participating in a special ceremony for the enthronement of a prince. The then foreign minister preferred the safety of a predetermined succession to the risks of an open process.

The change of leadership rallied the center-left. What occurred was not just the rallying of a party of officials who were clutching at a straws. The poor reception that society had given the policies of former PASOK leader Costas Simitis and the extent of the party’s electoral debacle had placed emphasis on the need for the party to reunite, pull in new people, rebaptize itself politically and find its social character again.

This need, coupled with the famous name and dual political image of George Papandreou, brought forces with different ideological and political outlooks under the new leader’s umbrella. Great and contradictory expectations were invested in him. Each element in the party projected its own collective fantasy onto him — hence the myth of the victorious prince gained wide acceptance. The result was that PASOK surrendered to him completely and he became the absolute monarch.

The demystification of the new leader took place in record time, however. His very first actions as leader caused wry smiles even among his supporters. Yet no opposition arose from within the party. It was not just that he had donned the purple robes and was entitled to a period of grace, but it was clear to all that the problem lay far deeper than certain mistakes made by Papandreou.

PASOK had gone stale politically and the crisis of political representation in the center-left is hindering its return to power. PASOK is facing similar problems to those of New Democracy following its strategic defeat in 1981. That does not mean the same scenario will play out again. But the danger exists. There is widespread conviction in PASOK that there is no hope of recovery without radical change: Hence the slogan: “George, change everything.”

Papandreou’s opening speech at the congress was probably his best moment since he took the reins. His discourse was coherent and not wooden. This time, he didn’t limit himself to piecemeal views and comments on broader lifestyle issues. He gave a rounded account of his ideological and political standpoint.

In fact he had nothing to fear. The ground in PASOK had been prepared well in advance. The socialist-neoliberal promises of the new leader rest firmly on the reformist ideas of his predecessor. Besides, internal party resistance shrank long ago. Most officials have stopped acting according to political criteria. They have been afflicted by the employee syndrome, which has rendered them incapable of initiating ideological discussions, political debate and ethical catharsis.

What prevails, not only among former officials but at the party’s grass roots, is the vision of a swift political playoff. In such an atmosphere, even those who disagree will not say so in order to avoid isolation. That applies not only to political views but also to the party’s constitution.

Papandreou is exploiting the evident and generally accepted need for new people in order to establish an almost monarchical leadership model. His rhetoric about participatory democracy seems to be a pretext for concentrating all power in his own hands. His notion of a new kind of party is based on the direct relationship of the leader with the masses who, in the new terminology, are called members, friends or simply voters.

Judging by his proposals for the Political Council (the body that will replace the Executive Bureau), the PASOK leader aims to create a weakened advisory forum and not a body that will exercise genuine collective political management. He shares out posts but not his power. He wants senior staff that he can employ on short-term contracts and not a leadership team.

That is why he refuses to have the Political Council elected by the congress, which would give him greater political legitimacy and by extension greater political stature.

The truth is that the type of party that flourished after the fall of the dictatorship is in crisis. The intermediary role it plays in our representative democracy has withered. Perhaps that is why it has degenerated into television democracy. There is every indication we are headed for a new type of leadership model with weak party institutions and an all-powerful leader, who is monarch as long as he is triumphant and is removed when he is associated with defeat. In that sense, Papandreou’s problem is not so much internal party setbacks but the hunger of the party base for “goals.” The government’s wrong footing has revived the supporters’ morale. So they expect their leader to score as soon as possible on the main political stage.