A crucial year for Greek politics
The new year is an opportunity for Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis and George Papandreou, the president of PASOK. Both leaders need to take steps to halt the gradual disintegration of the political system. The critical mass of both parties has grown inert as it attempts to decode the ideological ramblings of each party leadership. As early as spring 2004, it was clear that Karamanlis and Papandreou had taken real steps to distance themselves from the traditional nucleus of the parties they lead. This fact is a continuing source of embarrassment to deputies and cadres of New Democracy and PASOK, but is also something that could have been disregarded by leaders determined to impose bold changes. But the stance of both party leaders is unsettling to most of their traditional supporters. Karamanlis’s advantage is still the electorate’s displeasure with the activities of Costas Simitis’s administration and the cadres of the center-left who enjoyed a virtually uninterrupted presence on the political stage for 20 years. Karamanlis should be credited with bringing about a significant change in climate, as the current political leadership does not directly provoke public sentiment. Having said this, it must be noted that many attempts to tackle various problems have been characterized by amateurism, which reduces the credibility of the government, even though this shortfall is in part justifiable due to New Democracy’s long absence from power and the many problems it inherited from the PASOK regime. But, most crucially, the change of government did not herald in any new political outlook. PASOK and New Democracy – which have alternated as ruling parties for a long time now – constitute bad versions of European prototypes, trying to play roles virtually foreign to them. As a result, voters are becoming increasingly disappointed with their parties’ attempts to meet European standards. The first time this «European vision» was clarified was during Costas Simitis’s initial four-year term, but because the operation of his ostensibly reformist movement was dominated by corruption, there were serious doubts whether the new reforms would lead to any improvement in citizens’ daily lives. Even Papandreou has distanced himself from Simitis’s administration, and the evident isolation of the former premier during his recent speech in Parliament as part of the debate on the new budget was indicative of his ostracism from the new order within the Socialist party. But attempts to break off from PASOK’s past did not result in the creation of a new political outlook by Papandreou; and so dissatisfaction continues to grow within the ranks of PASOK and among its supporters as the traditional party of the center-left struggles to attract new members. It is clear that the political system is a mess as Karamanlis tries to exercise a governing policy of dubious effectiveness in order to win citizens’ trust, while Papandreou shadow boxes with postmodernism. If one also considers the destabilizing influence of the electronic media, it is clear that the time is right for an overhaul of our floundering political system. The reflexes of the political system at large are being exhausted in pondering various scenarios of structural reform or reshuffles. But there will be no structural reform as Karamanlis has no intention of changing the general direction of his policies, while a reshuffle would be of minor political significance. In an attempt to overcome the pressure toward broad reform, Karamanlis heralded the launch of a debate for constitutional reform. But such tactics do not make any great impression on society, a large proportion of which could easily rally around a new ambitious political personality. In view of all this, 2006 will be a particularly crucial year, especially if Karamanlis and Papandreou fail to take decisive steps to tackle the political deficit that has been created.
