‘Indifference’ and responsibility
Alexis Tsipras’ dynamic intervention on Thursday, a few hours before the start of SYRIZA’s congress, raises many questions – some of which most likely began to be answered later in the evening. The most important question: What is the former party leader aiming at by urging his successor, Stefanos Kasselakis, to seek a new vote of confidence from party members, just five months after his election in a landslide? Whether one disagrees with the new leader’s tactics or not, no one can question his legitimacy, and just a few months before the European Parliament elections. Indeed, in a discussion with the London School of Economics’ Kevin Featherstone on Monday, Kasselakis himself said that his position as SYRIZA’s leader does not depend on the EP election result.
So why did Tsipras choose to undermine the party leader? And why now? Clearly, he understands that even if Kasselakis and all the party’s cadres joyously accepted the proposal for a new party poll, this can only take place in a few weeks’ time, close to the EP elections. And the most likely result is a new split. As it is, the current leader has been dealt a serious blow. In his statement, Tsipras criticizes those who left the party in the split after the leadership vote, the new leader, and unnamed “others,” accusing them of “indifference” towards the results of their actions (using the word six times). In his telling, only he comes out well, noting eight times that he acted with “responsibility.” These references, however, do not include any self-criticism, seeing as he was the party leader from 2008 to 2023, and responsible for the party’s culture, for the lack of a credible political proposal, for the absence of corrective action before last year’s crushing defeat.
Kasselakis’ election as party leader was the result of the need for radical change. The fact that Tsipras is rejecting him at this point suggests that he does not want to miss the opportunity that the congress provides. Is the former leader aiming for the rise of new leadership, does he seek an “honorary” position for himself, or would he like to see the party’s fragmentation, so that a new one may take shape? We will know soon enough.
