Risks of stifling individualism
The country’s political life has taken a dangerous turn as cadres of both main parties have started exercising a particular form of terrorism on their spokespeople, banning them from expressing any opinions which diverge from the party line (and which therefore could be innovative). A good example is that of veteran PASOK deputy and former foreign minister Theodoros Pangalos, whose recent comments regarding the near-sacred institution of university immunity – namely that it should not be exploited by youngsters seeking to break the law – earned him strong criticism from the Socialist party’s political council. Pangalos also provoked serious discontent within the ranks of his party by suggesting that PASOK re-evaluate – and possibly even reinvent – itself in the event of another election defeat. Similar cases of different opinions being punished have also been observed within ruling New Democracy. The common stance of most ND cadres is that ostensibly heretical opinions create internal problems for the party and thus indirectly reinforce opposition PASOK. But where is this practice of penalizing different approaches by politicians leading us? It is leading us toward a suffocating uniformity of thought, to a situation where MPs function as if they are part of a well-oiled military unit with the sole aim of collecting votes that will secure their presence in Parliament and guarantee that the organizations they back continue to operate under their influence. This practice, if it continues, will eventually transform politics into just another well-paid – if more publicized – profession. But is it this kind of politician that our country needs? Surely not. It is hardly surprising then to hear politicians, whose re-election in the next polls is more or less secure, objecting to the perpetuation of a political system tyrannized by a self-censorship fueled by the fear that expressing one’s opinions could lead to charges of undermining one’s party. But these politicians – the ones that challenge the party line and offer fresh ideas – are exactly the type that this country needs. A beneficial reform would be the transformation of our political culture so that the expression of provocative opinions would be permitted without reservation and political exchanges would not be restricted to a «central line» toward which both ND and PASOK tend to gravitate. Of course, the aforementioned observations do not suggest that there should be no limits to politics – limits which Pangalos probably overstepped in his harsh criticism of the Communist Party and Synaspismos Left Coalition earlier this week.
