Was a ‘stay’ order given?
tatements made by New Democracy party members on Sunday night show a common interpretation of the election results: Greeks voted for ND because the prime minister is constantly thinking about reforms. He doesn’t necessarily go ahead with them, but he’s thinking about them. And the new mandate is for him to complete them. This may all be well and good, but shouldn’t we be trying to read the election results for what they are rather than projecting our hopes? Behind the technical details of politics (George Papandreou’s weaknesses, Karamanlis’s rhetorical skill, Alekos Alavanos’s allure to young voters) lies the essence of politics. What did Greek citizens vote for after all? Firstly, they voted for a government that talks about reforms constantly but never actually gets around to acheiving them. They also dealt a severe blow to the two-party system by supporting parties that attract protest votes. KKE, LAOS and SYRIZA have little to recommend them other than vague rhetoric about a better world. They simply reject any form of change, calling it unjust and neoliberal. PASOK’s defeat is not due to its failure to back the government’s reform agenda. It lost its young votes to SYRIZA because it just mumbled about changes to tertiary education and in favor of changes to Article 16. Its crushing defeat is due to its inconstancy but its downfall began in 2002 when it attempted to reform the social security system. The citizens of Greece voted conservatively, even though they supported the Left. They ordered the government to stay still, and this is understandable. Following the theories of modernization put forward by Costas Simitis – and the intelligentsia surrounding him – a reform mentality failed to be created in the Greek people. No one explained the need for change succinctly enough. In contrast, they left ample room for the growth of fairy tales regarding reform (the social security issue will be solved as if by magic, with no sacrifice required from anyone) and for change to be depicted as the ogre of society by the populist Left. The fact is the country needs a new reform theory. It needs a new ideological framework that goes beyond hollow rhetoric and and postmodern ideas to illustrate one simple thing – the costs and benefits to each sector. People need to understand what the failure to change Article 16 will mean to some and what the benefits will be for others. They must know that malfunctions in the civil service lead to tragedies such as those in the Peloponnese. That the cost of reform will not be shouldered by the weak, but will be equitable to all. The same goes for the benefits. For all this to happen, though, we need new leadership, not just political leadership but intellectual too. The great reformers of history did not limit themselves to the logistics of politics, they invented entirely new spheres in which to succeed.tatements made by New Democracy party members on Sunday night show a common interpretation of the election results: Greeks voted for ND because the prime minister is constantly thinking about reforms. He doesn’t necessarily go ahead with them, but he’s thinking about them. And the new mandate is for him to complete them. This may all be well and good, but shouldn’t we be trying to read the election results for what they are rather than projecting our hopes? Behind the technical details of politics (George Papandreou’s weaknesses, Karamanlis’s rhetorical skill, Alekos Alavanos’s allure to young voters) lies the essence of politics. What did Greek citizens vote for after all? Firstly, they voted for a government that talks about reforms constantly but never actually gets around to acheiving them. They also dealt a severe blow to the two-party system by supporting parties that attract protest votes. KKE, LAOS and SYRIZA have little to recommend them other than vague rhetoric about a better world. They simply reject any form of change, calling it unjust and neoliberal. PASOK’s defeat is not due to its failure to back the government’s reform agenda. It lost its young votes to SYRIZA because it just mumbled about changes to tertiary education and in favor of changes to Article 16. Its crushing defeat is due to its inconstancy but its downfall began in 2002 when it attempted to reform the social security system. The citizens of Greece voted conservatively, even though they supported the Left. They ordered the government to stay still, and this is understandable. Following the theories of modernization put forward by Costas Simitis – and the intelligentsia surrounding him – a reform mentality failed to be created in the Greek people. No one explained the need for change succinctly enough. In contrast, they left ample room for the growth of fairy tales regarding reform (the social security issue will be solved as if by magic, with no sacrifice required from anyone) and for change to be depicted as the ogre of society by the populist Left. The fact is the country needs a new reform theory. It needs a new ideological framework that goes beyond hollow rhetoric and and postmodern ideas to illustrate one simple thing – the costs and benefits to each sector. People need to understand what the failure to change Article 16 will mean to some and what the benefits will be for others. They must know that malfunctions in the civil service lead to tragedies such as those in the Peloponnese. That the cost of reform will not be shouldered by the weak, but will be equitable to all. The same goes for the benefits. For all this to happen, though, we need new leadership, not just political leadership but intellectual too. The great reformers of history did not limit themselves to the logistics of politics, they invented entirely new spheres in which to succeed.
