Pulling PASOK’s strings
Few were surprised by the crisis that rocked PASOK following Sunday’s heavy election defeat. Any other outcome would be unnatural. It’s up to Socialist party members and friends to pick the next leader. The rest – including journalists and academics – have no say, unless they wish to look silly. By slamming «extra-institutional centers» that seek to manipulate PASOK and the political system at large, George Papandreou raised a very crucial issue. The hasty embrace of Evangelos Venizelos by a portion of these centers did his candidacy more harm than good. At the same time, it mobilized the reflexes of grassroots supporters. Nevertheless, awarding these centers all-powerful status escapes the boundaries of political analysis and makes the whole thing read more as a spy novel. The late Andreas Papandreou emerged as center-left leader in spite of opposition from the big media groups of his time (including the pro-Socialist ones). These could not help but offer him a belated embrace before falling out with him (again, until his 1993 comeback) in the summer of 1989. Similarly, Costas Karamanlis climbed to New Democracy’s leadership despite resistance from the very same centers. However, these centers do not have absolute control over governments. Whether they wish it or not, they are forced to adapt to the given social momentum provided this is irreversible. Even if they are promised things by a would-be successor, that does not change the fact that promises commit only those who believe them. The problem of political and business entanglement is very real. But politicians should not point a finger at it after they lose an election. And they should not take criticism as ill-meant bids to undermine them. For then they look like a sick man who’d rather break the thermometer than see a doctor.
