Responsibilities and morals
A shadow of disunity hangs over PASOK now that the leadership battle is heating up. The initial shock of defeat at the polls and the justifiable blame ascribed to George Papandreou has been replaced by a sense of irritation at Evangelos Venizelos’s uncouth behavior and the undisguised support shown to him by non-party interests. In advanced democracies it is customary for the party leadership to shoulder the responsibility and resign after a second and, especially, broad defeat. Papandreou did not, though he did ask for a vote of confidence. In 2004, the PASOK chief «inherited» the leadership of the party summarily from a Costas Simitis who had no wish to take the blame for the impending fall of the party. Back then PASOK avoided giving its house a brisk spring cleaning. The popular and successful foreign minister was not invited to step in by a combative council in order to clarify the ideological position of the new PASOK that he envisaged and intended to build. He did not, in practice, earn the trust and acceptance of the party. He settled for slogans – «George, change it all» – which came from a broad but obscure social base, and eventually yielded to his own organizational weaknesses and was himself changed by the regime he inherited. He chose the wrong people and presented vague positions, while also persisting in an unproductive strategy of personal attacks against Costas Karamanlis. This brings us to the night of the crushing defeat. As PASOK licked its wounds, Venizelos swooped in to pour salt on them by assuming a leader’s mien and heading for Zappeion Hall just minutes after Karamanlis. There, his oratory was blazing and his attitude arrogant. Despite their frantic quest for a winning recipe, PASOK’s supporters are annoyed by the obvious efforts by influential parties to support the candidacy of a former minister who has little to show for his time in politics and who expends himself in pompous statements. The country needs a serious opposition party that will provide constructive criticism and present a convincing alternative. The party’s unity can be ensured only through an open conference where dialogue that addresses crucial issues and aims at ideological renewal is the objective. The public debate over the succession can follow. It is time for George Papandreou to practice some real self-criticism, for specific proposals from his opponents and for serious decisions by PASOK’s supporters, who should take the time to consider what progress and conservatism mean in this day and age – who expresses what – and make a decision based on the suitability, the intentions and morals of the candidates. They should also remember that ability can be honed, but morals cannot be acquired.
