Answer pending
Not even George Papandreou could have imagined that PASOK’s heavy defeat last week would have guaranteed him so much warm support from individuals who until that date thought him unable to govern the country. Given that politicians do not change overnight, they obviously deem him suitable to lead the opposition party. They seem to have an odd appreciation of the fact that under his leadership, PASOK produced record low results. It’s not just the party’s traditional guardians that have intervened in the race for leadership. It’s also some of the newer cadres – and they are not necessarily driven by purely political interest. Some people have an interest in pushing things in a specific direction, even if that means dividing the party. The biggest casualty of all, of course, is PASOK’s much-strained political independence. The election result showed that the Socialist party has yet to recover from the strategic defeat of 2004. In fact, the crisis has deepened. History gave Papandreou a chance but he wasted it. The Papandreous are not a dynasty. They are political leaders and they should be judged as such. PASOK’s survival instinct mandates a switch in leadership. But the new leader does not have to be Venizelos. Sure, having 10 candidates looks funny. But having a single one is deeply undemocratic. Sole candidacy produces a monarch-style leader. PASOK must act as a mature party, as a lively political organism that thinks collectively about itself and the country at large. It does not need a savior. It needs candidates with a clear ideological and political identity that can pull together the existing trends within the party (and not just the ephemeral alliances). The ballot message is clear – but so far there has been no answer.
