PASOK’s lost self-determination
Having inherited the mantle of PASOK’s leadership from the reformist Costas Simitis in 2004, George Papandreou asked the party’s members and friends (sic) to confirm his mandate. PASOK raised no objections and was willing to deviate from the party charter. Faced with the bleak prospect of a heavy electoral defeat, the party was swept by the myth of the knight in shining armor. The few people that did have reservations simply kept them to themselves. The truth is that Papandreou had at some point come up with that particular election procedure on the pretext that PASOK should become an «open, participatory party.» As often happens, these nice-sounding adjectives were the vehicle for a rather grimmer objective. PASOK has long been degenerating into a bureaucratic/electoral apparatus that consistently falls short of shaping the national needs and social demands into a comprehensive political platform. Simitis had effectively deconstructed the party’s political identity before Papandreou finished it off. The 2004 plebiscite was more of a triumphant celebration. The knight went for it because it gave him added political legitimacy while protecting him against in-party fire. In fact, had the latest defeat not been that heavy, Papandreou would have been able to retain his position as leader. By its very nature, a broad-based election fosters a leader cult, making the party a stage for a one-man show. Party institutions are weakened. No one has the power to challenge the power of the leader, including the party congress. In fact, the entire process weakens the intermediary role that a party is expected to play in a representational democracy. One of the reasons may be that this latter has largely already degenerated into a television democracy. In this context, the 2004 leadership switch was dictated by opinion polls rather than the balance of power within the party. Having ceased to function as a living political organism, PASOK effectively undid itself. It relinquished its political independence. This was a triumph for public opinion – but not for democracy. By shaping public opinion, to a large extent at least, the media seek to affect party will in the name of society. In this sense, they do more than PASOK in the way of constructing its future leader. They manipulate the course of succession before it is even an issue. Undoubtedly, they have always influenced the outcome but their power has been enhanced thanks to the participation of the party’s «friends.» We saw it in 2004 when Papandreou took over from Simitis. We now see it happening again, as Evangelos Venizelos tries to take PASOK’s driving seat. Of course, there is also the other side of the same coin. People wish to take part in the political process. However, inviting the man on the street to vote is no solution. Rather, PASOK should start by defining the notion of party member. The relationship may be loose but it will lose all significance unless it retains some sense of political mobilization.
