Self-sufficiency of power and the will of society

In today’s Greece, the only truly “self-sufficient” force is not any party, but public demand for political change.

As part of systemic propaganda in the spirit “Mitsotakis or Chaos”launched long before the official start of the election campaign, the thesis about the need for self-sufficient government.

The political expediency of this argument is obvious. At present “New Democracy” is extremely far from the prospect of obtaining a self-sufficient mandate in the next elections: even the most optimistic forecasts of sociologists keep it below the level of 30%. However, it remains the only party with this level of support, while opposition forces are struggling to overcome the 10 percent threshold.

According to this logic, there are only two scenarios: either undecided voters will vote again for the ruling party in order to “avoid shocks” and maintain the current course, or power will pass to “chaos” – that is, to a disparate alliance of opposition forces, in a country that does not have a strong tradition of coalition governance.

There is no doubt that the country we need governments with a clear mandate: governments of the same political force, implementing a clear program under the leadership of a prime minister who makes decisions not through bargaining with partners, but based on his own political responsibility. Historically, it was precisely such periods that were associated in Greece with real development.

However a self-sufficient government is not just a one-party cabinet. This is only a formal aspect, and far from the most important.

True self-sufficiency means that at a given historical moment there is a political force capable of consolidating a significant part of society and express the dominant public perception of the direction of the country’s development. Even without an absolute majority, it must have a level of support that reflects real political leadership and social hegemony.

This is what provides the government real legitimacy and public supportand not just parliamentary arithmetic.

Today’s government is not like that. Yes, it has a stable parliamentary majority and significant control over the state apparatus. But at the same time it does not reflect the will of the majority of society.

It represents united but a minority – social strata that evaluate the current policy positively and have benefited greatly from it. At the same time, the ruling party does not demonstrate the ability to expand its influence, but on the contrary, it risks losing even part of its base, as is already evident, for example, in relation to agricultural producers.

Attempts to move to the right due to amplification harsh rhetoric on migration issues do not guarantee the closure of internal social fault lines. Even betting on the growth of electoral apathy is unlikely to allow the party to achieve both quantitative and substantive self-sufficiency.

In reality, the potential for “self-sufficiency” today is only a request for change. This is manifested not only in the dominant negative assessments of power and deep public discontent, but above all in the position of the key, most dynamic social strata, which take a critical position towards the government.

It is these layers that could become the engine alternative course for the country’s development.

Therefore, from the point of view of both electoral mathematics and real democratic legitimacy, the only truly self-sufficient government – today and in future elections – there can only be a government that will express this public demand for change.

A government capable of responding to public concerns associated with rising prices and economic uncertainty, launching development with depth and perspective, restoring the functioning of institutions and citizens’ trust in the state.

Any other strategy, be it a bet on anti-politics or attempts to retain power through pressure, blackmail and “cooperative” partners will only prolong gap between management and the will of societythereby exacerbating the democratic crisis.

Of course, between awareness of the need for change and its implementation lies a difficult path – the path of forming reliable, convincing political subjects in a society deeply disillusioned with the political system. But change is never easy.

The author’s opinion may not coincide with the opinion of the editors.

Source link