| The abstention of nostalgia | |||||
|
|||||
The rise of the abstention rates in the recent local elections was greatly anticipated, which means that it did not surprise many people in Greece. In fact, the rise of abstention is the greatest proof of the collapse of an entire political system.
People chose their “beloved” candidates, in the hope that they will be elected, which would translate to access to power for them. Ideological criteria did not prevail. The basic criterion was the ability of the candidate to ensure personal arrangements for the voter or his family, in case they were needed.
Unfortunately, this period ended. It started to end in the era of premiership of Costas Karamanlis, and the first examination of the Greek economy by the EU. It produced the wrath of the members of New Democracy party, who declared in public, that they were disappointed by the government because they (the government) did nothing for them (the voters).
What made the situation even more unfortunate was the reluctance of the leading committee of the party to make clear that the era when the friends of the party were appointed as civil servants was over. On the contrary, they tried to persuade them that they were ensuring their way to the public cash, through schemes like the stage programmes.
This only helped increase the wrath, because it could not produce the awaited results.The situation for the Greek political personnel became worse, with the restrictions imposed by the recent developments of the economy.
No personal arrangements can be promised anymore, so the voter has no motive to go to the polls. At the same time, voters are not presented with clearly distinct political platforms. At least, not from the two major parties. This makes the people think that their life can not have collective solutions, which can be affected by their personal choice. So they stay away.
For many Greek politicians, joining a party, meant a means of obtaining a political career and not the promotion of an ideologically political answer to the needs of the society. This, as a result, makes their policies smoother, because their target is to win the vote of this society “in the middle” and not to persuade voters on the prospects of the answers they give. Which, at least as it pertains to the two main parties, look so much alike.
Voters need a clear agenda with clear targets, they need a new inspiration to come to the polls. An inspiration that can make them believe that their life might be affected by the election results. And this is very difficult because very few solutions can produce results, the day following the election. No solution means no inspiration. No inspiration means fewer votes.
If the political system can not work itself out of this, fewer voters will vote, and this will mean that well organised groups ―not necessarily political parties―, might decide on the result, imposing their will and interests on the winner.
Let’ s do something now, so that we do not recall the era when parties ruled society with nostalgia.
*Christos Matis is a newly elected local councilor in the municipality of Thessaloniki, where he was a mayoral candidate with the Greens.
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
| PRINT ARTICLE | SEND ARTICLE TO A FRIEND | |||||
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
"Unfortunately, this period ended." Unfortunately? Uh, does the author believe this buying of votes with personal favors was a good thing?
"voters are not presented with clearly distinct political platforms. At least, not from the two major parties."
There's one party who is supporting painful, but totally necessary reforms, and another one who pushes for tax cuts despite the empty coffins. One party leader is known as a difficult, but reality based negotiatior, while the other is descibed as "criminally irresponsible". That's not a "distinctive" difference? Hmm...
I guess Christos Matis wants the right thing, more honesty in politics, but he should lead by example and acknoledge that at least one major party now tells the voters the awful truth, while the other still used the same old lies and cheap populism. It should be a no brainer with which side the Greens should engage in serious discussions. There may be ideological differences, but at a time when the nation is standing at an abyss, all real democrats should work together in their efforts to manage a turnaround!