At one time, social networks were filled with memes about PASOK and Andreas Papandreou.
Their central thread was that there was once an “old” PASOK, identified with an era of prosperity and carefreeness.
These memes often circulated among young people, most of whom did not survive the days of the first PASOK government.
But I also know several elderly people who miss that time very much.
Only that 1981 is already far away and PASOK, the good years’ may have been a strong slogan in the European Parliament elections of 1984, but forty years later, in the European Parliament elections of 2024, it is merely an illustration.
We are not in the era of Andreas Papandreou.
And the old PASOK may be likable and communicatively successful, generating nostalgia, but it is not a strategy at all.
I am writing this because I am observing the situation in PASOK.
Yesterday, Nikos Androulakis was attacked by almost all the leaders, accusing him of the failure of the elections, calling for intra-party elections.
However, without anyone announcing the candidacy and specific programmatic changes, which, in his opinion, would lead the party to increase the percentage and to its emergence as a hegemonic force in the progressive space. Surnames that sound like “dolphins” have no course, no project, no political movement that would justify their belief that PASOK will be lucky under their leadership.
The main argument of the Androlakis side, which in the absence of an opponent through internal party processes can simply strengthen its position, is that the percentage of PASOK has increased compared to the national elections in June 2023 and the distance from SYRIZA has decreased.
Although by this criterion the attack does seem unfair, nevertheless, there is a basis for the facts.
Because, given the months-long crisis and the split of SYRIZA, it is clear that a real “window of opportunity” has opened for PASOK.
However, the leadership of PASOK thought that they would gain hegemony in the opposition space simply by demonstrating PASOK’s identity.
Without formulating a program or offering an alternative path, simply presenting a vague “socialist” identity, which, however, does not translate into a concrete policy.
Except that this is how PASOK overlooks its own history.
Because when Andreas Papandreou created PASOK in 1974, he decided to abandon the identity of the Central Union, which was not just old nostalgia, but the political legacy of the region, which only ten years ago, in 1964, took 53%.
However, Andreas Papandreou had the foresight and intelligence to see that new programs and new identities fit the new circumstances.
And when he chose the identity of “socialist” in a country that had no social-democratic tradition, but rather a predominantly communist one, he did so precisely to give a different perspective to post-colonial radicalism, in some cases moving further to the left. than the communist left.
Because when he claimed and took power, he showed that he really has a program and can change the country.
And when in 1989-1990 he became a target and various people inside and outside PASOK sought his political end, he not only stood his ground but also made an impressive expansion of PASOK, having no problem bringing back even those who had left for four years therefore.
All this indicates that today the problem of PASOK is precisely that it cannot define its clear ideological and strategic mark.
As a result, it collapses into an identity belonging to the neither-neither category, in this case neither the Center, as the concept was largely created by Mitsotakis, nor the Left, as it stands for SYRIZA.
The result is a blurring of the reference to PASOK being socialist, but without defining the content of that socialism.
It is obvious that PASOK is not the only party with such problems in the wide democratic space.
Because even there they are dealing with image and identities, not substance.
And yet they forget that the future of the democratic space, that is, the political space representing the popular layers and the middle class, will be judged not by identity, but by whether it can offer a different governance and a different policy. .
That’s why neither collapsing into “identity”, sometimes too vintage, nor general references to unification will have any effect.
The main thing is whether there is a real alternative government policy.
Because “identities”, unfortunately, neither pay the rent nor stop the brain drain.
after writing): Since dolphins can be marquises and maridas with minimal presence in politics, I also dare to declare myself present and nominate a candidate for the position of PASOK leader. Whenever Androulakis, hold an election now because there has never been a better dolphin(s) than me. Doesn’t everyone say what they want? It’s a mess. Well, let me tell you. And I go even further: and for the broader center-left, if Tsipras dares, let him come against me. We said it was a blast!