Stefanos Kaselakis has a right to believe that he is right and to hope that he will lead wider progressive space and its reconstruction.
Nikos Androulakis has the right to believe that PASOK under his leadership will form the nucleus of a new center-left party that will once again be able to claim power.
Any dolphin or future leader of democratic space formations has the right to think that he can do better.
All of them have the right to consider those who also claim – or society calls them to take on – a role in this important and complex process, as “enemies”, and try various types of “preventive” strikes, condemn the conspiracy. (without naming the conspirators), identify the saboteurs. It is obviously the right of those who listen to them to judge them for their methods and choices.
However, it is clear that all this, in fact, has nothing to do with the alleged dispute, that is, the existence of a democratic political space capable of claiming to rule the country. in the name of the agony of the social majority which at the moment is not only not represented by the government of Kyriakos Mitsotakis, but also feels that it receives constant blows from him.
Because if we think about a real dispute, we are called and should discuss other things, not this kind of center-left game of thrones that we have been witnessing lately, and which has already begun to lose interest due to perhaps the lack of significant political content.
Because the real dispute is primarily about whether there really is a democratic political space capable of claiming governance.
And this means that he has more to say than simply taking back the Mitsotakis government’s most reactionary and socially repugnant legislation.
No, because many people would not like to see, for example, Ms Kerameos’ Universities Legislation, Kyriakos Pierokakis’ regulations on private diploma supermarkets or the legal government “bag” created by Adonis Georgiadis to be repealed.
But why don’t citizens elect ruling parties on the basis of their declaration of good intentions, not simply on the basis of which bills they will repeal, but above all on the basis of which bills they will vote for, what reforms they will implement, how they will strengthen public education and health care, how they will make the state more useful for citizens, they will make the necessary redistribution of income a practice, not just a slogan, they will strengthen a new model of development that will increase the position and income of workers.
Just as the real controversy is not the ginati of every leader, real or potential, it matters little, but whether large sections of a society that looks disillusioned, but also hesitant and scared, can be inspired, regain confidence in the ability of politics to make their lives better, mobilize and retreat.
And it is all this, that is, the programmatic elements, the ability to manage and the ability to mobilize society, that constitute the essential content of this whole discussion about the reconstruction of the democratic space.
Everything else is political image and political theater. Integral moments of the political game, but certainly not the most important.
So, let those who consider themselves leaders, either of their party or, much more, of the entire democratic space, step in and give convincing answers to them and leave the conspiracy theories and hunting for ghosts, “totems” and “saviors”.
And if down the road it turns out that someone else is more capable of taking on that responsibility, even someone they now see as a “totem,” let them at least have the foresight not to be driven by personal ambition.