He would like to, but he can’t



Yuklint Tsalakotos is right when he claims in a recent interview that the concept of SYRIZA as a leading party is annulled, since one day the (obviously, undesirable) time will come when Alexis Tsipras will be succeeded by “someone else or someone else”. He puts it very well – although I will look for him who omits the neutral gender from the Tsipras succession, given that in SYRIZA they are widely open to the issues of “gender identity”, as we have learned to say, so nothing is ruled out. The former minister is right SYRIZA’s finances, because the leaders are not eternal. The people of Syriza may have deified Tsipras, to the point that one day (of the very distant future) they will embalm him and place his remains in a mausoleum, “with a wheel on his head and jasmine on his feet”. Under conditions of democracy, however, it is certain that at some point Tsipras will leave for the next one to come. Therefore, the rumors about a leading party are ridiculous: it is just a convenient phrase used in SYRIZA to avoid explicit references to the sensitive issue of the ideological character of the party, which has opened after the loss of power. The real dimension today in SYRIZA is between ideologues and pragmatists, to use as neutral terms as possible. Realists are Tsipras and those around him. That is, all those who do not harbor ideological delusions and for whom the purpose, that is, the power and its maintenance, prevails and sanctifies the means. For this side, ideological clarity is not what is required, because clarity is always binding. So, they prefer a SYRIZA that will resemble PASOK and, in the end, will replace it. We also saw it in the debate on the motion of censure, where Tsipras directly claimed the representation of the “progressive faction” by Fofi’s KINAL. Ideologists, on the other hand, want ideological consistency in both politics and attitudes. They are dissatisfied with the predominance of patriotism of the presidents in Greek-Turkish and also disapprove of methods of governing the specific type that was identified with N. Pappas. In general, they are more serious and measured. It is no coincidence that the quarrel inside SYRIZA began over Yuklind’s disagreement with Tsipras’ characterization of Mitsotakis as a “political swindler.” is now recognized as the main exponent of the trend. He was serious, decent, with impeccable ideological structure in his criticism of the government, he was, in a word, a leader. By no means, however, does it mean that he could be a leader. This is his personal drama: while he has the education, the composition, the international experience and the formal qualifications that are missing from many in SYRIZA, at the same time he has something so funny as a personality, that it is impossible to take him seriously. With his nervousness, his sardams, his failed jokes and his grimaces, Yuklind refers to a figure from a Greek movie. He is not Tsakalotos, he is Tsalakotos. And it is impossible to imagine him as a leader. But the drama is not only personal, of Yuklin, it is also of this side as a whole, from which physical leadership is absent. The case of Nikos Filis, the other prominent figure of ideologues, is typical. And he was serious and chief in his speech, however the speech was bad and hurried and he was heavy, sluggish, you might say, awake – which he probably was, since it was 11 in the morning… Follow it on Google News and be the first to know all the newsSee all the latest News from Greece and the World, at



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *