Greece, it seems, has achieved a government that can be effective, albeit with a majority of a single seat in parliament. Since the recent coalitions were hamstrung, the policies of the former, long-entrenched socialist regime continued and only now can it be said that a period which began with the triumph of PASOK in 1981 has come to an end.
What the merits and dements of this period have been will be for historians to decide, but there can be no doubt that it was overwhelmingly dominated by the personality of Andreas Papandreou. Of course it would be premature to relegate him to a chapter that has closed, since he has made a remarkable recovery from ill-health and still commands a large and passionate following.
From the start of his public career in the mid-1960s he has been tremendously controversial. For some he has been the true champion of the working class, a leader who stood up defiantly to pushy Western powers while dislodging a stodgy oligarchy at home, brought honor to the Left and made his mark on international affairs.
For others, he treated the Greek people with intolerable contempt, encouraged national weaknesses, gratuitously stirred up social animosities, was incapable of straightforwardness or veracity, whose autocratic, self-serving style gave birth to and nurtured huge financial scandals, and who, in grubbing after votes, dispersed handouts broadside which left the country insolvent and more dependent on foreigners than ever.
Mostly likely, the future looking back will find a middle road between these extremes. In a country which puts such stress on political life, amongst a people
who are so wrapped up in the excitements of public affairs, the roles played by leaders is often exaggerated, yet the personal hostility between Papandreou and Mitsotakis over the years did the country no good, and that is one of the prices paid for overly personalized politics.
Yet for those who think the opposite; namely, that political life is the creation of the social world which holds it up, the figure of a leader like Andreas Papandreou loses none of its .stature for then his particular characteristics simply become the projections of the millions who have supported him.
A small country which lies in a geographically and geopolitically strategic location which it cannot by itself command carries a burden that is heavy and sometime unbearable and in its leaders it places the weight of its hopes and anxieties which themselves cannot be borne.
In 1981, it will be recalled, Papandreou barnstormed the country with slogans, Out of the EC, Out of NATO, Out with the US bases and Let’s be Friends with the Arab World. Whatever in fact happened (or did not happen), PASOK won over 48 percent with a policy that might be called an apertura towards the East.
In so doing, Papandrou was following the policy of Xenophon and Alexander the Great, and in suggesting that the conservatives had accepted the role of third-string lackeys grovelling before Western powers he added emotional appeal.
So, quite often, Greece finds itself in the stimulating but difficult task of having to redefine itself, and even being forced to ask itself what it is and where it is. Perhaps, this time has come again, for the question has been raised again, this time in Brussels.
The new government has its share of headaches, its inherited nightmares. With the treasury out of money and the country even running out of water, the latest news from Brussels would try the patience of Job.
It is one thing to be scolded by European Commission president Jacques Delors for defaulting on debts, and another thing to be dragged before the European Court for violating environmental directives, and yet another to be reprimanded for not spending IMP handouts fast enough due to the creaky local infrastructure, and a fourth thing to be fined for selling wheat to the Community pretending it was Greek when it was actually Yugoslavian, but now to be told in an erudite tome entitled A Euroean History of Europe published under the aegis of the EC that Greece is not European now and never was even in antiquity or during the Byzantine period — might not the too-much-put-upon average Greek citizen rationally ask, “Well, then, who and where the Devil am I?”
Let us reassure him, right off, that this tampering with the past is nonsense and remind those otherwise decent chaps in Brussels to get back to their bureaucratic duties and leave history for their betters. Let it merely be said that if it were not for Greece, Brussels would still be living in the times of Asterix and they certainly wouldn’t be called ‘Europeans’ because that’s the Greek word for ’em.
Among the 12 members of the EC, no doubt Greece is the least Western. A mere glance at the map shows that, and history tells a lot more. It would be absurd on the brink of 1992 union that the EC should for that reason suddenly become chauvenistic, smug and provincial. Any western view which ignores Greece throws away both its spiritual and cultural birthright.
Like Janus, Greece has two faces, one set towards the West, the other towards the East. This has always been true and it is the source of all its woes — and of its glories likewise.
