There are issues that raise too much noise, even though they are on the periphery of social interest. One of them is the fact that Evangelos Venizelos will participate in a debate with some constitutionalists, which will have the questionable title “Are we staying in Europe?”. “So what;” the average citizen will ask.
Voluntarily enlisted citizens do not say “So what?” Those who energetically and passionately enlisted in the “We Stay Europe” movement at the time of the Skizidis referendum felt betrayed. They had suffered everything, they had been targeted and defamed by the abysmal defenders of “no” with blatant aggression. They lived the anxiety of the country deviating from its European course. The dissatisfaction is understandable.
Especially when there is a question mark in a phrase that for them was “a command of conscience”, and Venizelos was one of the emblematic figures of those days. They see him accepting the question mark of his title, with interlocutors who politicize and politicize indirectly in favor of parties, using their scientific titles as a cloak. And who were apparently silent when the country was hanging on a tree, when Tsipras was methodizing his “radical” (the word in quotation marks because it could also be replaced with the word “stupid”) unconstitutional practices.
And bitterness is entitled to turn to anger when the other side instrumentalizes his participation and propagandizes it as a victory.
Nikos Bistis, a late member of the enlargement SYRIZA, happily wrote that “he enters the anti-SYRIZA front like a tombstone”. And he concluded this because Anna Diamantopoulou and George Floridis disagreed with Venizelos’ act. However, he “reassured” the disaffected, writing that 11 years have passed since 2012, and neither the presence of Venizelos in the debate makes him a Syriza, nor does SYRIZA agree with the overall policy of the distinguished politician and constitutionalist”.
He does not miss the opportunity to use some statements of Venizelos, unrelated to the topic of the “meeting”. He writes: “We e.g. to Venizelos’ exhortation to Nikos Androulakis “not to leave the country ungoverned” we would add the crucial question: with which policy and above all with which allies? With anyone even with the ND?” A not at all theoretical question, which all the progressive forces will soon be called upon to answer and to which we have clearly positioned ourselves. But we can talk about all this quietly and simply.”
The authoritarianism, the arbitrariness and the lack of “empathy” (a word that Tsipras learned and uses frequently lately) is impressive. How much can they themselves discuss calmly and simply with the politician who had accused them of extorting public life? And how appropriate is the calmness and simplicity of the discussion with SYRIZA, which for years vilified those who were not with it, which tainted arrests and carried out mass assassinations of characters, which revived the civil war climate in the country? And now that he’s getting a taste of popular rejection, he’s decided that we can “have a quiet, simple chat.”
He will certainly find someone to talk to. And he will make them talk to those who shamelessly remained silent when SYRIZA carried out its anti-institutional epic.
However, the mistake he makes is that he thinks that with the participation of Venizelos and the disagreement between Diamantopoulos and Floridis, he entered the anti-SYRIZA Front as a tombstone. This “Front” was not organized in some political offices by technicians of power. It was not launched and it was not guided, it had no commissars and mandated propagandists.
It emerged spontaneously from society, from that part of it that had a political, ideological and aesthetic constitution, that opposed the dangerous populism and totalitarian mentality of SYRIZA. The same with “We stay Europe”. It was a vast unorganized mass which feared for the fate of the country as roaring crowds prepared the drums. From civic groups and social groups (some even broke up, just as families were divided).
The anti-SYRIZA front and Menemume Europe were citizen movements. Therefore, they are defined by the individual attitude of each citizen, who is not determined by parties and does not uncritically follow personalities. It was proved by the movement of Venizelos and the noise he raised. Which means that whatever Venizelos they attract will attract them as individuals, not as leaders of organized forces with people behind them (p.s. incidentally we mention the name of the former minister because he was the cause of the noise, we do not by definition consider that they attracted him) .