THE New Democracy is “slapped” by sick political phenomena that (and) she herself nurtured. This reality seems to be reflected by the attack received by Angeliki Delikari (member of the K.O of the ruling party) in a church in Kavala, by a woman who was a candidate with the “Niki” party.
The real problem
The condemnation by the political parties and the disciplinary process initiated by the party of Dimitris Natsios against its executive who attacked the parliamentarian of the ND, invoking the bill on the marriage of same-sex couples, constitute some elementary reflexes. But these cannot “cover” the real political problem: Her strengthening the extreme right in all its forms. Among them the “religious woman”.
The “Right of the Lord” comes from the deep past of the New Democracy to change into the “Far Right of the Lord” in 2024. Attesting to the challenges the democratic world is called to face. At a time when three parties with clear references to the extreme right reside in the seats of the parliament after the national elections in June. While even parties that – in theory at least – move at the opposite end of the far-right space show that they are trying to “fish” in it, especially in view of the Euro-elections.
From the “Macedonian” rallies of 2019
EUROKINISSI
The responsibilities of the New Democracy
The fact that the deputy of the New Democracy was the victim of such an attack does not negate the eternal responsibilities of the party in question for the current political situation. Even if the same becomes the recipient of the effects.
It is worth pointing out the following:
1.The -reprehensible- attack on the member of parliament of Kavala Angeliki Delikari it took place in one of the big cities of Northern Greece. From the supporter of a party (NIKI) that the opinion polls want to gather its largest percentages also in Northern Greece. A fact that is obviously not unrelated to the political climate in the specific region of the country formed by New Democracy already in the 2018-2019 period. That is when, in order to gain electoral benefits from the case of the Prespa Agreement which was finally voted in the Parliament, it “legitimized” with its political practice and the actions of its executives all far-right rhetoric that was also supported by para-church organizations.
2.Even when in January 2024 the leadership of New Democracy wanted (for reasons that are not present) to make the choice of passing the marriage bill regardless of sex, the opposition to such an elementary right was “legitimized” within it. The passage of the bill was guaranteed only by the positions of the opposition parties. MPs and ministers of the ruling party officially took “leave” from him Kyriakos Mitsotakis even to vote against the bill that the government “took down”. With a culmination of positions of its leading officials in the Parliament and in the public sphere who denied even the existence of this right. At the same time that the “blue” MPs were mainly apologizing for the criticism of the far-right parties.
3.In the current parliamentary composition, New Democracy “builds” a special relationship with the far-right parties (with the exception of the Spartans). Until now, in fact, one of its executives with roots in this area, the Makis Voridis, was (also) charged with this “duty”. A typical case is the “coincidence of views” between New Democracy and the Hellenic Solution when on September 28, 2023, the change in the composition of the Communications Privacy Assurance Authority (ADAE) was discussed at the Conference of the Presidents of the Parliament. When the ND-Hellenic Solution votes were the ones that ensured a particularly favorable result for the government.
4.The SW-Far Right interaction relations are of course older and deeper than the developments of recent years attest. Their focal point was the period of the memorandums. When the “agenda” of the ND on Antonis Samaras brought immigration into the spotlight with positions such as the “recapture of the cities” and combined with the strong “patriotic” rhetoric formed the right ground for the strengthening of the extreme right which expressed itself electorally in the worst possible way. By turning a criminal organization into a parliamentary party, with which “underground channels” of communication were even recorded. The two areas eventually came into a “conflict”, which, however, concerned exclusively the control of the “extreme right side” and political dominance and not any ideological or value opposition.
