A wedding party with a lingering political hangover
Many in the ruling New Democracy party continue to blame the marriage equality legislation for alienating the party’s base. The Prime Minister’s Office seems to share this assessment, judging by its recent decisions. What do the figures from the European elections show? And what conclusions have government officials drawn?
At first, the proponents of marriage equality seemed vindicated. The debate was heated, but there was no social backlash. The bill passed without bloodshed. The issue seemed to have been forgotten, as they had predicted. Until the European elections came along and ruling party officials – even some who had voted for the controversial law – said that the party had “lost its soul” because of “the gay community” and had lost touch with its traditional voters.
Today, the Prime Minister’s Office seems to be trying to heal this trauma, showing that it accepts this theory. But what do the numbers show?
Is marriage finally an issue that plagues voters? Did it play a role in the outcome of the European elections? Does it justify a shift to the right?
Kathimerini spoke to pollsters, political analysts and ruling party officials in search of answers to these questions. Those who opposed the law insist that it is the main reason why New Democracy’s poll numbers have dropped significantly compared to a year ago. Supporters, on the other hand, see behind the new wave of opposition a political game and a “desire to hit and destabilize the prime minister by interests that want him to be weak.”
What the exit polls show
According to the exit polls, of the 2,116,000 citizens who voted for New Democracy in June 2023, about half remained loyal to the party in the European elections. Just over 25% switched to other parties, and the same number abstained. But the defections to the right were ultimately fewer than those to the left. About 200,000 people chose parties to the right of New Democracy, more than 250,000 to the left and about 50,000 to other parties.
As for the acceptance of the bill, a poll published last January, shortly before the vote, showed 57.8% of people in favor and 39.8% against.
“This issue acted more as a reason to express a pre-existing dissatisfaction and less as a reason to shape the vote,” said strategy and communications consultant Eftychis Vardoulakis. “It was an opportunity to manifest trends that had already formed before the vote on the law in February.”
As he explained, the fact that these trends existed before is evident both in the second round of the local elections, where New Democracy did not perform well, and in the age distribution of the vote. “While the most significant reactions were in the older age groups, New Democracy’s share there was relatively stable. In the younger age groups, on the other hand, the ruling party performed worse.” Thus, he added, it seems that the impact of this particular issue was not that great, neither in terms of discouraging voting nor as a reward for voting in favor.
Angelos Seriatos, head of the political and social research department at pollsters Prorata, painted a different picture. The electoral effect is obvious, he said, if you look at the data in northern Greece, where voters are more conservative. There, Seriatos said, New Democracy’s voter outflow was much higher than in other regions, and the sum of support for the parties to its right was higher than that which the ruling party received. He added that it was no coincidence that all three major parties suffered losses at the polls, and this usually happens when an issue is important in society.
“The exit polls showed that the voters who came out to vote lacked a more moderate audience,” he said. “No one can guarantee that they will come back at the next ballot box. Either these people will be absent from the electorate again, in which case it will have moved to the right; or, because the vote was more relaxed this time because of the European elections, they will reappear when the dilemma of forming a government weighs heavily. We don’t know which of the two will happen.”
The two camps
As a member of New Democracy who opposed the bill pointed out, “the traditional audience of the party has strong values, so the bill played a dominant role in the European elections. In other issues of everyday life, they can give you excuses for any weakness – they can say that you did everything you could – but in this case, they were very angry about the extent of the debate and they could not justify it. It was not something that was imposed on us.” Furthermore, the same official said, they were also angered by the fact that it was something that came from the Prime Minister’s Office team and not as an initiative from the ministry.
‘If you freed MPs from their desire not to upset the prime minister with their opinion, the result would have been a massive no vote and the bill would have been defeated’
Everyone knew it was a decision that would have a political cost, said a government official who also did not support the bill. But there was an argument in favor of passing it, both purely ethical and moral-political, and that it would be good for the government’s image, especially abroad, where its record on rule of law issues is poor. “If you freed MPs from their desire not to upset the prime minister with their opinion, the result would have been a massive no vote and the bill would have been defeated,” he said.
On the other hand, the suggestion of those who supported the bill was that you have to explain to people what is being changed and that their rights are not affected, but the public debate should not last long. And secondly, the emphasis should be on love, not hate.
“However, those who were against it tried and succeeded in prolonging the public debate. Instead of being submitted to Parliament after the local elections, the debate went on for another three months. The TV channels had people arguing for six months. Those who were against it insisted that it would be better to legislate after the European elections, which would only drag things out,” said a government official who supported the bill.
As he pointed out, the issue did not emerge as a debate during the campaign, but reappeared after the European elections and was analyzed more than any other parameter of the result, even though the data show that it was the deadly Tempe rail disaster and high inflation that mainly influenced voters’ choices.
The wine that turned sour
A spontaneous – as the attendees describe it – gathering after the vote on the bill at a central wine bar owned by LGBTQI community member and activist Fotini Pantzia managed to steal the spotlight from the planned party at nightclub Sodade and was demonized by those who opposed the bill as an “offensive” gesture.
“They were irritated by the parties and the celebrations afterward,” the ND party official said.
“But of course everyone knows that there was no party. Some people are comfortable with what is being said,” said Pantzia. “We were in the Parliament from 1 p.m. and we were all hungry, especially my son,” she added. The wine bar, she explained, is located 400 meters from the Parliament, and somewhat spontaneously, without much organization, one followed the other. None of the participants remembered who had brought the microphone (for the speeches, which were videotaped and then posted on the internet).
“If I could go back in time, I might even reconsider, just because there were people I felt I failed to protect,” she said. But, she added, “it’s like apologizing all over again. Too many laws have been passed, and then I am sure those involved had gone to dinner. Why isn’t there a discussion about that?”
Shift to the right
Signs of an attempt to “correct” the government’s political stigma have been increasing by the day after the elections. Both in the recent reshuffle and in the change of general secretaries, the right wing of the party has been upgraded. The motives were clearer in the withdrawal of Katerina Fountedaki’s candidacy for the presidency of the National Authority for Medically Assisted Reproduction. The civil law professor paid the price for being one of the authors of the marriage equality bill, which led ND MPs to oppose her nomination. The selection of Apostolos Tzitzikostas for the position of European commissioner was also interpreted as an attempt to appease the conservative audience in northern Greece.
As the right-wing members pointed out, the passage of the legislation leaves a value imprint that we will find before us. “If there is no similar misconduct in the future, New Democracy voters may even forget it,” they said.
As for the social footprint, there are currently 75 marriages of same-sex couples nationwide. “Zero difference,” insisted a senior government official opposed to the legislation, wondering what all the fuss was about.
The other side responded: “We used to be told that all gays would get married, have children, and the whole society would change. Now they say, it’s all about 75 cases? So, my answer? Great, there is no danger that the Greek society will be altered.”
“Historically, they may consider that the legislation had a political cost, but it will cost more to backtrack,” the government official who supported the legislation added, noting that if this happens, “in 5-10 years, everyone will be in favor and the party will not be credited for the positive step it took.”
“This is an identity issue and as long as some people keep bringing it back, like former prime minister Antonis Samaras, for example, it will always play a role in a way that is not dominant, but I don’t think it is something that is over,” Prorata’s Seriatos said. “It creates a window for politicians inside or outside the New Democracy party to move due to a new situation to the right of New Democracy.”
