‘Franchises’ and politics

We all have our concerns. The people of this country have their own huge concerns about what they will wake up to next. Then you read and hear that some people have their own great anxiety about whether the next Parliament will include a member from this or that political family. The argument is phrased as follows: There has been no Parliament since 19… without a member of Parliament with this last name. I don’t think there is an argument or issue that angers voters more.

The last thing they care about is whether or not a political dynasty or “franchise” will continue. They want solutions to their problems, not an answer to whether there will be a Papandreou, Mitsotakis, Karamanlis or anyone else in the next Parliament.

It is logical that those who manage such “franchises” are worried about their continuation. Some are well-intentioned, believing this issue concerns the reputation of the “patriarch” of this political dynasty, others because they fear that his possible elimination in the polls will cost them their long-held privileges.

However, this pressure often angers those who bear such historic surnames. Obviously they don’t want to feel like they are weighed down by legacy and tradition, nor that they owe their political existence to their surname. After all, those who succeeded distanced themselves from their ancestor and created a distinct profile. It is easier for those people to enter politics because they have advantages, recognition, support systems and know-how. But it is much more difficult once they are in. Critics compare the successor to the founder at every opportunity and with great cruelty. They confuse historical periods and create expectations that are impossible to fulfill. There are many scions of great families who were crushed by the comparison. But there are also many who were treated unfairly because of their last name.

To go back to my original point, the discussion about how crucial it is to have a member of the X or Y political family in Parliament, is very untimely – dangerously untimely. We live in times where the anti-systemic feeling is strong but also at a time where the public is angry at those who have ruled the country for decades. It’s already hard for someone with an established surname to be voted or ignored based on their own personality and skills; this debate makes it impossible.

But there is another issue. Why do consumers around the world trust products from franchises? Because they know that if they order one of their products they will get exactly the same thing, wherever they order it, whenever they try it. Whereas with political “franchises,” you always risk of getting something quite different from what you imagined or expected.