Where are we? Where are we headed?
We are at a point where we need to evaluate the gains of 50 years of democracy, to assess our strengths and weaknesses in the face of the time’s challenges, to think of where we want to go. These thoughts were prompted by the passing of the law ensuring equality in civil marriages, an important step – a milestone, as the prime minister said – towards a more just society. At the same time, protests against the establishment of non-state universities, farmers’ blockades, emigration of the young, high prices, the housing crisis, demographic decline, the consequences of the climate crisis, mass migration, high levels of public and private debt, low productivity and competitiveness, the excessive dependence on tourism and real estate, accusations of abuse of power, the war between criminal gangs, constitute just part of the picture of current challenges.
It is a priority to make use of the population in the best possible way, training not only the young but their elders, too, in new technologies that could offset the lack of workers
In the debate on the change of the Civil Code, it was stressed that most members of society accept equality of all before the law with greater ease than many politicians. This is valid for other reforms that the government would like to adopt. But the problem is that those who disagree are sufficient in number – and so implacable – that every rift offers itself for long-term political exploitation. So, even though members of Parliament from four parties supported equal rights for same-sex marriage, the lack of trust between political forces and the high intensity of debate are a plague in the heart of public life. They heighten every disagreement, hinder progress, establish inertia and fear of responsibility as wise political practice. But all the abovementioned problems, along with challenges in foreign policy, in health, in education, in justice and the public administration as a whole, demand a radical change of mentality, not only from politicians but also from citizens – those who desire a viable homeland, at any rate.
Prosperity and security of the Greeks depend primarily on the survival and positive development of the European Union. Otherwise, an older and smaller population will not be able to sustain the economic growth and military strength that the country needs. With or without the EU, however, it is a priority to make use of the population in the best possible way, training not only the young but their elders, too, in new technologies that could offset the lack of workers (up to a point). This demands the establishment of open channels between Greece and the diaspora, to create a single space for academics, businesspeople and so on, that will work to the mutual benefit of Greece and Greeks abroad.
If we judge by what happens elsewhere (with the extreme example of Alexei Navalny’s death in Putin’s prison system), today our divisions stem more from egotism and obstinacy than from real and deadly differences. A national understanding aimed at improving things is not impossible. The demographic problem may need years to be solved, but modernizing the judiciary, enforcing transparency and accountability in public life, protecting the environment and our cultural heritage, encouraging and making use of research and innovation, do not demand especially great funding so much as clear strategy and speed.
The problems are well known, the targets difficult but attainable. As long as the greater part of the political world cooperates and citizens understand what needs to be done. It was an unexpected joy to witness a successful example of this in the past few days.
