Understanding and dialogue
A central issue in Greek politics for decades has been that politicians view everything as a zero-sum game. In colloquial terms, they believe that the political death of their opponent equates to their own survival.
The trajectory of the country’s history would have been vastly different if both the government and the opposition had refrained from pushing matters to extremes during critical junctures.
This observation is often voiced by individuals who have traversed the political landscape and acquired the experience, and perhaps the wisdom, to comprehend it – though it is seldom echoed by those currently entrenched in politics.
What’s remarkable, however, is the stark contrast in demeanor between our politicians when they are in the public eye versus behind closed doors. On numerous occasions, I’ve witnessed politicians who vehemently sparred on television screens or within parliamentary chambers convene around a table and find consensus on nearly every issue concerning the nation. Yet, when questioned why they can’t collaborate given their shared agreements, the stock response remains: “It’s simply not feasible; it would be unacceptable to the party; they would hang me if I said so.” The repercussions of this are glaringly evident.
At the recent conference on the Metapolitefsi, the country’s post-dictatorship period, the primary objective was for former leaders to impart their experiences and viewpoints. Truth be told, it facilitated an earnest dialogue marked by self-criticism and introspection. Under different circumstances, it would have been inconceivable for certain participants to even attend the same gathering or be at the same venue, let alone engage in conversation with their “foes.” I’m consistently struck by the reaction of acquaintances and friends when confronted with the opinions of individuals they vehemently oppose, both ideologically and morally. “What could they possibly offer now?” is the common refrain before they depart the room. Yet, if we only lend an ear to those who share our viewpoints, both our lives and our democracy would grow stagnant, and our perspectives significantly limited.
Dialogue, understanding and sincerity are imperative. It’s a pursuit worth undertaking, even if at times it’s disheartening to witness public discourse in our nation devolve into a ceaseless political soap opera revolving around who “attacked” whom.
