Populism, consensus and healthy patriotism
The condemnation of populism was one of the main conclusions of the recent conference on the 50-year anniversary of the “Metapolistefsi” (the period since the restoration of democracy) co-organized by Kathimerini. The issue came to the fore in the debate on foreign policy.
All three speakers – Dora Bakoyannis, Evangelos Venizelos and Nikos Kotzias, major names in foreign policy from across the political spectrum – pointed out the fundamental problems arising from irresponsible criticism and the creation of excessive expectations.
Even if one sees them as “activism” or an outlet for the “expression of popular sentiment” at a given historical moment, the cultivation of groundless expectations and promises of easy solutions to complex and intractable problems make situations that are already difficult to manage by their nature, even more so.
At the end of the day, these expectations and promises are just harming the country.
If we agree that Greece benefited from its membership in the then European Economic Community EEC); if we agree that with the Prespa Agreement Greece improved its geopolitical footprint and suddenly became part of solution instead of the problem; if we agree that with its participation at the core of the European Union and the eurozone, Greece shielded itself against risks – economic and geopolitical – then the populist slogans heard over these extremely important issues during different periods in the past, probably did not serve the country’s national interest.
The antidote to populism is responsibility, but also consensus. Not criticism for criticism’s sake, but an honest search for the most beneficial actions or solutions for the country and promoting them with consistency and a sense of continuity. In this light, the view of former premier Antonis Samaras that consensus “reeks of capitulation” was rather unfortunate.
The argument that once a government has a comfortable majority it has no reason to seek consensus is irrational. When it comes to major issues whose evolution will affect future generations, consultation and consensus are required, sometimes also incorporating into the long-term planning positions or proposals from the opposition parties.
The wider the consensus on certain decisions or solutions, the more stable the foundations on which those solutions will be built.
In any case, a prime minister is much more powerful when he enters an international negotiation, whether with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan or former German Chancellor Angela Merkel back in the day of Greece’s debt crisis, having secured broader support from his or her political rivals at home.
Imagine what pressures Greece would have received and what kind of agreement we would have been forced to sign with North Macedonia if the war in Ukraine had broken out when talks were being held.
In the same light, the promises not to join the “EEC of monopolies” and to “tear up the bailouts” may have brought votes at the time they were uttered, but fortunately both leaders who made them ended up shifting towards realism and chose to keep the country within the European framework.
National consensus, especially on major foreign policy issues, benefits the country. It is healthy patriotism.
