Back to the core
It had already become evident from the lead-up to the vote on the marriage equality bill. The liberal New Democracy was nothing but a project running on a trial basis thanks to the persistent efforts (and the wishful thinking) of the president and the participation of strictly selected individuals outside the party’s typical mindset. The prevailing grumbling and homophobic dissatisfaction among the right-wing members of the party indicated that its core remained unchanged despite its new appearance: morally outdated, narrow-minded, and out of touch with international reality.
During a recent parliamentary group meeting, the unpleasant truth was revealed less hesitantly due to ND’s lukewarm performance in the recent European elections that emboldened the audacity. Individuals who have not been heard from for years, with no parliamentary or other work, and whose only contribution was their local networks and provincial micro-powers, suddenly took issue with the party’s ideological direction. In their great opportunity to express their views on government work before the prime minister, they did not speak about the Tempe railway disaster, the ineffective management of inflation, the housing crisis, or the institutional breaches, but about the purported mutation of New Democracy, which so greatly affects their value system and traditional voters. The revenge of apolitical conservatism was as hypocritical and self-serving as expected.
The trivial bravado within New Democracy is laughable for various reasons. Firstly, the claim that the legalization of same-sex marriage cost the party electorally is not based on real data but on pre-constructed fantasies and self-justifying conjectures. It is a comfortable interpretation. Some had decided, a priori, to blame any decline in the party’s share on the legislation and did so disregarding the myriad other government policies that could have caused vote leakage and abstention. However, in the daily lives of citizens, progressive or not, marriage concerns only those who marry. When someone votes or decides to stay home, their thought does not travel to other people’s homes but to their own pocket, job, environment, and whatever literally and immediately affects or benefits them. But even if the above did not apply, why did those concerned about the ideological purity of New Democracy not read its policy program before running with the party? Why do they get offended by things that displease them only after the fact and mainly when they perceive cracks in a power system within which they otherwise fare quite well?
Self-interest is the key word. The complaints heard about non-parliamentary ministers, immovable arrogant ones, general secretaries, and sidelined MPs are no coincidence. The staunch New Democracy politicians who supposedly are disturbed by the risk of alteration of the party’s DNA do not give a damn about New Democracy’s genetic code or their own outdated ideals. They want more participation in power. Recognition, visibility, and, if possible, a ministerial seat. Those now attacking the moderate figures surrounding Kyriakos Mitsotakis all forgot that it was thanks to them that he won the elections he did. The genuine right-wing element that is supposedly under threat of extinction (what a great loss that would be!) has always existed in New Democracy; yes, even when the party lost elections while the country sank into the madness of anti-austerity.
The ideological expansion is what brought New Democracy to power; the calm, modern, centrist profile earned the citizens’ trust (for as long as it did), not the Trump-like tirades of the neglected right-wingers who long for the days when dogmatism and bigotry were the norm. The center brought the 41% in the June 2023 legislative elections, the center also brought New Democracy’s decline in the European elections this June. Instead of exorcising it, the core of New Democracy would do well to appease it. Alternatively, they could take a look at the plight of parties that put ideology above realism.
