Battles in absence of voters
Making an impression has always been important in politics, yet rhetorical skill, a successful witticism or an occasional mistake has never decided the outcome of a political battle. So one might wonder why the New Democracy-PASOK battle over fundamental political and social issues such as labor and social security laws has focused on statements by PASOK’s former spokesman for economic affairs, Giorgos Floridis, about the «Scandinavian model» for the economy. Floridis’s comments led to his hasty ousting by party leader George Papandreou and an over-the-top effort by ND to exploit the issue. According to sources, the «Floridis affair» will be the main battlefield in tomorrow’s parliamentary debate. ND will claim that Floridis’s statements reveal that PASOK either has a secret agenda for an advanced neo-liberal policy or else is simply confused. PASOK will retort that the government, after two years in power, is still behaving like an opposition party and is trying to explain away its recent actions to avoid owning up to its own mistakes. If sources prove correct, it is clear that the two rivals have chosen to fight their political battle in the public relations arena and not over issues of substance. This tactic is more than just uninteresting; it could also spark outrage among voters. People want to know where the two parties stand on the issues. Avoidance and prevarication might have worked on the public when a party had been in power for a long time or when voters’ fanaticism and intolerance control political judgment. Today, such tactics are not only useless but likely to make voters view both parties as insincere, if not outright deceptive.
