The lawyers’ signal
The results of the Athens Bar Association elections were the most ominous political message Prime Minister Costas Simitis has yet received during the six years of his premiership. The country’s foremost professional association cast its votes according to clearly political criteria, rejecting not only the PASOK government but also the nascent formations which aim to create new «democratic fronts against the right.» In this light, the outcome does an injustice to the former president of the association, Antonis Roupakiotis, who, in the previous two elections (1986 and 1999), easily defeated Monday’s victor, Dimitris Paxinos. Many of those who were surprised by the unexpected outcome reckon that it was PASOK’s support for Roupakiotis in the second round which led to his defeat. In other words, rather than forging solidarity among the once «democratic forces,» it pushed a considerable segment of lawyers – especially those of the younger generation – toward Paxinos. PASOK’s surprised officials have concluded in hindsight that conservative opposition leader Costas Karamanlis’s decision not to name a party candidate was a very successful recipe, completely wiping out the government’s attempt to form a front against New Democracy. This decision has also vindicated ND’s open-door policy toward voters across the entire political spectrum. In other words, the bar association, a body with elevated political judgment and influence, has let PASOK know that public discontent with the deeds and the omissions of the present government is widespread and very strong, and that PASOK’s defeat because of public demand for a political changeover in the next elections cannot be averted by self-generated ideological coercion and machinations which are highly reminiscent of the past. It is letting PASOK know that any attempt to resort to similar tricks, including a new electoral law, will inflate ND’s influence and turn the Socialists’ defeat into a trouncing. The message from the attorneys’ elections to the government is loud and clear. The above analysis would not be needed were the phrase «He whom God would destroy, he first turns mad» not true.
