My thoughts about what Pythia really meant, led me to the conclusion that, in the new political scene, we need to reject the toxic dregs of the past and keep the cream of proper political principles, whether from the new or old regimes. After all not all new is good and not all old is bad. But first thoughts are always abstract and need further refinement.
Our classical democracy in the glorious times of Pericles was a direct vote from a Athenian citizens. However, non-Athenians, call them immigrants or foreigners, did not vote. In addition women and slaves had no voice. The system worked well during one glorious century but vanished after the demise of Athens. The Roman republic, a more restrictive but effective form of government, was mortally wounded when Caesar crossed the Rubicon.
It would take 1300 years before some form of power sharing emerged in England through a parliament where few noble landowners would gather once a year to discuss and advise the King on general matters. Among them, the taxes levied on the counties and on their populations. The Parliament soon became divided between the lords and the commoners hence the birth of the House of Commons. All this occurred gradually in order to confront in a practical manner the issues of that time.
The French revolution and Napoleon eventually established a governmental system based on Roman law (produced by Justinian and his successors in Constantinople) which resulted in more structured and restrictive regulations difficult to alter. The parliamentary system works on a government backed by a majority of elected representatives . Whereas a strong majority of a party or a coalition of strong parties normally ensures a stable government, a multiplication of small parties result in unstable coalitions resulting in repeated changes in government. Such situations were recurrent in the Italian parliament in the after war years. In Greece, a country of equally flamboyant characters (Una Fazza ,Una razza,) the number of political parties have an even greater tendency to multiply.
In order to limit the risk of political paralysis, the proportional representation system has been modified so as to bar any party entering the parliament with a share lower than 3% of the vote. In addition the party that has the largest share of the vote gets a bonus which today is 50 seats. This was intended to have a balancing effect and permit the alternation of the two major classical forces the right and the left which is the norm within degrees in all modern democracies.
This arrangement worked reasonably well since the post junta period until the world financial crisis of 2008 which exposed the excesses of borrowing where Greece had made it to the top of the first league of culprits. When the bill for the 30 year feast arrived, the party in power PASOK under the inept leadership of a relatively inexperienced and uncharismatic last Papandreou mis-maneuvered. Instead of trying to rearrange finances discretely through the back door, he thought it appropriate to use the opportunity to clamour worldwide and blame the preceding government, which certainly was partly responsible for the situation in that it continued the irresponsible spending policies of the previous governments. The ensuing panic resulted in a climate of financial instability accompanied by massive rise in spreads which prevented Greece to finance its needs in the International markets.
This brought the first memorandum and the first taste of the bitter pills of austerity. The political opportunity of seizing the support of a large segment of the center left population was not lost on a talented crowd rouser Alexis Tsipras, the leader of a millefeuille of small extreme left radical parties that had just been able to gather enough votes to have a representation in parliament. If the rest of his ascent is history, the immediate and future orientation of this fungible mass of voters will have a major impact on Greek politics over the next decade.
Two weeks ago, when the government resigned, the expectations of the resigning Prime Minister, based on the overrated perception of his popularity following the referendum, were that he would gain effortlessly an absolute majority in the Chamber. Today the opinion polls seem to indicate that no party will get sufficient votes to achieve the 38% bar. This means that a coalition between different parties will have to be formed. The main objective of this combination will be to implement practically the framework of reforms demanded by our lenders. The details of these reforms will have to be modified and adapted with the agreement of the lenders to be effective with the actual economic conditions. These adjustments will need the agreement of a wide section of the chamber which represents all the Greek people.
But lets us look at the possible scenaria of votes and the composition of the chamber. It would appear today that Syriza and ND are too close to call and if the situation remains the same over the next two weeks the first party could win with less than 50,000 votes margin over his closest rival. So with about a 26% share of the vote each plus or minus a couple of one tenth of a percent the winning party would have around 123 votes vs 72 votes to the second party. We also assume that ANEL will not make it to the chamber. So given that neither party will make a coalition with the dinausoric traditional communist party KKE, the neo communist LAE or the racist Chryssi Avgi it is clear that the winning party has a chance to make a government without the other. But is that a good thing?
Should Syriza win Alexis Tsipras would have to go back on his declaration that he would not work from the old political establishment i.e. ND and Pasok to which he added the Potami whom he considers alchemically similar to the old establishment. If he is going to form a government he would have to rely at least on Potami and Pasok which would give him majority than in his previous government. Having used those parties (30 seats) in the previous government would have compensated the loss of votes from his left wing but probably Mr. Kammenos vetoed such a mild alternative. Well if he is not there Alexis Tsipras would be able to govern but the share of votes would only be about 40% of the national vote versus 41% in the previous government. On the other hand if Evangelos Meimarakis won, he could probably gather without Syriza about 179 votes with the support of the protest center party of Mr Leventis. This would give him about 47% of the national vote.
Mr Theodorakis, the leader of the progressive Potami, has made an interesting point in suggesting that the next government should be sufficiently wide as to represent over 50% of the popular will, yet in neither alternative the governments of the first party with their possible allies would represent even half of the national vote. In each case you would have a perfectly legal regime that would legislate in accord with the constitution one of the most important set of reforms in Greek history with a bias unbalanced by the representation of a substantial part of the population. But is not this how Greece has been governed over the last 30 +years? It is not a question of old or new but a mere continuation of the use of a pernicious system by anybody in power. Even our young Odisseas less than a month ago was dreaming of achieving absolute majority with less than 40% of the votes.
James Madison, known as the father of the American constitution agonized over the principle that a majority united by a common goal could undermine the rights of a minority. He instituted an elected bicameral system that would provide together with a powerful judicial system the necessary check and balances so that the power could never be concentrated in the hands of one single man or group. That 51% of the votes would control decisions at the expense of the other 49% was what he called the “Tyranny of the Majority”. On the other hand the necessity to accommodate the reasonable expectations of all the voters, i.e. a common ground, could lead to total legislative paralysis. In a day to day example, the abuse of being politically correct could be said to restrict the freedom of expression. One is thus confronted between the tyranny of the majority and the slavery of the compromise. Where does this puts us today in front of the memoranda?
Contrary to the belief of justifiably frustrated masses, the dire conditions imposed on Greece are the results of profligacy, which the successive governments indulged in order to satisfy the ever growing desire of an electorate persistently addicted to consumption. In addition the unnecessary swelling of the public administration not only drained the economy but slowed down economic activity. The notions of democracy became deformed as people insisted on rights at the expense of meeting their obligations. So we have now a bill to pat and unless we use our intelligence and energy collectively this bill is going to grow even more just as it grew in the 7 months of Tsipras of total disregard to the management of the economy.
The task ahead is not only difficult but painful. It means that we have to change our ways not only of doing things but thinking more in terms of the collectivity than the individual, a totally unhellenic approach. Whoever is going to do this task is going to appear as dirtying his hands whereas in reality he will be cleaning them. The fortunate thing is that this last agreement is drip feed and handcuffs, which means that the moment progress stops, the funds stop coming. But this agreement needs modifications not on the total moneys to be saved but which sectors are to be touched and in what proportions and where else can we find savings. Already unfeasible features are appearing like the private education tax or the too demanding taxes on farmers. These were agreed on the 11th hour when there was no longer time for discussion ( thank you Mr Varoufakis).
Well it may be the opportunity has come to form a very broad government of all factions with the exception of the extremists, who in anyway by doctrine are unable to compromise. This common effort will ensure that nobody can be accused of having sold down the Greek people.
NOT ONLY WILL THEY BE NOT SUBJECT TO THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY BUT THEY WILL BE SAVED BY THE MODERATION OF THE COMPROMISE.