When he came to power in January, 2015, the prime minister, as he later admitted, was under the sway of self-deception and illusion, and he thus chose the ineffective and nationally dangerous stance that he viewed as “heroic negotiations”.
From the start, the problematic nature of that posture was apparent, as was the wall that he would come up against.
Despite all that, he ignored the negative signs and many warnings. Only when those signs multiplied did he begin to waver and seek other solutions.
Only after the country reached a huge impasse and reached the edge of the cliff did he directly confront the great dilemma of that period, whether to put first the country or his political party.
Under the weight of circumstance and personal responsibility, he chose the country and the broader national interest, and in the process sacrificed half of the party that brought him to power.
Two-and-a-half years later, he appears to be hostage to a similar situation.
Narrow partisan interest demands the adoption of strategies of artificial tensions, grand clashes and divisions – with the opposition, with judges, with bankers, and more often with businessmen, journalists, and others, whom he depicts as enemies of the people.
The unalloyed national interest demands a taming of passions, consensus and cooperation, and increasingly common efforts to create the conditions for an exit from the crisis, and a return to normalcy.
This is the yearning and hope of the Greek people, to regain a peaceful environment of growth, progress, and prosperity.
After eight years of clashes, tensions, and failed efforts, there is no tolerance for sterile struggles and battles, with no essential purpose or socially acceptable content.
The opposition and businessmen are not to blame for delays and governmental nonsense. The judges are not to blame for the low growth rate and growing poverty, nor are journalists to blame for auctions of foreclosed properties. The political cost cannot be overcome by prosecution and persecution.
Whatever the propagandists of disaster may come up with, it cannot change reality.
Sooner or later, the prime minister will be confronted with the same dilemma as in the summer of 2015.
Will he side with the country and the national interest or the partisan interest of power, which persuades no one but a small group of followers and beneficiaries of the forces currently in power?
The more quickly he confronts this essential and real dilemma, the better his fortune will be. That is what history teaches, and that is what his prior experienced demonstrates.
