Recently, the Internet has spread the news that Jean Monnet is going to run as a candidate for parliament in the upcoming elections in Greece. Which is unlikely, since the French architect of the unification of Europe has long since left this vain world. By mistake, the name of a Greek potential candidate has been omitted, who apparently holds the chair of European studies of the same name at some university. Social media went berserk, deciding it was a shame because Jean Monnet’s candidacy would give prestige to the Greek parliament – and his election would be guaranteed since he already has a seat.

This episode in our digital microcosm is a pretty example of how we perceive the relationship of political representation. As the elections approach, the parties will introduce representatives of their candidates to the citizens. Next to the “professionals” of politics will appear names recognizable from the fields of information, entertainment, sports, and intellectuals. In a democratic society of spectacle, it is almost taken for granted that this practice can attract voters, but also heal a great wound in modern democracy: citizens’ suspicion of the political system, their alienation from politics.

But is this really a good recipe for a democratic revival? Not necessary. It is enough to think about our representation in the European Parliament, where we allegedly want to appear “serious”, representing the country in front of “other Europeans”. Experience shows that the main work there is done by professional politicians or representatives of civil society, and not by political and journalistic photographers, actors or football players.

Some argue that the solution would be to bring back the list system, as it was in the European elections. That parties determine the order in which their candidates are elected so that we choose the most adequate ones, without succumbing to the temptation of photogenicity. This gives the parties the opportunity to “educate” citizens for a more demanding level of representation. It is possible, however, that this is an elitist approach, assuming that citizens choose an “easy” recognition criterion. The other available option, the preference cross, has a valuable merit in times of democratic disillusionment: greater freedom (and therefore responsibility) of choice, and hence greater participation in the representation process.

However, there is a broader and perhaps more significant problem. If we are interested in collectively educating ourselves in better representational relationships, then it is not just a question of whether we are better represented. It is also, if not the main question, whether Greek society is really represented in political institutions in all its diversity.

The dominant model of a middle-aged white male lawyer (doctor, engineer) member of parliament in the Greek parliament is at odds with the composition of a changing society, resisting its changes.

This does not mean that parliament should or can be a detailed micrograph of a society where all possible social situations will be represented. If you take this logic to the extreme, then it easily turns into a caricature: a parliament in which car dealers, IEC graduates, dance teachers born in 1980, residents of Gortyn will have their own representative, etc.

On the other hand, however, the dominant model of a middle-aged white male, lawyer (doctor, engineer), member of parliament in the Greek Parliament, is currently in sharp contrast to the composition of society, which is changing, pushing it back. changes.

We are not doing very well not only with the equal representation of women. While 47% of women in the Swedish parliament, 39% in France and 36% in Italy, in Greece the corresponding percentage is only 21.3% (and 23.8% in the European Parliament) – not to mention the government, where, according to data Eurostat, in 2021 in Greece the share of women was only 15.5% compared to 33.4% in the EU. out of 27.

It is also a representation of youth, the precariat, non-binary gender identities, or an active civil society. But something even more repressed: a large percentage of our fellow citizens today are people of different ethnic origins. They live here, work, study, have children, equally contribute to an ever-aging country. These people are increasingly asserting their dual identity in public space. But are they really represented in the institutions of the Greek state? Wouldn’t it be a bold – perhaps politically advantageous – application of democratic pedagogy by parties to promote candidates who represent these institutionally “invisible” social identities? A more pluralistic parliamentarianism may better bridge the gap between representatives and represented than media recognition parliamentarism. Jean Monnet would probably agree.

* Mr. Yannis Balapanidis – writer, political scientist.