President SYRIZA’s decision to abstain from any vote in Parliament is problematic no matter how you look at it: the leader of the party makes such an important decision without submitting the issue to any consultations and without voting at his meeting. However, the elected deputies must first of all respect the mandate of the Greek people, not their leader. This is (unfortunately) not the first time an opposition party has followed this strategy. But this has never been done on such a scale and without any sign of parliament’s apparent disagreement with popular sentiment.

The President of SYRIZA spoke of “abuse of the rule of law”, “scandals of misappropriation of public money”, “entanglement of sectors of the state in organized crime”, and “manipulation of justice”. These grave accusations go beyond the usual range of complaints that every opposition monotonously raises against the government. There is no doubt that many serious questions are open, that the government has repeatedly exposed and not given convincing answers, that the opposition rightly criticizes very harshly, especially on the issue of surveillance. And although her presence in Parliament is useful and necessary at the moment, SYRIZA refuses her. Apparently because even today this party has not yet fully understood and accepted the rules of parliamentarism. He cannot understand what is his institutional role at this stage and his responsibility to the Greek people, as defined by the Constitution of a liberal democracy. And most importantly: he does not understand what legitimizes and what delegitimizes this state in the minds of citizens. With Acrodexia always wins, in the second case.

I’m afraid that this decision once again proves the limits of SYRIZA’s possibilities for improvement. It seems impossible to evolve into something different from what we experienced in the period 2010-2015. I don’t mean, of course, its transformation into a social-democratic party. This anecdote alone now resonates with someone who observes the consistently opportunistic and extreme demagogic behavior of his leadership and the vulgarity of countering his “naughty” units on social networks. However, there was little hope of turning into a party of the radical European left, which would adopt the rules of liberal democracy.

The decision of Alexis Tsipras to abstain from any vote in Parliament once again proves the limitations of SYRIZA.

SYRIZA has once again proven to be an institutionally and politically immature party, with anti-systemic characteristics reminiscent of the worst international examples of recent years, including the Greek summer of 2015. It justifies all those who are willing to tolerate anything from the government. ND until this SYRIZA returns to power.

Mr. Tsipras’ decision was welcomed by many supporters and friends of the party. But some others were also skeptical or even sharply critical. This is the only benefit that will come from President SYRIZA: from now on he will know whom he owes and whom he must not trust.

Mr. Aristidis Hatzis is Professor of Legal Philosophy and Institutional Theory at the National and Kapodistrian Universities of Athens.