There is a well-known saying that politics is too serious a matter to be left to politicians. Its spirit is understandable to every sensitive citizen. But the elections, unfortunately, are not a field for the manifestation of sensitivity. This is a very realistic act: we go to the polling station, choose one of the ballots that we are given, and put it in the ballot box. Then we wait for the results to find out who will be the next government of the country.

Of course, the first forthcoming elections, on May 21, by virtue of a system of simple proportionality and on the basis of the set of measurements we have – and every measurement, no matter how inaccurate it may be, or rather any gossip – will not show an independent government. As to whether they will lead to a government of cooperation, it depends, in addition to the percentage of parties, on the ambitions of their leaders.

Because we must not forget that, despite their claims to the contrary, all politicians are driven mainly by personal ambitions. What to do, it is in the nature of their profession. So, like most citizens with great life experience, I do not expect more from politicians than they can naturally give. Dreaming is a necessary element of our humanity. But not a single politician took on this job, and if he did, it was not for long, in order to make our dreams come true. With this first realistic postulate, I begin to think about how I will judge what I will vote for in the elections.

But I add to this the second thing: that I absolutely do not believe in any election manifesto, in any politician, in any party. I don’t believe in the “will” of any politician. I’m not saying that none of them will necessarily be observed, but which ones “will” be observed will depend on factors about which I, as a citizen, have no information. Because in many “testaments” some politicians deliberately lie, in some they deceive themselves, and in others they are delirious. But even if they are sincere and full of will to be for someone, many will climb to compromise with some harsh reality that they will not be able to face.

What remains if good intentions and “wills” are completely ignored? Just one: the sample letter we have about parties and politicians from their path to power so far. As for the parties that have never been in power, let’s hope for the unknown – I personally don’t think this is a good strategy.

What I write above are general comments about political life that go beyond personal opinions and ideologies. In the future, I speak subjectively, expressing my own opinion about how I will judge in the elections, among the options available – I emphasize, not among the ideal options that I dream of, but among the ballots that they will give me at the polling station. .

The parties that place their hopes on power after the elections, either on their own in the second or as heads of cooperation governments in the first or second, are New Democracy and SYRIZA. Of course, some numerical scenarios are likely to give PASOK a regulatory role. But talk of “unknown X” as a candidate for prime minister and his zero experience in mainstream politics gives me no reason to trust him. As far as his party is concerned, the realism with which I approach politics assures me that any decision they make about any post-election cooperation will be purely opportunistic. Personally, I don’t want to give him a chance to get it.

I have criteria for the two main parties, as they were in power, and with their current leaders, prime ministers.

I have criteria for the two main parties, as they were in power, and with their current leaders, prime ministers.

Based on this, I assess the New Democracy more positively. Of course, I also voted for her in the previous elections and I confess that she disappointed me in many ways. It fell short of my expectations in some key areas and was seriously flawed in others. I find many of her ministers inadequate, and some even worse. There were, of course, interceptions – the true extent of the affair will only be properly assessed in the future – and the entirely avoidable tragedy of Tempe. They disappointed and disappointed me, and, especially in the second case, I believe that Mitsotakis still needs to take steps to ensure that political responsibilities are shared across the board. But I don’t forget the Eye. I do not compensate, but when making comparisons, I do not take it off the bill.

But despite all my disappointments, the positives of the Mitsotakis administration outweigh the fact that he has been able to get important work done in key areas. In the first place, I put foreign policy, the defense armor of the country, some actions in economic policy and, of course, digital reform. In addition, and most importantly, this is a government that has suffered from two serious and completely unexpected crises, a pandemic and Turkey’s attempted unarmed invasion of Evros. And the government has dealt with them in the best possible way.

No country has handled the pandemic perfectly — the crisis has been too long to do so. But, given the complete unpreparedness of the state and its well-known shortcomings, to cope with the government was a feat. This is due to Mitsotakis, the mentality he brought to politics, modern and European, and the group of young capable people he chose, such as Pierrakakis and Schertsos, unsung heroes in coordinating the project. There was, of course, a serious shortfall: the number of deaths was much higher than we could expect from the incidence. But this is solely due to the inadequacy of medical facilities in much of the province, which cannot be blamed on the government that came into power a year ago. This is an eternal shame, and all Greek governments are to blame for it.

I am sure that if the pandemic hit SYRIZA, the picture would be very different. We have so many examples of incompetence that this impression is based on knowledge and evidence. I still shudder at the thought that a pandemic will be faced by a political formation of people incapable of anything practical, guided by dead ideologies and a trade union mentality. And I shudder at the mere thought that Polakis will be the main manipulator with his rantings about vaccines, offered medicines for cattle for humans, and his primitive and crude communication tactics.

As for the crisis in the Euros, I think most of our fellow citizens have not yet realized its seriousness. In fact, it was an unarmed attack on the country, which, without a quick and dynamic response, would have led to the actual destruction of our borders or, if not done right, to war. In solving this problem, Mitsotakis showed extraordinary leadership qualities. And Chrysochoid, the man he chose to head the public security organs that bore the brunt of the rejection, did not fail him.

Let’s face it: in Evros we came out victorious in a very dangerous hybrid war with a stronger country. What if this attack on Tsipras happened? With the many examples of letters that we have received in foreign policy from his administration, with his indifference and phobia towards Erdogan – a prime example is the unacceptable interference with justice to send back eight petitions of Turkish officers that he unconstitutionally and illegally ordered – he will led, I am sure, to some form of national tragedy.

Tsipras has neither moral advantages – no politician is entitled to them – nor the mitigating factor of inexperience. We know him now. He certainly says that he learned a lot from his mistakes. But we have never seen a minister or his leader resign because of what they felt was wrong during his reign. On the contrary, it happened many times during the New Democracy when ministers resigned and deputies and leaders resigned. Tsipras, on the contrary, even today not only does not criticize, but rewards those who provoke, and notable recent examples are his taunts of Polakis and Pappas’ provocative display next to him immediately after he was unanimously condemned for dereliction of duty.

If self-criticism does not lead to action, then this is nothing more than a mockery. And I don’t like being laughed at. This is my third, personal position, based on which I will vote. I am sure many of my fellow citizens share this.

* Mr. Apostolos Doxiadis is the author.