They both said the same phrase: oh Alexis Tsipras And Nikos Androulakis they agreed that “Andreas Papandreou belongs to History”. They agreed to disagree. With Andreas’ speech “in history” Androulakis wanted to say that he “does not belong to Tsipras”, and Tsipras wanted to say that he also belongs to the left. After all, History can be perceived as a field of common property, a field of symbolism, where one can play political games. In fact, in recent years, during every election campaign, some political leaders, the first of whom was Tsipras, suddenly see Andreas in front of them, as some believers meet Jesus. We are witnessing spirit invocation ceremonies, which in a more Doric form are also held in centre-right circles, when the spirit of Konstantinos Karamanlis is invoked, mainly on EEC anniversaries.

Thus Tsipras and Androulakis, perhaps in the absence of contemporary political proposals, quarreled over Andreas’ robes. ” PASOK he doesn’t own Andreas,” Tsipras said, to which Androulakis replied that Tsipras was “falsifying history” because he was the leader of the party that imprisoned Andreas Papandreou. After all, Andreas Papandreou belongs to (also) Tsipras? Looking for an answer Kathimerini reached out to four politicians.

Back to the Future

“Andreas is a leader from the future” Kostas Laliotis sayswho was his closest associate Andrea Papandreou, secretary and top manager of PASOK. “Andreas has become a perpetual reference as everything he said about Europe, the EMU, Maastricht, debt is a dynamic record for the future.” The former minister of PEHODE in the governments of Andreas Papandreou and Kostas Simitis adds that the few who spread negative stereotypes about Andreas “have not succeeded in erasing his true myth and recording his progressive ideas from the thoughts, feelings and experiences of millions of Greeks. “, as evidenced by the first position taken by the founder of PASOK in all opinion polls comparing post-colonial prime ministers.

Therefore, pre-election mentions of his name are quite normal. At the same time, however, Laliotis believes that he cannot be invoked by a party claiming to be “for the first time on the left” while it formed the government with the votes of a far-right partner made up of sycophants and persecutors of Papandreou. According to him, he does not recognize in Kumundur the possession of some wonderful “Pool of Siloam”, where individuals and politicians are consecrated as “leftists”. Nikos Constantinopoulos, former President of the Coalition and also a co-founder of PASOK, from which he was expelled in 1976, is identified in the memory of part of PASOK’s traditional audience with the role of Andreas’ accuser in the Special Court. .

Smuggling

However, today he speaks very sharply about the attempts of political exploitation of the historical leader. “Unfortunately, there is an ongoing trade in relics around the faces that marked our recent political history,” says “K”. “This relic is being handled by smugglers of political initiatives and poachers of impressions. Those who try to copy historical figures are not even political fakirs, but political clowns.” Constantinopoulos mainly emphasizes Papandreou’s apparent differences with the left. “Tsipras is trying to falsify history. Andreas waged a clearly two-sided struggle with the left and the right. Politically, ideologically, electorally, his relations with the left were competitive. Andreas and his colleagues on one side and the left on the other looked like quarreling neighbours. They fought for the prefecture of a wider electoral clientele.”

When Constantinopoulos After becoming President of the Coalition in 1993, Andreas Papandreou thought that he could restore his relations with the left, and indeed, after negotiations, they organized the joint descent of PASOK with the Coalition in the 1994 prefectural elections. But this, as Konstantinopoulos emphasizes, did not make him “a piece of the Left.”

It’s not inherited

Honorary Professor of Economic Sciences EKPA, Thassos Giannitsis, who was the head of the economic department of Andreas Papandreou (1994–1996) and Kostas Simitis (1996–2000) and later Minister of Labor and Foreign Affairs in the Simitis governments, acknowledges Papandreou’s special place in history, saying that “with his militancy, his ideological arsenal, his struggle and his contribution to overcoming political divisions and deep divisions in our society, even with his mistakes, he expressed the social expectations and emotions of decades in a special way. However, he believes that Andreas was not the only leader who marked our times, while implying that the work of a historical figure cannot be put at the service of current political needs. “Konstantinos Karamanlis, Andreas Papandreou and Kostas Simitis are the three symbolic prime ministers of the post-colonial regime. We must respect them for what they left behind. To paraphrase Andreas Papandreou, I would say that the work and contribution of each of them cannot be shared, cannot be given away, and cannot be inherited. It belongs to the Greek people and our history.”

No entry tickets

Former Minister of Education, Member of Parliament and candidate for SYRIZA in the first Athens, Nikos Philisdistinguishes between positive and negative aspects of Papandreou’s policy: “Andreas Papandreou radicalized the Center in post-colonial conditions, created PASOK and expressed the demand for equal self-expression in the society of millions of our fellow citizens excluded by the post-colonial state of Verno”. At the same time, Phylis refers to such pathologies as populism, leaderism and plundering of the state, which, combined with the “neoliberal mutation of the conservative faction” led to moral, political and economic bankruptcy and memos. “At this turning point, SYRIZA and Alexis Tsipras committed themselves to filling the void of representation of the popular strata and the losers from bankruptcy, which formed a bulwark against far-right relapse and expressed hope for a new democratic and radical intersection.This hope, in a radically different international and domestic environment, remains relevant.” At the same time, however, Phyllis emphasizes the clear dividing lines separating the left from the Papandreevian centre-left.

“The radical left renewal has its own values ​​and its own history in a parallel course, dialogue and confrontation with the histories of the right, the center and the dogmatic left. It has its own luminaries and many ordinary fighters. Its ideological autonomy allows it to confidently renew its distinct and autonomous identity, to expand and represent the needs of broad strata of the people, to embark on the necessary historical reflection without belittling its opponents, but also without trying to invade the history of foreign spaces.