The pre-election aggravation continues and intensifies, despite the clear result of the May 21 elections. Therefore, it is useful to keep the overall picture clear. The 21/5 result has structural characteristics, firstly because it changes the face of the party system and, secondly, because it puts to the test two electoral systems, simple and enhanced proportionality.

Although the international debate on the typology of party systems is very rich and there are many comparative examples, nevertheless, this distribution of electoral forces of 41% – 20% – 11.5% among the three largest parties prompts the electorate on June 25 to make a clearer decision. a decision on the multi-party and polarizing nature of the party system and, in particular, on the position of PASOK in this nascent party system. The electoral body is invited to take this decision after having already “neutralized” on May 21 the electoral system of simple proportionality. Now he is presented with the possibility that the electoral system of increased proportionality will lose its key element, sufficient strengthening of the first party in the field to maintain the blackmail function of simple proportionality. However, now for supporters of autonomous governments there is an institutional guarantee of increased proportionality and political achievements of an already recorded high percentage of New Democracy, which exceeded the 2019 figure.

Alarm duration

It is defiantly unfounded and ahistorical for the New Democracy, even in this institutional and political environment, to claim that PASOK is a danger to stability, not only political but also financial! The grand conclusion of the May 21st election is that the “anxiety” about the risk of SYRIZA returning to power has been lifted. New Democracy triumphantly won the election campaign, but lost its easiest, historically and emotionally charged demand (“be careful not to bring back SYRIZA”), with which it tried and mostly succeeded in nullifying the criticism and negative assessment of bad practices and fundamental failures. However, this statement cannot work for PASOK. You can’t say “be careful not to return PASOK”. Moreover, PASOK is “accused” of aiming before the elections to improve its position as a political entity in the opposition field, instead of voluntarily taking the ungrateful position of one who is ready to cooperate and support New Democracy. However, the New Democracy condemns collaborationism as ineffective, has as its front a one-party self-reliance and its main motive is to discredit not only the current PASOK and its leadership, but also its entire historical path, including the period of government cooperation between PASOK and New Democracy, covering four “difficult” years 2011-2015 and three different government schemes. From a certain point, silence ceases to be selective political amnesia and becomes historical contempt, given the curve of behavior of the main factions of the post-revolutionary period in the harsh period of crisis, including the opposition during the SYRIZA-ANEL government and its wider influence.

New Democracy has won the election and is taking on the responsibility of running the next parliamentary term. Therefore, there is no need to conduct a second/additional election campaign now, which undermines the post-election structure, i.e. needed broader consensus between the ruling majority and the opposition, and indeed that version of the opposition that deeply believes in European values. , democracy, human rights, the rule of law and the welfare state, is reform-oriented and highly qualified to deal responsibly with major national problems.

Consent agenda

Three examples from the post-election agenda, only briefly discussed before the elections, will suffice:

N.D. now he does not need to run a second election campaign that undermines the post-election framework, that is, the necessary broader consensus between the ruling majority and the opposition.

If the question of the revision of the Constitution is indeed to be posed as an institutional basis and framework for reform policies, which, however, did not dominate in the previous four years, then a constitutionally elevated majority is required, the use of which must be carried out in an institutionally astute and sensitive way so that they are strengthened and fundamental guarantees were not compromised. Post-majoritarian democracy, a democracy of consensus, a democracy of a long historical time, not of a moment, always finds its first application in the exercise of the revision function.

If a truly active foreign policy that shrewdly takes into account global and regional correlations becomes a post-election priority, and if indeed our national strategy in Greek-Turkish relations and in the Cyprus question must be transformed from the framework of principles into the operational framework of a developed plan of initiatives, then this can only be built based on post-majority national consensus.

If we are really able to create in our country a liberal, and not just an elected or majoritarian democracy, then (we must) realize that the issues of the rule of law and its guarantees, therefore, the issues of legitimacy and responsibility for its violations, they are not evaluated selectively and by the majority votes. They are not aired because they interfere with the elections, even if they are double. They are tried in the area of ​​justice and in general by competent institutions. Well, there is a post-election agenda of the rule of law state by default.

I hope that in the time remaining before the elections on June 25, the post-election landscape will become an essential parameter of the pre-election debate. If this is not achieved in public discourse, then at least let it be included in the private thoughts of those who shouldered the burden of post-election manipulation.

Mr. Evangelos Venizelos – Former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, former President of PASOK.