October 1916. The National Division is at its peak, as evidenced by the “November riots” that will follow a month later. Greece was divided into two parts: the Athenian state with the royalists against the “Provisional Government” of Thessaloniki, headed by Eleftherios Venizelos. The letter presented today in Kathimerini proves that even in the face of division and acute political conflict, an institutional approach to major problems is possible and necessary.

As you know, the reason for the national split was the disagreement between King Constantine and Eleftherios Venizelos over the participation of Greece in the First World War. Constantine appealed to the notion, widespread among the monarchies of the time, that the king was solely responsible for matters of foreign policy and defense, as “the unifying element of the nation” and a man “above” political confrontations. On the contrary, Venizelos relied on the essence of democracy and the parliamentary system, which made the government competent and politically responsible for all local issues without exception. This institutional disagreement soon grew into a personal one. Venizelos has been characterized by much of the anti-Venizerian press and the political world as “anti-dynastic”. Indeed, Venizelos had every reason to oppose the monarchy. Due to the position of Constantine, Venizelos was unable to implement the policies for which he was elected, forcing him to resign and create a second state entity.

Extremely cool attitude of the state

And yet, even in these moments of extreme polarization, Venizelos maintains a responsible institutional position. This position is reflected in his letter dated October 26, 1916 to Konstantinos Raktivan (Minister of Justice in 1912-1915, first Chairman of the Council of State in 1929 and Venizelos’ “institutional interlocutor” on constitutional and important legal issues). This is the letter that is presented today and was sent in an envelope marked “Provisional Government”. A draft of this letter is in the archives of Eleftherios Venizelos (Benakis Museum), and a copy of it is in the archives of the royal courtier Alexandros Merkatis (Greek Literary and Historical Archives). Here is what Eleftherios Venizelos writes in his letter: “When the war, of course, ends, we will demand the convening of the Assembly, so as not to change the form of the state, not to change the ruling house, not to limit the rights of the crown that follows from the current Constitution, but in order to explain them, clarify them and register them as far as possible, so that the king does not dare to tell the representative of popular sovereignty that in great national matters he is authorized, he ignores the will of the people and imposes his opinion, because he considers himself responsible to God.
Spyros Plumidis in his book Between Revolution and Reform. Eleftherios Venizelos and Venizelosism (1909-1922)” (Patakis, 2020) believes that these positions of Venizelos were the result of pressure from the Entente powers on Venizelos not to consider his movement “anti-dynastic”. Whatever the “productive causes of his will,” Venizelos at that moment retained an extremely cold-blooded statesmanship. He did not support the change of state system from a republic under power to a republic without power during a period of tension that would favor such an attitude. He only argued for the need to revise the constitution to make it clear that the politically responsible government is the one who will also decide on major national issues. The national division in Venizelos’ thought, at least in this particular case, was used as an opportunity for institutional modernization. Of course, Venizelos at the same time leaves very careful hints about the personality of the king, writing that he does not want to change the “ruling house”. If now another person from the same royal house can become king instead of Constantine (as happened in 1917 with King Alexander), Venizelos seems to want, or at least does not rule it out.

The question of the revival of the “House of Lazarus”

Venizelos’ letter is a reply to a letter dated 14 October 1916 from Konstantinos Raktivans (from Athens) to Eleftherios Venizelos (located in the archives of Eleftherios Venizelos, Benaki Museum). In this letter, Raktivan mentions that Venizelos gave him the order “as after our colleague Mr. Alivisatos to spy on them in Pale. like-minded Greek parliamentarians of May 31, 1915, if they wish to attend a possible meeting of the parliament in Thessaloniki. This is the famous “Parliament of Lazarus”, which arose as a result of the elections of May 31, 1915, dissolved by Constantine in the same year and reactivated in 1917 with the return to power of Venizelos. In 1916, Venizelos asked Raktivan to investigate the “resurrection” of the House of Lazarus, but with two conditions: firstly, this House would now operate in Thessaloniki and not in Athens, and secondly, the “resurrection” would only concern “deputy- like-minded person.” Raktivan mentions in his letter that “all those who have been shot so far, except for 1 or 2 exceptions, have confirmed that they will come if they are invited.” However, the continuation of the letter indicates that some of the deputies interviewed were not particularly enthusiastic about this idea and agreed only in order not to cause displeasure or show that Venizelos was being interrogated: “The majority, however, despite the declared unconditional consent, along with desire to become more concretely acquainted with the work of this assembled parliament, while others also positively expressed misgivings or their own different opinions, but without making their decisions dependent on them, having above all boundless confidence in the political insight of the leader.

But again, it seems that the external factor is more important. As Raktivan reports in his letter to Venizelos, “Mr. Guillemin [πρεσβευτής της Γαλλίας στην Ελλάδα] … we spoke to me on our own initiative, I recommend that you dissuade you from the idea of ​​u200bu200bconvening a parliament, at least for the time being. The same negative opinion is shared by Raktivan, who, in fact, insists on a more general moderate policy of Venizelos, emphasizing that “it would be useful to more clearly define the political direction of the Provisional Government in such a way as not to affect beyond the necessary status of the Old State and help as far as possible to the conservative views of the majority of Greeks and those who sincerely support the national policy.” Venizelos was finally convinced by Raktivan and therefore, in the letter he submitted on October 26, 1916, he excludes the functions of the parliament of May 31, 1915, giving priority to holding elections in the territories controlled by the “Provisional Government”: “I think that all thoughts should now stop at the convocation of Parliament on 31 May. When we find it necessary to call the representative of the people, we will hold elections in the parts under our authority, dissolving Parliament on May 31, in order to comply with our constitutional agreements.

Warning shots to friends

However, there is another reason that gives “added value” to Venizelos’ letter presented today. We are talking about the “warning shots” that Venizelos addresses to his political friends and “friends”: “if, on the other hand, our friends, many or few, carried away by the extremely conservative spirit that emanates from someone in Athens, think that our racing program is extremely radical and dangerous for the country, they are obliged to state this clearly and publicly. Because of misunderstandings and lies, our struggle cannot be won.” As if Venizelos wants to make it clear that the abandonment of his original thoughts after the reasonable objections mentioned above should not be interpreted or, more accurately, misconstrued as laziness and regressiveness in his main choices.

Mr. Spyros Vlachopoulos is a professor at the EKPA Faculty of Law.

Editor: Evantis Chatsivasiliou