Konstantinos Karamanlis has gathered around him a staff of elite and highly qualified specialists since 1955. Three of them became prime ministers (G. Rallis, H. Zolotas, K. Mitsotakis), two presidents of the republic (K. Tsatsos, K. Stephanopoulos). Of the remaining equally capable members of his apparatus, P. Papaligouras fell ill and resigned before the question of succession arose, K. Papakonstantinou did not stand, and Evangelos Averof-Tositsas was defeated in the elections by the Parliamentary Group in 1980 and became president. in 1981 New Democracy, causing its radical organizational reform.

The succession of Karamanlis was a logical cause of intra-party unrest. The Macedonian politician held primaries in his faction in 1955-63 and 1974-80, while even in 1963-1974, when Panagiotis Kanellopoulos was the leader of the faction, in practice this was done after he had been instructed by Karamanlis himself. His resignation, now final, after 14 years at the head of government (the longest term for a prime minister in Greek political history) has rightly created uncertainty among his public, who have learned to regard him as permanent. In this intra-party confrontation, two of his main colleagues, Georgios Rallis and Evangelos Averof, came together. On May 8, 1980, the New Democracy Parliamentary Group elected Rally by 88 votes to Averof’s 84.

Misunderstandings in the Acute Controversy of the 1980s

Today, 43 years after the May 1980 autopsy, many of the assumptions that were then exaggerated and have continued to dominate for many years, perhaps to some extent even today, can be questioned. Rally and Averof had already become the natural successors of Karamanlis in previous years. During the party’s pre-congress in Chalkidiki in April 1977, Averov and Rallis, along with Papaligura, were the main speakers and chairmen of its sections, roles that elevated them to the highest position in the party after Karamanlis himself. At the first party congress, again in Halkidiki in May 1979 (when Papaliguras had already fallen ill and retired from politics), Rallis and Averov were given a similar role.

The attempt, intense then and in the 1980s, to present the Averov-Rally conflict as a “conservative” and “center-right” conflict, with a lag in time and on the basis of the available data, is not entirely convincing. Of course, the supporters of Averov and Rally within the deputy group were not divided solely according to similar criteria.

But the point of view about some fundamental ideological difference between them is also not entirely acceptable. Indeed, Rallis was a supporter of a “mild climate”, while Averov, as usual, was more aggressive about the rising PASOK. But it is very doubtful that they fully reflect the “right” component under Averov and the “center-right” under Rally. On the contrary, perhaps. Averov was not of the flesh of the old right: he left the Liberal Party and joined the centre-right in 1956. The Averovs’ preference for direct confrontation with PASOK should not be surprising: people from the centrist space usually tended to be more aggressive against the radicalization expressed by Andreas Papandreou. It was Rallis who emerged from the hard core of the faction, which reportedly played a role in his ability to garner support in elections that were decided by four votes and could be overturned if two or three voters changed their minds. In other words, their confrontation does not convincingly correspond to the confrontation between the “right” Averov and the “centrist” Rally, their origins and attitudes were opposite.

It should also not be forgotten that between these two “partisans” against Karamanlis was Rallis (in 1958 he contributed to the overthrow of the government by resigning and not taking part in the vote). Averov, on the contrary, was distinguished by honesty towards Karamanlis: in 1963, after the latter was forced to resign, he refused the offer of the crown to take the post of prime minister instead of the deposed leader, and his decisive role on July 23, 1974, when he secured the return of Karamanlis to the post of prime minister.

Without any fundamental ideological differences, but with disagreements in the field of tactics

The emergence of a new leadership was crucial, a process that the faction forgot to undertake after so many years of Karamanlis’ rule. In this context, it may have been expected that observers would try to give it too much drama, even ideological elements. However, this is not the picture that emerges from the study. The two would-be leaders of the New Republic in May 1980 came from the same school of thought – the liberal-center-right – and were leading members of the government with an extremely clear vision of the future of the country, with which they both agreed. In other words, there was no fundamental ideological disagreement, and Karamanlis himself, in his note on this subject, spoke of “artificial ideological differences” between them.

Their differences – frontal confrontation or mild climate – concerned the field of tactics, not strategic choices. In fact, the lack of disagreement on strategic issues was already emphasized by the then important columnist Nikos Dimos, who noted that “in many respects Averof is more progressive than Rally – unless, by virtue of his position and role, he gave a different impression” (“Epicara” , February 14, 1980). However, this was the first public appearance by the leadership of the modern center-right, and therefore it allows us to draw some important conclusions. Firstly, the confrontation and its tense nature, which has reached the mental division of the party, is unfair to both leading politicians. Apart from this, however, the fact that the change of leadership took place institutionally, even in the face of these upheavals, and the fact that since then a particular faction has flowed smoothly in such processes, while maintaining its unity and main ideological positions, indicates a maturation in its function as the backbone of the political system.

Mr. Evantis Hatzivasiliou – Professor, Department of History and Archeology, University of Athens, General Secretary
Parliamentary Foundation for Parliamentarism and Democracy.