When the «transcendence of ideologies» paints history as superfluous and conflict as immoral, anti-politics becomes the most useful weapon of the powerful.
Speaking of Maria Karystianou, one must keep respect. On the one hand, because, like hundreds of her relatives, she carries within her an unburdening grief, a tragedy that cannot be spoken. On the other hand, because from that same pain she gave birth, along with others, to a movement for justice for the Tempi, which reshaped the social and political landscape. And yet, respect does not turn into blind acquittal. The political crisis does not cease to exist because we are in pain, nor does mourning become a certificate of selflessness. Every initiative, however noble it may seem, must be judged by its choices, its consistency and the plan it brings to society.
But this does not mean that we should remain silent about her party plans. The accusation of «instrumentalising» the dead is vulgar, but equally baseless is the claim that we should regard mourning as proof of selflessness or political credibility. So what did she announce in her last interview, where many say she «put her cards on the table»?;
There is something deeply attractive and at the same time deeply dangerous in the promise of a «politics without politics». A politics that declares that it has no ideology, takes no position, does not conflict, does not divide the world into camps. That does not speak of classes, interests and material inequalities, but of universal values: honesty, love, integrity, the common good. Who will disagree?;
Nobody. And therein lies the problem.
In times of deep social fatigue, when trust has broken down and politics is like a closed club, «politics without politics» appears as a refuge. As a clean space, free of past, responsibilities and dilemmas. As a new beginning that does not need to explain anything, neither what it wants to change, nor who it will clash with, nor who it will offend.
But politics is not a place of moral purity. Nor is it the art of the possible. It is a field of conflict of interests. And anyone who refuses to admit it, does not abolish the conflict , just disguises it behind words that cost nothing.
The most worrying aspect of this rhetoric is not its generalities. It is its selective memory. For when criticism of recent history begins and ends with the Third Memorandum, as if the two previous ones never existed, then we are not talking about naivety. We are talking about political choice.
The Third Memorandum did not fall from the sky. It was preceded by two memoranda that dismantled wages, work and the welfare state. It was preceded by a bankruptcy dubbed «bailout». It was preceded by a country tied hand and foot, with empty coffers and zero degree of freedom. Cutting off this context is not just historically wrong; it is politically disorienting. Given what he said, it makes sense that he sees Tsipras as an opponent. And to be clear, what is he doing? He copies verbatim the «truth and character assassination groups» of the Right and the Far Right, regurgitating the familiar vulgarities against him: «Mortgage the state as if it were his own. Worst of all. Tsipras’.
And yet, in this new narrative, the only clearly named opponent is not the oligarchy, nor the interdependence, nor the wealth that accumulates without social control. It is the «political system as a whole», and with particular insistence, in the person of the Prime Minister. Not because he represents the interests of the powerful, but because he dared to promise change and failed. His crime is not his class choice, but the hope he gave birth to.
The first thing one would expect from the political platform and programme of a hypothetical «Carlist party» would be nothing less than a clear, non-negotiable commitment. A Greece with a safe, quality, humane infrastructure. With the railways at the forefront, for reasons that no longer need explanation, only memory.
And yet, the question stands firm, like a rusty rail in the landscape, how exactly can this vision be realized, when the infrastructure itself remains dispersed in the hands of different private companies, often foreign, with rationales that meet neither social responsibility nor the public interest? How can there be security without unified control, planning without sovereignty, protection without ownership?;
The idea that such a transformation can happen without returning critical infrastructure to the state seems more like wishful thinking than a political project. The reality is stubborn as long as the country's network remains fragmented, responsibility is diffused, accountability is lost and human costs become a statistical footnote.
The vague call to defend «national interests» against other countries, as expressed by Maria Karystianou in her interview with Kathimerini on Sunday, is also surprising. What are these interests? Where do they reside? And who serves them, when the very body of the country ,its economy, its transport, its basic infrastructure, has been ceded at a rate of almost 70%?;
Because a country that has been stripped of control of its foundations finds it difficult to talk about national strategy without sounding like an echo of an old vocabulary. National interests do not survive as a rhetorical scheme; they need territory, sovereignty, public space. They need a state.
Otherwise, words are left empty, travelling on lines that lead nowhere.
Here the core of this supposedly super-ideological attitude is revealed. It is not a transcendence of the Left and the Right. It is about the most classic form of anti-politics, the generalized equation, the nihilistic demolition of everything, the cancellation of all distinction.
The prospects of the project after the public positioning and the first naming of willing political cadres are, at best, contradictory. On the one hand, there is a real social reservoir of anger and mistrust that may temporarily translate into political resonance. On the other hand, the emergence of persons such as Nicolas Farantouris who was expelled from SYRIZA, and others who are being heard , does not constitute a new political body, but recycles materials of the system that is supposed to be rejected. The presence of former party members at the same time as the rejection of «all parties» is proclaimed is not a transgression, but a contradiction. Without a clear programme, a social project and an organisational infrastructure, the project risks either acting as a vehicle of protest for the benefit of third parties or collapsing under the weight of its own contradictions.
Who are ultimately helped by these views?;
They help first and foremost the conservative right, which has always invested in «everyone is the same» to keep the economic and social hierarchy intact. They help the far right, which feeds on the denigration of democracy and appears as the punisher of a rotten system. And ultimately they are part of a political logic that seeks passive societies and disillusioned citizens.
Respect for suffering does not imply a suspension of the crisis. Democracy lives from named conflicts, not from emotional substitutes for politics.
Ms.Kauristianou is making her entry into the political arena and she is called to learn that in politics, unfortunately or fortunately, you are judged for what you say and for what you don't say....
