by Nikos Xydakis

A sense of gloom has descended upon us following the brief hiatus of the festive season, as retail markets contract and households feel increasingly constrained and frightened. This gloom, a prevailing and deep feeling of despondency, has now become a structural characteristic of society that first became apparent back in the summer of 2007.
The financial crisis, pressure from markets and threats of bankruptcy may well transform this despondency into defeatism. And defeatism leads to paralysis. The government, feeling the noose of the markets tightening around its neck and cracking under the pressure from its European partners, is incapable of producing any policy beyond the fiscal discipline measures that are dictated to it. And while trimming the deficit and reducing the debt are clearly issues of crucial importance, they are not the only ones.
The government should first of all be making every effort to fully understand public sentiment, make an accurate assessment of the present reality, safeguard social cohesion and ensure a just and viable plan for growth. Does the government have what it takes to do this?
Its stability plan is all about cutting costs and raising taxes, placating Brussels and appeasing the markets to improve its borrowing prospects. Where, though, is the plan for growth? Where is the light at the end of the tunnel? What does the average person have to expect after three more years of sacrifice? How will small-business owners, 50-year-olds who live in fear of unemployment and farmers who have been left to their own devices pick themselves up? Where will the hundreds of students currently at universities offering an education of questionable quality come into the productive equation? What is the strategy for tourism, agriculture, small and medium-sized enterprises and innovation?
Nothing is said about any of this. Nothing specific. All we get instead are vague announcements about green development on the one hand and, on the other, that all-time favorite, the diversion of the Acheloos River.

The Greek Connection

Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou assured on Tuesday that the Greek government would continue to support the negotiating effort of the leaders of the two communities in Cyprus for a solution of the island`s political problem.``We will not be mere observers in this effort,`` he said in a speech before an extraordinary plenary session of the House of Representatives, attended by the state, political, religious and military leadership of the Republic of Cyprus, as well as representatives of organisations, foreign ambassadors, and media representatives from Greece and Cyprus. Papandreou said Greece would undertake initiatives, in the framework of the close cooperation and coordination between the two countries, adding that ``there is no alternative to the reunification of the island`` and ``we will not accept division.`` He said the Cyprus question was a problem of invasion and occupation, and that the aim was to terminate the military occupation, be rid of the threat it constitutes to Cypriot Hellenism, and end the drama of the relatives of missing persons.

Politics : A Game for the Big Boys

Stefanos Manos, Thanos Veremis and Yiannis Boutaris are among a group of serious folk who announced the formation of a new political party. These are people with the drive to bring change. They are stubborn and they are known for their constant quest for something new. I am not at all certain that they will succeed, but that really doesn’t matter after all. The greatest danger they face is their party ending up doing little more than lamenting the country’s fate.
We can only wonder why neither of the two big parties have room for people like Veremis or Boutaris. What would George Papandreou of PASOK have lost if he had chosen Boutaris for Thessaloniki mayor rather than opting for the lackluster selection of candidates put forth by the party mechanism? Or, what would Costas Karamanlis, the prime minister, have lost by inviting Boutaris to work with New Democracy? As far as Veremis is concerned, it is obvious that he believed in New Democracy’s reformist vision and he took his fair share of risks before realizing that the government did not have the gumption to move ahead with any real change.
Manos is what most people would call a difficult kind of guy, but he has brains and could certainly have made a meaningful contribution. Neither of the two leading parties were ever able to assimilate him into their ranks, either because they saw him as a killjoy or because he simply raised the bar even higher than he himself could handle.
The new party will go on its way. It may even develop into a useful think tank, but the real game for Greece’s stability and development lies in the hands of the two big parties. And on the one hand New Democracy is paying the price for not protecting itself with serious politicians and a serious plan, while on the other PASOK is little more than an anachronism from the 1980s.
The game, whether we like it or not, is played in the political arena and not in the parlors, where, however, you may still hear a few good ideas.