It is a tactical and long-term strategic error for a former prime minister to create a new, inevitably small party simply because he wants to express the clarity of his views, and this not only concerns Antonis Samaras, who was recently expelled from the ruling conservatives for questioning the government’s policies.
The same was true in the case of former premier and one-time PASOK leader George Papandreou, who, with the founding of the Movement of Democratic Socialists (KIDISO) 10 years ago, trapped himself in an unnecessary failed venture.
People who have led major political parties and have held the fate of the country in their hands do themselves an injustice when they slide into the realm of petty politics through moves that are almost mathematically doomed to failure. By becoming prime ministers they are part of Greece’s political history and have secured the right to make their opinions public, when and where they deem necessary.
Their previous role makes it a given that their opinions are widely published, thus becoming part of the public debate, which is their goal.
This writer’s view is that former prime ministers not only have the right, but the obligation, to intervene in public life. The fact that they are not subject to the restrictions of a simple member of parliament allows them to express different opinions, sometimes critical ones, and in any case to influence developments.
The leadership of the party in power which is the recipient of any criticism takes it into account, to some extent. Sometimes it may even take corrective measures. This is how the interventions of a former prime minister contribute to changes and improvements, to the extent that this is needed.
But that’s as far as it should go. And, of course, the way in which these interventions are done matters. Former socialist premier Costas Simitis had chosen to write the occasional opinion piece. New Democracy’s Kostas Karamanlis, after a prolonged period of silence, has recently made his own public interventions, but although it is clear that he disagrees with many things with the government he has never crossed the line, and this is acknowledged by both his supporters and opponents.
This stance lends authority, instead of weakening any objections with the allowed policies.
How does Samaras or his views benefit from his expulsion, which every intelligent person understood would follow after questioning the patriotism of a minister? And more than that, how will he benefit from the creation of a new party?