The funding of public road projects is based on the classification of roads into National, Prefectural (i.e., Regional, following the integration of Prefectures/Nομαρχίες into Regions/Περιφέρειες in 2010), and Municipal. Projects on the first category are undertaken by the technical services of the Ministry of Infrastructure, on the second by the corresponding services of the Regions, and on the third by the corresponding services of the Municipalities. Annual funding from the Public Investment Program is allocated to Regions and Municipalities according to established criteria, such as population, number of buildings, length of the road network and, in addition, for emergency events. These allocations are made as a lump-sum, which are subsequently distributed by the corresponding collective bodies of local government. These bodies determine the specific technical projects to be funded, prepare the necessary technical and economic studies, tender the projects and supervise their implementation. The question that arises is: by what criteria are these allocations made, or, in the event that there are no legislated criteria, what informal system of weighing factors —similar to those used by central government in making allocations— is applied in determining final project selections and funding amounts? Unfortunately, no transparent system of coefficients leading to fair and stable funding criteria for each area (Περιφερειακή Ενότητα, Δήμος ή Δημοτική Κοινότητα) has ever been established.

There is no dispute that members of municipal and regional governing bodies have been elected by the public and therefore possess democratic legitimacy. However, this mandate is general in nature and does not define the framework within which each elected official should vote on individual funding decisions. The population density of individual areas within each Region and Municipality is a decisive factor in electing their representatives to collective bodies, resulting in urban areas being overrepresented at the expense of rural and sparsely populated regions. This imbalance inevitably influences decisions regarding which projects are included in technical programs and therefore receive funding through the Public Investment Program.

Another case of clear injustice is the conversion of earmarked credits for specific projects into unallocated ones and their ultimate redirection.These procedures work as follows: If representatives of certain areas convince the central administration that the general allocation rules determine the funding of a specific project in their region, a specialized decision is issued and forwarded to the relevant local government authority for implementation (project’s inclusion in the annual technical program, followed by the preparation of studies, tendering and construction). If the project fails to proceed for any reason, the allocated funds should normally be carried forward and recorded as income in the following year’s budget and technical program. In many cases, however, the designated funding is effectively… “forgotten”, reappearing as unspecified revenue and ultimately being used for other projects. A characteristic example in Mani is the upgrading of the Milea–Panagia Giatrissa road. Since this road has been classified as a Provincial Road since 1955, the competent ministry was obligated to finance its reconstruction. More than €3 million was allocated to the project beginning in 2013, yet thirteen years later it still has not been completed. Any well-intentioned person wonders: what happened to this funding?

Addressing the injustices created by the unequal distribution of Public Investment Program resources, which disproportionately disadvantages rural areas with small populations, depends largely on the efforts of local elected representatives and local cultural associations. Achieving a fairer balance requires determination, coordinated action, and sustained advocacy. It also requires documenting cases of unequal treatment, bringing them to public attention through today’s diverse media landscape, as well as coordinated representations to Members of Parliament and government ministers.

In particular, in our region, Mani, with its intense tourist development, the gap between private and public investment is becoming increasingly evident. If local representatives limit their activities to routine administrative matters, the region’s long-term development will inevitably suffer, leading to reduced economic opportunities and employment. It is time for everyone who cares about our region to recognize and address this danger.

THE EDITORIAL BOARD

In order to avoid misunderstandings regarding the content that will be presented below, we will attempt to provide definitions for the conceptually dense notions of the title:

Mores and customs (ήθη και έθιμα) constitute the core of long-standing tradition, combining social values and religious rituals.

Morality (ethics, ηθική) is a branch of philosophy that seeks to determine which human actions are socially acceptable and right, and which are improper and wrong.

Mores and customs are the long-standing practices that emerge from the way of life and functioning of small or large social groups with a cohesive ethnic basis. Τhe formation of customs and traditions is strongly influenced by the economic conditions of living, the terms of production, and the broader productive process, particularly in rural areas where, in earlier periods, the largest population of each region resided. A significant factor in the shaping of customs and traditions was, over a long period, how social groups of different origins either coexist or clash.

These conditions also exerted a decisive influence on the formation of strong rules of law that strictly governed both interpersonal and interfamily relations. A characteristic case of long-established rules of this kind is the custom of blood feud (vendetta), which functioned as a distinctive local rule of law. This custom, whose origins go back to archaic times, assumed an intense and rigid form in geographically enclosed areas that had limited contact with neighbouring population groups. Mani constitutes a characteristic case of the application of vendetta, which, carrying elements from ancient Sparta in combination with the habits of groups that over the centuries settled in the region, survived not only until the establishment of the modern Greek state but also continued, in a milder form, for another 150 years. A characteristic confirmation of the conditions that prevailed in Mani regarding the administration of justice is the Circular of Instructions issued by Ioannis Kapodistrias to the judges of the Special Courts he had established for the adjudication of criminal cases in Mani. He advised them to take into account the deep-rooted social customs that had long prevailed in the area, while also applying the new general rules governing the administration of state law, after carefully selecting the lay members of the criminal courts. The long-term persistence of these customary perceptions is confirmed once again by examining the first issue of our newspaper “Maniot Solidarity” in April 1999, in which one of the aims that we set was our contribution to the abolition of the application of vendetta, which was still troubling the small Maniot societies at that time.

The transition from patrilineal communities to broader social coalitions, with the strengthening of their nationally defined characteristics, constituted a critical factor for the reform of many customs, whose continuation had long shaped the rules of the administration of justice. With the establishment of nation-states, and the development of dense settlement structures to meet modern modes of production, old habits lost a large part of their violent characteristics, retaining mainly the elements of cultural heritage that recalled to simpler ways of life in the countryside, where they also find opportunities for their reproduction, offering qualitative characteristics to modern life, which focuses mainly on quantity.

This long course of reform of inherited customs and traditions gradually shaped the foundation of Morality (Hθική), as it has reached our days through the decisive influence of Philosophy. Of particular significance to the life of modern societies is the contribution of moral rules to the formation and application of Law. The strong consideration of broader social perceptions, through the application of ethical principles in the administration of justice, strengthens the bond between the individual with society and broadens the common framework of coexistence within each community.

This long-term course of transition from customs and traditions, which began in archaic societies and was reinforced in many closed and geographically isolated small communities, culminates in our time in the formation of modern Ethics. This evolution, among other things, also contributes to the qualitative upgrading of all institutions, which are being undermined by the intense individualistic tendency that lies at the heart of the economic system dominant on our planet. The application of rules determined by Ethics to the way of functioning of Politics, which directs this economic system, could constitute another positive element in restoring a more balanced relationship between quantity and quality – a relationship that has been disturbed by the desperate pursuit of Ethics, and stands as the defining characteristic of our era.

THE EDITORIAL BOARD