If we examine the evolution of different societies, we can see how difficult the path towards homogenisation is. Social homogenisation is defined as the assimilation of many specific characteristics of individuals and societal groups and their harmonious fusion into a single framework, which is commonly accepted and decisive for a peaceful path into the future. Τhe slogan “Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood” of the 1789 French Revolution, which was accepted (at least in theory) by large groups of citizens, was a major boost towards the process of future homogenisation. However, it is certain that today there are still several groups of people who do not agree with this these ideas. A careful analysis of situations in modern societies shows that only long-term and conscious actions can guide various societal groups towards homogenised results. Significant homogenised results can be achieved only if there is coordinated common action; unfortunately, this is not always the case, and often actions towards the right direction are undertaken in isolation or are later reversed.

            In Western Europe, the ideals of the French Revolution (even in cases when they were simply slogans or failed attempts at stable governance) promoted the creation of the “nation states” and they strengthened these states. Homogenisation, based on commonly accepted long-term policies, on democracy and on parliamentarism, brought tangible economic results, which helped convince skeptical citizens of the benefits of integration. In these countries, even the challenge of social homogenisation between populations of different cultures of origin has been significantly addressed, i.e., the homogenisation of the native population with people originating from the colonies and with immigrants. It is certain that this type of homogenisation will become even more successful in future generations.

            In our country, the obstacles towards homogenisation have deeper roots. We lack the kind of progress that was achieved in Western Europe during the centuries of Renaissance; at that time Western European feudal societies became acquainted with new ideas about culture and politics. In our country, Ottoman tyrants prohibited the circulation of these European ideas that could harm their authoritarian rule. Here, our ancestors could not expect anything greater than simply maintaining their biological survival. In the 200 years of the modern Greek state, some measures towards homogenisation have been taken, but this happened relatively late. The first such attempts towards homogenisation of the culturally different populations that lived in Greece at that time took place during the governance of our county by Capodistrias (1827-1831). We need, however, to keep in mind that at that time Greece was a very small country, extending to the north only to Arta and the Pagasitic Gulf and possessing only the islands of the Saronic Gulf and the Cyclades. Ηοmogenisation was attempted through the peer-learning school system and through the consistent and strict application of the administration rules.

            In a few Greek areas, such as Mani, where the rocky and mostly infertile terrain was the main impetus towards freedom, homogenisation happened at a faster pace, although the different population groups of the area were more in number and more heterogeneous in their origin than they were in other Greek areas. In fact, to a certain extent, many aspects of the characteristics of the system of small-scale war feudalism that prevailed in most of the regions of Mani were mitigated, and conditions were created to reduce the size of social inequalities between the members of each micro-society. Before 1821, in Mani, from the slogans of the French Revolution, the slogan of Brotherhood was limited only to the members of each patriarchal family; however, during the two centuries of the Modern Greek State that followed, it has been promoted to a significant degree, especially in the societies created by the Maniots outside Mani, at sites inside Greece and abroad where Maniots settled.

It seems that the path towards the homogenisation of societies will be achieved through the process of merging individuality with sociability. The conscious realisation that the individual interest, as a qualitative and quantitative upgrade of the starting point, is often linked to the promotion of common interests, may be the best way to relativise the instinct of self-preservation, which drives towards narrowly self-serving behaviours. Another encouraging element is the increasingly accepted realisation that individuals are mortal, but societies, if not immortal, are at least long-lived.

THE EDITORIAL BOARD

Over the past two centuries, representative democracy, which started on the European continent, has gradually prevailed as the preferred form of governance in most countries. Universal voting is the best form of democratic expression. Over time, however, during the implementation of representative democracy, not only the strengths of this political system, but also its weaknesses have become obvious. Most weaknesses can be addressed by imposing regulations, but for some weaknesses no solutions have been found so far…

            The main reason for the deviations between the theoretical background of representative democracy and its practical application, i.e., the exercise of power by persons elected for a term by universal voting, is due to the very characteristics of representation. In other words, during the exercise of power by the elected politicians, new aspirations are formed that differ to a degree from the aspirations of their electorate. The predominant reason for these deviations is due to the generalities and ambiguities of the programs on the basis of which the election takes place, and also to the new realities that arise during the term of office of the elected politician. An additional reason for the occasional malfunctioning of the institutions of representative democracy is the poor observance of the established rules in the struggle for power between those who hold it and those who seek to seize it. The above applies to all forms of representative democracy, i.e., parliaments, self-governing organisations and associations. The closer representative expressions approach direct democracy, the less are the weaknesses and deviations of this political system.

            The main weakness of the institutions of representative democracy is the strong pursuit of prolonged tenure by the elected politicians. Motivated by this pursuit, those elected in the representative institutions make choices that serve specialised interests, that is, interests that do not benefit all the societal groups of the electorate, but only a limited number of individuals. The individuals thus benefitted are either already very powerful or they have previously provided services to the elected politicians. These choices lead to the allocation of most available financial resources to projects that do not address generalised social needs, and they drastically reduce the effectiveness of the institutions of representative democracy. At the same time, they cause the economy to become less competitive. When the institutions of representative democracy operate under this logic, they cannot fulfill their purpose of competent governance, and societies are led to decline. An extreme version of the pursuit of prolonged tenure in the positions of the elected representatives in this political system are the phenomena of populism which, in addition to negative economic outcomes, also undermine the foundations of the representative democratic institutions, while at the same time creating a great risk for the complete collapse of their democratic character and leading to authoritarian ways of governing.

            Typical examples of the theoretical analyses given above are the situations which we have experienced in our country during the last decade. The strong desire of politicians to prolong their tenure led to granting favourite groups benefits, for which they paid through borrowing. This, in combination with catchy populist slogans, led to their electoral success. But deviating from the laws of sound financial management led to ever-increasing public financial deficits that ultimately overturned the political goals of those who pursued these policies. On the other hand, populism with its arrogant and unrealistic slogans can create some temporary enthusiasm due to the use of emotional language, but the huge gap between unatainable promises and hard reality becomes quickly obvious.

            The above-described weaknesses of representative democracy become more obvious in lower-level institutions (municipal governments, local associations). For example, the returns of self-governing higher education institutions depend on maximizing the proper use of their financial resources. The discrepancies in the performance and returns between the educational institutions of our country are obvious: some educational institutions produce remarkable research and teaching results as well as good employment opportunities, while others produce degrees that do not help their holders to perform well when writing competitive job placement exams.

            The same applies to municipalities and regions. Here, the distinction between populist rhetoric and substantial results is more obvious than in large areas due to their limited territory and the ability of voters to observe, evaluate and relate politicians’ rhetoric to work performed. In small regions it is easier for citizens to measure the positive or negative impact of public initiatives on their quality of life. Of course, when politicians do not choose to invest in projects of generalised social benefit, or when they prefer to allocate their budgets to projects and initiatives that serve groups of citizens who will provide them with future electoral support, their effectiveness is drastically reduced. Eventually, the average voter will see through all this and will vote against those politicians who apply this kind of micropolitics…