The best way of summarising the history of the 200 years since the Greek revolution (1821-2021) is the following: SEVEN WARS, FOUR CIVIL WARS, SEVEN BANKRUPTCIES. This is also the title of a book published in recent years by History Professor Georgios V. Dertilis (the author comes from a Maniot family which settled in Neapolis Voion, in Laconia). Upon reflecting on these two centuries, we note that with the exception of some wars which had more wide-ranging causes, the rest of the wars, the bankruptcies and the civil conflicts were all caused by the typical mentality of the Greek governments, which were representing the desires of the political circles of the time. Upon examining our history, we realise that the political homogenisation of the Greek nation was not as thorough and successful as it could have been. If the homogenisation had been stronger, the Greek political community would have had common goals and the electorate would have elected the right politicians to promote and achieve these goals. These politicians would have adapted these goals to the possibilities that were offered at that time and they would have used whatever resources and means were available to full potential.

   During the 19^th century two important Greek political ideas failed because of internal causes. These goals, although they were realistic, failed to gain common acceptance and thus political homogenisation was not achieved. These political goals were the following:

a) Governor Ioannis Kapodistrias’ efforts to create a civilised, righteous and just Greek state, immediately after the internal civil conflicts. Not only his efforts failed, they also led to his assasination and to even more serious armed warfare.

b) The efforts to include in the Greek territory the areas outside the borders of Greece where ethnic Greeks lived. This movement was called “The Great Idea”, was supported by the idealist Bavarian Otto, King of Greece, but was undermined by internal disputes and disagreementss between the political parties. It ended badly with the disastrous Greek-Turkish war of 1897.

   The uncooperative attitude of the political community and the lack of desire to pursue national goals, which would certainly have meant sacrifices and personal costs, resulted in failure. Even in the few cases, where the international situation was favourable, the Greek political leaders were capable and they had clear and realistic goals, failure ensued because micropolitics and personal gains got the upper hand.

  Two very capable great Greek politicians were Harilaos Trikoupis and Eleftherios Venizelos. Harilaos Trikoupis changed the until then inward-looking operation of the Greek state, and he tried to modernise the country by introducing many European technological advancements. However, he was very wrong in his expectation that the Greek citizens would be responsible tax payers. The result was that Trikoupis could not collect through taxes the funds that would have allowed him to pay back the loans that he had taken so that he could undertake extensive modernisation public works. This failure led to his defeat in the next elections, resulting in his death, and to the bankruptcy of the country. Eleftherios Venizelos had foreseen the political developments in the Balkans and in Europe, and he tried hard to lead Greece forward with a strong and ambitious vision for the future. Again, however, micropolitics, personal interests and the fatigue of the Greek soldiers who had been fighting external wars for many years, they played a role in the defeat of the army and the death of the “Big Idea”. Venizelos’ hopes that Greece would be led to its great destiny were cruelly dashed.

   Similar situations to the ones we have mentioned above have also developed in the past and continue to develop today in our area, Mani. The political homogenisation of the small militant communities of Mani started in 1818 when the Maniot warlords promised to the representatives of the Filiki Etaireia (Society of Friends) that they will support the War of Independence. The cooperation among them continued during the first three years of the Revolution (for some of them at great loss to life, property and privileges). Maniots, who were enjoying a semi-autonomous status in small communities, without the presence of Turks, embraced the common goals of freedom and independence. They put aside economic interests for the common good and they rushed to the battlefields, with the very vague promise that their sacrifices would be recognised if the war turned out victorious. Unfortunately, the developments after 1824 gradually divided the local Maniot leaders, who put aside the high ideals, and pursued instead personal interests. This shift in mentality led the whole country, but even more our own area, Mani, to tragic developments. Ever since, division and polarisation have followed us like a curse. These phenomena are even more prominent during critical times. During the past decades, we have seen an opening in our small local communities and the creation of some new ideas, which gives us a reason to be optimistic that some positive changes can also happen here, in Mani. Let us hope that the solidarity of the years 1814-1824 will gradually be guiding more and more Maniots, so that the necessary “critical mass” can be formed, which will lead us to more common goals and prospects for the future.

                                                                                                THE EDITORIAL BOARD  

NEW CORONA VIRUS: THE TRANSITION FROM FEAR TO SOLIDARITY IS DIFFICULT, BUT NECESSARY

   Three months have passed since the strict measures against the COVID-19 pandemic were first implemented in our country. These measures, proposed by the appropriate health authorities and legislated by the government, were systematically adhered to by the public. This was a pleasant surprise, because as a nation, we are not characterised by obedience and compliance to the laws. This has made us reflect on the reasons why the implementation of these measures was so successful and why this time the Greek citizens listened to the competent health authorities and the government. Most people concluded that the success is due to two reasons: a) the decisive action of the government at a very early stage in the outbreak of COVID-19 and, most importantly, b) the fear of getting sick and the strong desire for the continuation of life.

   We are wondering if this fear and the adherence to the safety measures will also continue beyond the first trimester since the outbreak. We are worried that as the spreading of COVID-19 diminishes, the fear of the citizens will also diminish, and they might undertake activities harmful to their own health and the health of others. People might now just want to satisfy some strong desires that they have put aside during the past three months. We hope that these desires will not prove to be more powerful than the sense of reason and self-preservation. If all of a sudden we have a lot of people who no longer care about health safety measures, then we might end up with the reversal of the present positive situation and fall back to the situation we had in March, with detrimental effects. We might even have to re-implement strict emergency measures again.

   One way to deal with citizens who are falling back to lax behaviour and are not being careful about maintaining high standards of safety, is to remind them of the data, facts and situations from the early stage of the pandemic, which had instilled fear in them and made them comply. This way of helping resolve the problem of falling back offers us only a temporary means of controlling the situation; however, if we really want to achieve solid and permanent results, we will need to undertake a long and difficult journey. What we will really need to do is to develop a sentiment of social solidarity. The difference between a) remembering the fear at the beginning of the pandemic and b) building social solidarity, is qualitative, with the second one being much superior to the first. Bringing back the fear and implementing strict measures might eventually turn the fear into a phobia and create psychological problems. On the other hand, considering cooperation as a social obligation and developing a sentiment of societal solidarity towards our fellow citizens is a more difficult route to take, which does not lead to phobias or have any negative side effects. The difficulty in adopting social solidarity lies in the fact that in order to achieve that, we first have to put our personal interests aside and instead focus on our obligation to protect our fellow human beings. By doing this, we are also protecting ourselves from the disease. In addition, we get rewarded by the feeling that we belong to a bigger community, to the society as a whole, and we keep our psychological balance, which is of the utmost importance for a good quality of life, particularly in times of difficulty.

   We need to reflect on the fact that all societies which have reached a high standard of civilisation were (and most continue to be) cohesive societies, and their people were individuals who placed the common good ahead of their own personal interests. In ancient times, human groups needed to work together in order to face external dangers; they also needed to cooperate, so that they could secure enough food for every member of their group. The first examples of cooperation and solidarity between the members of a social group came from that prehistoric period because of the need to meet these primary needs. Even in our times today these basic needs are still met in the same way.

Defending the borders and the territorial sovereignty of a country is the duty of every nation, which has to be based on cooperation, solidarity and the sharing of common ideals among the citizens. In the present corona virus period, the sense of protecting each other by having everyone adhering to strict safety health measures is also an expression of social solidarity. This should apply not only to individuals, but also to states who are members of transnational unions and associations. It seems that states more and more understand the need for mutual protection from the pandemic, cooperation and solidarity, although there are still a few exceptions to the rule.