Cohesive relations between peoples are defined by the regulations set by individual constitutions. The articles of the constitution reflect our shared values, which were developed after many years of people living together and forming a state. A common vision for the future of a nation is based on these shared values. Materialisation of this vision means that each citizen has to put the common good ahead of his/her personal gain. Aiming towards the common good always brings good results for every citizen of a nation.

     In 1821, the shared vision for freedom united different Greek societal groups, led them to common action, and finally resulted in the country’s liberation from the brutal Ottoman tyranny. The vision for a reborn free Greece was morally higher than the petty personal interests of individual citizens. Individual gain was placed in second place to freedom. Our area, Mani, is a representative example of putting aside personal ambitions and gains before the common vision of freedom for Hellenism. Maniots fought for the common freedom, although at the time they were enjoying autonomous administration with their own local Maniot leader, their everyday life was secure, and they were relative safe as far as their life and property were concerned.

     The common vision for liberating all areas that were inhabited by populations with Greek consciousness was expressed in the “Great Idea”, which dominated the dreams and aspirations of Greek citizens for the greatest part of one hundred years. This vision resulted in the liberation wars of that period in many regions that used to belong to Greece, but were still under Ottoman occupation. The Maniots again were leaders in the struggles for liberating their subjugated compatriots living in the rest of the greater Greek geographical area. However, before a national vision materialises, it has to be realistic. A thorough analysis of the international conditions and a careful examination of the power relations (the actual relations between the powers?) of a certain period (of the time?) has to happen beforehand. It is necessary that international conditions and power relations are taken into account. Every time when the vision of the Great Idea was pursued at periods when the circumstances were adverse, untimely acts of war were undertaken and disaster ensued. However, those times when military operations were based on careful diplomatic preparations and on a realistic analysis of the power relations, spectacular successes were achieved.

     In the previous paragraphs, where we examined (looked at) the need for a new vision, we often saw the words “common” and “shared”.  If the vision is not shared, then it lacks broad support, and such a national undertaking is not realistic; it is either frivolous or it conceals personal interests, and it will lead to a catastrophy. In the recent history of Greece we have had such examples, with the most important (respresentative?) one being the coup d’état against Makarios, the President of Cyprus, in 1974, which resulted in the invasion of the Turkish military in Cyprus and the permanent occupation by Turkey of a big part of the island. Unfortunately this kind of pseudo-visions (false visions) are quite popular in our times, and they threaten the normal evolution (smooth working out) of our crucial (most important) national affairs.

     If we look at the situation in our neighbouring Turkey, we will notice that the Turkish leaders have worked diligently to promote their own national vision. First they stabilised their political system, then they developed their economy, steadily increased the production, and used effectively the advanced technology which they imported from countries with a strong background in this area (with a strong digital background?). They created a strong industry, which resulted in not only the strengthening of their country, but also in a significant improvement of the standard of living of their citizens. When all these preparations brought positive results, then the politicians started appealing to the emotions of their people, glorifying the period of expansion of the Ottoman empire and promoting their national vision, which consists in revising and overturning the present status quo.

     Based on the above, we can conclude that for the national vision to be effective, it is necessary for it to be based on a strong and realistic basis. The first step for its materialisation is the strenghtening of the private and state economy. It is very important that the national vision be based on fairness and accepted as such by the powerful states of the time. However, the most important condition for the success of the national vision as it relates to the future of a country is for the vision to be embraced not only by the political parties and their leaders, but most of all by its citizens. If we start working on creating the necessary conditions, as described in this last paragraph, then it is certain that the national vision for the future of our country will soon be defined.

   We believe that now, ten months after the appearance of the coronavirus, is the right time to conduct sociological studies which will examine the present attitude of society towards the pandemic, i.e., of the human society as a whole and of the individual societal groups of each country. We notice that the societies of Asian countries with autocratic regimes tend to enforce firm restrictive measures which result in the quick confinement of the spreading of the pandemic. The societies of countries with democratic regimes tend to give priority to saving human lives and to a lesser extent to balancing the economy and the professional activities of their citizens, so that the whole economy does not collapse. In theory, our country has followed the framework adopted by democratic states, however, in practice it seems that individual behaviours deviate from the norm.

   It is normal that older people are more afraid during a pandemic, because at an old age it is easier to catch the virus and more difficult for the treatment to be effective. Because older people are more vulnerable, they are more likely to comply with the daily practices proposed by health professionals and the restrictive measures that are enforced by the government. The government decides on the specific measures to be taken after consulting with committees of specialised scientists who study the epidemiological data and make relevant proposals. Older people voluntarily restrict autonomous actions and the fulfillment of personal desires. The opposite is true for younger people who are more impulsive and full of energy. They do not always comply with the restrictive measures, because being young and strong, they know that they are not as vulnerable to the disease. Even if they catch the virus, they may be asymptomatic and not need treatment.

   The challenge which the politicians and health professionals of our country need to face is how to make everyone, but most importantly the younger people, comply with the rules for combating the pandemic. Citizens need to respect not only the preventive measures taken by the state but also the restrictive measures for the spreading of the disease. Since the repression of irresponsible conduct is difficult, if not impossible, the best way for the politicians to promote responsible behaviour is to become role models themselves by exhibiting social responsibility and thus try to persuade the younger generation to act in a more responsible manner. The best education for the society as a whole is the exemplary daily conduct of its leaders. Of course, time and a consistent effort are needed, so that the average citizen will learn to copy the “beacon” model and the daily behaviour of his/her leaders. It will be difficult at the beginning, but once the model is established, extreme autonomous actions will become increasingly rare among young people, who will realise that they need to voluntarily self-impose restrictions to their excessive freedom, so that the most vulnerable societal groups can be protected.

   The requirement to lockdown in our homes during the first stage of the pandemic was applied successfully by the government, because at that time the Greek citizens actually obeyed the authorities due to their fear for the impact of the new and unknown until then coronavirus.  Unfortunately, the lockdown was followed by the lifting of these measures and the reopening of businesses, an act which was necessary for the partial recovery of the economy and the avoidance of a new bankruptcy for our country. After the first wave of the pandemic, younger people thought that the consequences for human health were not as serious as previously thought and that the death rate was actually lower than previously believed. For these reasons our youth thought that they do not need to compromise their freedoms or restrict their autonomy and their personal choices. Recent data has proven that they are wrong. Not following the restrictive measures might mean that younger people who catch the virus are asymptomatic, however, when these asymptomatic people come into contact with older people, they spread the disease to this vulnerable group of people with catastrophic consequences.

      Recent negative developments make us pose the following two questions: in a democratic country like ours, is it an obligation for citizens to impose self-restrictions on the freedom that comes from their extreme autonomous activities? is it an obligation for citizens to make sure that their autonomous activities do not negatively affect the preservation of health and the preservation of life of vulnerable societal groups? Most Greeks agree that the above two requirements should be followed by all citizens. We hope that as time goes by, everyone will realise how catastrophic the results of non-compliance to  the preventive and restrictive measures for the spreading of the disease are. We hope that more and more people will realise that the measures enforced by the government are for the common good and they will be willing to comply.