A few months ago, in an article referring to the 200th anniversay since the Greek revolution and the corresponding planned festivities, we had written that one of the main points for reflection at this time should be the question of making a choice between “East and West”, which was very prominent during the last decades of the Byzantine empire. Choosing between East and West was a problem that was faced by all sections of the society, church and state during the four centuries of the Ottoman occupation. It would be interesting to examine how this dilemma, which continues to exist until today, has affected our way of living, customs and mentality during the two centuries of the existence of the modern Greek state.

   Here is an excerpt from the above-mentioned article: “Οur reflection should focus on the four different societal groups at the beginning of the revolution and their interrelations. These groups were: a) the militant groups (armed fighters) both on the land and in the sea with their leaders (“captains”), b) the local representatives of the Christian population during the Ottoman rule (“kotzabasides” and bishops), c) the leading Christian orthodox group in Constantinople (the elite class of “Fanariotes” and the patriarchate) and d) the Greek merchants and intellectuals who brought the Enlightment from Western Europe to Greece. All these four groups had different ideas about the revolution, which affected their actions. They proceeded with caution and participated in the fight for independence  in different ways”.

    Ordinary Greek citizens were influenced by the ideas of these leading societal groups, adjusted them to their needs, and voted accordingly in the elections that started almost immediately after independence, and were held regularly after the uprising of September 3, 1843. This uprising was organised by the Greek Army in Athens against the autocratic rule of King Otto, which resulted in the end of the absolute and the beginning of the constitutional monarchy era. Unfortunately, the decision-making during national elections was most often influenced by “eastern” customs, such as cronyism, tax evasion, deceitful submission to those who are stronger, etc. In fewer cases, the electorate voted for political candidates who had innovative ideas, such as establishing secure trade conditions, combining personal or family interests with state interests, and in general novel and progressive ideology. Although the Greek people had long been used to the Ottoman way of running public affairs, during the last two centuries before the revolution they had also been exposed to the ideas of the Enlightment, which were prominent in the west, and which were introduced to Greece by merchants and intellectuals. These ideas were naturally leading to democratic governments. The expansion of trade, the production and transport of products from the west to the markets of the east, helped bring to our country some of the new elements that had been developed in the west. These elements of modern liberal ideology were steadily reinforced by Greek immigrants who had returned permanently to their homeland, after having lived in western societies and having experienced first-hand the novel way of democratic living in several European countries.

   The eastern and western ideologies were succeeding each other rapidly in Greek politics, according to the ideology of each incoming leader. The big chance for Greece’s radical modernisation was lost forever after the assassination of the Governor Capodistria, the very politician that the national assembly had invited in 1827 from Switzerland, where he had resided since 1822, to Greece, in order to save the faltering Greek revolution! The fact that the assassination happened at a time when a new loan had just been arranged by Capodistria is very unfortunate. This loan would have secured a strong governance structure for the new state, which so far was financially supported by the Governor himself (who liquidated his assets) and by his friends who were fundraising for the Greek cause in various European countries.

    The first years after the revolution were years of extreme difficulty and poverty for Maniots. Lack of war action and prohibition of piracy meant that Maniots could no longer find employment in these two fields, which unfortunately were remains of many centuries of the eastern way of living in our area. Families  did not have the means to feed and support hemselves. Employment in the army and the public administration were also not possible, because of lack of government funding. Trading with the West, which was robust during the leadership of Tzanetos Grigorakis, was declining in the decade after his removal from office. All these facts were forcing the majority of Maniots to continue to support the old eastern ideas and the local political system of καπετανίες. Dire financial circumstances led to cruel conflicts.

    In this article we have given a brief general idea of the first uncertain steps between tradition and modernisation during the first period of the modern Greek state. (We will return to this topic, analysing various social characteristics during the years that followed the post-revolution era).

   In a few days the yearly celebrations for the anniversay of the Maniot uprising and the beginning of the 1821 revolution will start. We will hear celebratory speeches that will praise the common war undertakings by Maniot warlords and their troops. The celebrations and festivities will break the routine in our daily lives and will remind us of Mani at the height of its  glory. Unfortunately, after the celebrations, we will  continue to approach in a  fragmented and individualistic manner the new situations brought upon us by the third industrial revolution’s information, economy and job market. In the meantime, we the inhabitants of Mani will continue to sell our land, so that we can meet our financial obligations. The monoculture of the olive tree, the badly organised marketing of the Maniot oil and the global overproduction of this product have all resulted in a lower income for us. Tourism, due to the specific characteristics of our region, brings additional income, which is unfortunately also significantly lower than what it could potentially be, if we only were able to manage this new source of wealth in a firm and orderly manner.

   It seems as if we have forgotten what the popular term “Unified Mani”, which Maniots and philo-Maniots like to use in every possiblle occasion, means. To us, the members of the “Maniot Solidarity” association and the stakeholders of our newspaper, it means forming common understandings and undertaking common actions for developing the potential of our area. This means full exploitation of the geographical, climatic and cultural characteristics of Mani. In order to achieve maximum potential, all planning and proposals need to refer to Mani as a whole, and then funding for smaller development projects should be distributed according to the particular characteristics of each area. In this way, the term “Unified Mani” will acquire reality and substance and will help bring maximum benefit to specific Maniot municipalities and their people.  

   During the 20 years since the first publication of our newspaper, we have been closely observing the course of events in Mani. In the past 20 years we have seen the merging of communities and local authority associations to seven municipalities in 1998 and to two municipalities in 2010. Since the municipalities are now only two, we would have expected that there would be increased possibility for achieving a common understanding and developing common development proposals. What we have observed instead was increased bureaucracy and lack of coordinated action. Instead of development potential, what we have observed is just simply managing everyday life in our region. During the past 20 years we saw minimal development in the public sector. There were few initiatives, which resulted in small public works that were carried out in a fragmented manner.

   Unfortunately, the Development Agency of Mani (Aναπτυξιακή Εταιρεία Μάνης), which was founded in 1994, initially tried unsuccessfully to bring common understanding and common action between the 80 municipalities and the 4 local authority associations of Mani. Ten years later, the agency became inactive due to different ideas that were formed after the changes in the local government administration. These new ideas and the bureaucracy of the state government resulted in separate development proposals, fragmentation and disassociation between different public work projects.

   After the last elections, it seems that a new situation is developing between state and local (both regional and municipal) governments, with a view to less state control and assigning more jurisdiction to local authorities. Hopefully this new trend will benefit the local development projects of Mani. The many voices of the municipal councils could have a positive influence on new proposals and projects. It would be a good idea if, not only new, but also older development proposals would now be discussed and re-examined, such as the ones that were presented in the OXE program (Πρόγραμμα Ολοκληρωμένων Χωρικών Επενδύσεων Μάνης) and integrated in the ΠΕΠ program (Περιφερειακό Επιχειρησιακό Πρόγραμμα Πελοποννήσου). An old project that really needs to be brought back to the table is the road Milea – Panagia Giatrissa, for which funding was already allotted in 2014, however, for the past 6 years the funds remain locked in the coffers of the Regional Fund of Peloponnese (Περιφερειακό Ταμείο Πελοποννήσου). We need to finally understand that Mount Taygetos is a unifying and not a dividing feature of the different areas of Mani. We need to remember that Taygetos is the mountain that has formed the special geographic and climatic characteristics of our area that attract tourists to Mani; it is due to Taygetos that our ancestors were able to stay independent during the centuries of Turkish occupation and it is due to Taygetos that they developed their free and fighting spirit, which we have proudly inherited from them.