Αρχείο κατηγορίας MAIN ARTICLES IN ENGLISH

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY AND ITS WEAKNESSES

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…

HERD IMMUNITY AND THE NEED FOR SOLIDARITY BETWEEN MEMBERS OF DIFFERENT SOCIETAL GROUPS

The long duration of the corona virus pandemic, in addition to the pain and sadness that it has brought upon us, has caused the surge of various social phenomena, which academic research would find difficult to foresee and record. The range of the reactions of the public to the disease has been very wide, feelings of fear and self-protection were mixed, and the results were in many cases unpredictable. People’s behaviour during the first cycle of the pandemic was compliant and disciplined, but became very unpredictable during the later stages of the disease. To a large extent, the outbreaks of the disease that occurred in the later stages were fuelled by some of these later behaviours, creating in several areas problems of inadequacy in the treatment of those who became ill with the coronavirus.

            A year ago, we were all hoping for the production of coronavirus vaccines as soon as possible. When this became possible and the vaccines started to be distributed to the general public with the goal to vaccinate the entire population in a short period of time, divergent attitudes arose in a significant number of the population. These different mentalities, created another reason for the slowdown in the resolution of the pandemic situation, which could have been controlled through generalised immunity. There are mainly two categories of people who refuse vaccinations. Those who do so because of ideological beliefs are the easier to understand. The other vaccine deniers who base their denial on conspiracy theories, i.e. those who believe that a spying device is introduced into the body through the vaccine, are most likely influenced by the widely-spread science fiction films. In both of these categories of vaccine deniers, the main negative element is their lack of sociability. Cooperation and sociability are qualities that are  normally expected in cases of great common danger. In these situations, all societal groups are expected to follow a common course as directed by the state. The behaviour of those groups that avoid vaccinations is, in a way, understandable, since people are discouraged by the post-vaccinaton side effects that have in a few cases occurred. Fear for one’s life is an extension of the instinct of self-preservation, and such manifestations are, in principle, understandable behaviours.

            There is, however, a significant number of vaccine deniers whose denial lacks any ideological basis. They are those who are waiting for the rest of the people to acquire immunity in order to form that percentage of the population, about 80% of the total, which creates generalised natural immunity, the so-called “herd immunity”. This category thinks and acts on the basis of absolute selfishness. They want to avoid the (unlikely) vaccination side effects by acquiring immunity through the vaccination of others. This attitude, which, as an individual choice, is neither fair nor ethical, suffers from absolute antisociality. This mentality is not legitimate and demonstrates no will to conform with the norms of society or to cooperate with the rest of the people, while at the same time benefitting in many areas from the discipline and the efforts of the others. Antisociality becomes particularly dangerous if the percentage of the unvaccinated is high, as persistent mutations increase the risk of the new coronavirus strains. Due to the mutations, even those who have already been vaccinated are at risk of becoming ill, as well as the vaccine deniers, who, as unvaccinated, are subject to increased risks of the disease.

            The new universal experiences of an unprecedented nature gained in the past fourteen months, strongly reiterate the demand for SOLIDARITY. Recent developments in the disease caused by coronavirus have shown that there can be no absolute individual protection without generalised protection for all societal groups. All human societies, in addition to finding a commonly accepted way of life within themselves, are de facto obliged to pursue, and succeed in implementing, joint activities and policies of common necessity. The obligation to work towards this kind of initiative has become urgent after having experienced emergencies with devasting developments, such as the one that preceded the onset of the coronavirus pandemic and which is still in progress for an undetermined period of time. If, starting immediately, we implement policies of mutual cooperation on a general level and on a large number of issues of common interest, something good will emerge in the midst of the evils that are happening right now. Then the ancient Greek saying “there is no evil that does not contain something good” will come true in this case as well.

REFLECTIONS IN THE AGE OF GLOBALISATION – GOOD AND BAD EFFECTS

Globalisation or internationalisation is the expansion of all those parameters (economy, communication, etc.), which until a few decades ago were exercised restrictively within states. The parameters that tend to be projected beyond the borders of each state following globalisation include communication, social structure, technology, culture, political system, knowledge, etc. After the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, which has brought the whole planet to a state of emergency, a new dimension of globalisation has emerged: the spread of epidemic diseases. Individual states now need to concern themselves with global pandemics. Thus, the pros of globalisation are now mixed with the cons. Since we cannot reverse the conditions that have led to the present disastrous situation, constructive reflection needs to be directed to a way of managing the already existing crisis in all its dimensions.

                Why have we been unable to better manage this global crisis so far? The reason is the following: while globalisation is accompanied by generalised situations, the actions undertaken to address the pandemic were fragmentary and unilateral. This fragmentation and one-sidedness delays, and in many cases hinders, the implementation of solutions on a global level. An ideal solution for the rapid and effective response to the negative consequences of globalisation would be the management of the crisis by a single efficient body or, at least, the universal acceptance of the same strict rules of conduct enforced by all states and citizens. It is clear, however, that the institutions established after the two world wars, the League of Nations after WW1 and the United Nations after WW2, were equipped with minimal decision-making powers and meager financial means. This is why the global interventions of these institutions so far have brought few positive results. It seems that humanity is still far from fully integrating individual and societal interests and even further from integrating national and transnational aspirations. For this reason, under the present circumstances, we can only reflect on the defective management of the negative situations created by globalisation.

                Since the founding of the League of Nations in 1920 and the United Nations in 1945, several organisations of supranational activity have been gradually formed, closely or loosely associated with each other: the World Health Organisation (WHO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, UNICEF (an organisation for children), the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). If one wants to delve into their goals and areas of activity by studying their founding acts, one will find that the potential for effective interventions is weak and that the possibilities for generalised actions are very limited. The limitation of their potential for action is exacerbated even more by their meagre or selective funding, which is usually associated with terms and conditions that serve their sponsors. There are many reasons that limit the capability of these organisations to undertake universal interventions which would benefit the whole human race: the pathogenesis associated with their founding acts, their limited and selective funding and the rigidity caused by their bureaucratic structure and operation, designed mainly for the benefit of their high-level executives. Under these circumstances, the practical possibilities for generalised emergency assistance that could be provided to countries in times of need, such as the new pandemic, are significantly reduced.

                To this defective mode of operation of the international organisations has now been added a global (hence the name “pandemic”) threat to the health of all human societies on the planet: the new corona virus. If an independent observer analyses the actions taken so far in order to combat the pandemic, he/she will clearly see their fragmentary and closely micromanaged nature. With this new virus, which in the course of its spread and mutation does not recognise barriers and state borders, the control policies undertaken so far are limited to maximizing the protection measures within the internal borders of each state. International economic organisations and multinational industries are moving quickly in order to maintain their own rights and maximise their profits from the growing need for measures to tackle the pandemic. But are such behaviours acceptable? Should those who profit the most from the generalised benefits of globalisation refuse to contribute to tackling global misfortunes? Or, more specifically, should health industries ultimately benefit by increasing their profits with the new forms of vaccines required by emerging new coronavirus mutations, which are mainly due to the limited number of vaccinated citizens in third world countries?

                Let us hope that the long-term traumatic experience of humanity from the current new pandemic will help improve the conditions for the creation of a globalised efficient structure, with the sole purpose of preventing and protecting the health of the members of the human society as a whole, from any pandemics that may occur in the future.

UNITED MANI: REALISTIC OBJECTIVE OR UTOPIAN DREAM?

                It is historically established that in difficult times, when the independence of our region was threatened by external enemies, Maniots always joined forces in a united front to repel them. It is also historically proven that, despite cross-breeding with the new inhabitants, who for various reasons were arriving to our region, the original population nucleus was homogenised and uniform with common characteristics such as religion, language, customs, traditions and a strong desire for freedom. These observations are not in conflict with the traditional autonomy of the smaller areas of Mani and the autonomy of the families that lived there. The crucial question at the present post-modern phase of evolution of human societies, is whether it is necessary for Mani to face the future as a single administrative unit. The 200th anniversary of the revolution of 1821 is an ideal opportunity not only for celebrating, but  also for reflecting and finding answers to this question.

                On  March 17, we celebrated, in Areopolis, the 200th anniversary of the decision made by the Maniot warlords to join arms against the Ottoman conquerors in order to  liberate the Greek territories. This memorable date could be the starting point for reflection on the administrative reorganisation of our region. After the presidential decrees of 2020, which officially recognised the leadership of our ancestors in the national independence struggle of 1821, the highest representatives of the state came to this year’s celebrations in Areopolis. The Maniot leadership and vanguard were often mentioned in the official speeches of that day. This long-overdue recognition of the value and the huge achievements of our ancestors needs now to be furthered with corresponding political actions. One such action is an administrative restructuring, so that Mani can speak as one, with a common voice. This will give Mani the capability of a single expression, so that it can deal with the challenges of the future in a unified way.

                But despite the favourable starting point of March 17, there are many difficulties to overcome. The local representatives of our region need to have the appropriate moral stature, so that they are able to put aside individual aspirations in order to work for the common good. It is difficult to deal with the distractions created on a daily basis by petty jealousies and personal political interests. The only way to advance the goal of the administrative restructuring of our region is by studying the prevailing conditions and carefully planning the reorganisation process step-by-step. Of course, this can only be achieved by first establishing the desired form of administrative restructuring,  with which all representatives of polyphonic Mani must agree. In the recent past we have had two important successes, which can be considered as the first step for a wider unified administrative restructuring: first, the renaming of the Diocese of Gytheio and Oitylo to “Diocese of Mani”, which resulted in the resurgence of the term “Mani” as  the official name of our region; second, the final restructuring, in two phases, of the many communities of the region into two municipalities that again contained the term “Mani”: Eastern Mani (although not only Eastern) and Western Mani. These changes were made due to the cooperation and joint action of both local government and ecclesiastical officials. This element of cooperation between secular and religious authorities is a precondition for the positive outcome of any project aiming at the administrative unification of Mani.

                The disagreements between local government officials that followed the successful events of March 17 in Areopolis, brought again to the surface our traditional curse: the discord that is inherent in heroism. We need to exhaust all means, every resource and all bravery and inner strength, so that we can combat this divisive tendency. In order to advance the goal of the administrative restructuring of Mani, we need first, to eliminate the disagreements, and second, to get our local representatives to discuss with the wider Maniot community and reach an agreement on what kind of administrative restructuring is needed. Do we want a single municipality of Mani (Δήμος Μάνης) or a regional unit of Mani (Περιφερειακή Ενότητα Μάνης) in the Prefecture of Peloponnese (Περιφέρεια Πελοποννήσου), which according to the current electoral law, is a single-chair district in the parliamentary elections? Once we are clear on what kind of administrative restructuring we want, we can then reflect on both internal and external obstacles, but also determine the potential allies of our intended goals. Of course, once everything has been reflected upon and a common basis for action has been drafted, then we can mobilise all potential allies and we can bring our common plans and aspirations to the institutional decision makers.

                The general recognition of the leadership, the courage and the sacrifice of our ancestors during the independece war of 1821, as was shown above, is a very strong basis for legislation, by way of exception, for the administrative restructuring in our region. The granting of special legislation to Mani will  express a minimal reward  from the state and political leadership of the country for the immense sacrifices and contributions of our region to the war of independence and to the Greek state in general.  

                                                                                                                                ΤΗΕ ΕDITORIAL BOARD

200 YEARS SINCE 1821: THE CURRENT DIFFICULTIES LEAD TO RENEWED CALLS FOR UNITY

                    It is customary that the centennial or bicentennial anniversary of an important event be celebrated by organising commemorative ceremonies. These celebrations, in addition to reviving historical memory, also call for comparisons between then and now, and for a critical reflection on events that happened during the intervening period. This holds especially true for important events that concern an entire nation, such as the rebirth of the Greek Nation that emerged as a direct consequence of the Greek independence war of 1821. In this article we will reflect on both the one-hundred and the two-hundred year anniversaries since the beginning of the Greek Revolution. It seems, however, that in both 1921 (one-hundred year anniversary), and in 2021 (two-hundred year anniversary), the conditions were not favourable for a calm contemplation and evaluation of the events. The Asia Minor Campaign in 1921 and the COVID-19 pandemic at the present time brought about emergency situations of the utmost importance which needed immediate attention in order to avoid high-level risks. Emergency response measures to these events had to be drafted and  implemented, while commemorative celebrations were deemed of only secondary importance. In 1921, due to the Asia Minor situation, it was decided to postpone the commemorative ceremonies until the year 1930; this would be the one-hundred year anniversary since the founding of the modern Greek state after the signing of the Treaty of London by the three Protecting Powers (England, France and Russia) and the acceptance of its terms thereafter by the Ottoman Empire.  In the current year, the two-hundred year anniversary since 1821, most events so far have either been postponed, will be offered online, or will be implemented on a reduced scale in areas where heroic events took place. Any festivities planned for the coming months will depend on the evolution of the pandemic, and might be deferred or even cancelled.

                    However, commemorative ceremonies always produce strong visual messages and their cancellation may, in a positive way, cause us to reflect on the problems that we have faced as a nation since 1821. That is, the present cancellations may lead us to a deeper analysis of what has happened during the entire period of freedom from the revolution until now. This deep reflection, if it is related to the difficulties that arise during the management of the pandemic, can bring to light many negative elements, created by our attitudes and mistakes during the last two centuries. Such a reflection will help us understand the frequent disagreements between politicians and citizens, which in many cases have led to divisions and civil unrest. It is these mistakes in critical periods of our national life that led to national tragedies and prevented the complete incorporation of all the unliberated parts of Hellenism into the modern Greek state. During the current phase of the pandemic, disagreements have taken a different form: a significant percentage of citizens have refused to be vaccinated against Covid-19, by invoking the exercise of individual rights, guaranteed by the Greek constitution. The invocation of these rights, however, has caused negative social repercussions and infringes on the constitutionally guaranteed right to protect the health of the wide community.
                    We will mention two very important periods: those after the end of the two World Wars. Although we were on the side of the winners both times, due to lack of national unity, our country was deprived of the possibility of incorporating  into the national body unliberated areas with dense Greek populations. After the First World War, Eastern Thrace, extending all the way up to the outskirts of Constantinople, was  assigned to Greece, but due to disagreement between Prime Minister Venizelos and king Constantine, not only we were led to the Asia Minor Catastrophe but also we were forced to evacuate the whole coast of Asia Minor, as a prerequisite for the signing of a ceasefire. After World War II, due to the British military support during the Civil War, we tacitly resigned to claim the incorporation of Cyprus into Greece, as Great Britain had promised at the beginning of the war, while we almost lost the Dodecanese as well!
 
                    In this anniversary year, while reflecting on the critical events of the years 1820-1830 and the messages that they send to citizens and politicians, we should focus on the tragic figure of the first Governor of Greece, Ioannis Kapodistrias. It is our duty to remember his superhuman efforts to expand the borders of the newly-established Greek state as much as possible and to found a well-functioning state on a non-partisan basis and with fair rules of law. We have an obligation to reflect on the consequences for our nation of the loss of this great man. It is important to remember his selflessness and to emphasise at every opportunity his tireless efforts to achieve political unity. Finally, as a token recognition of his contributions to our nation, we have the obligation to embrace the  ideals and the policies he pursued; this is necessary for the safe course of our country in the future.

GREEK SOCIETY AND ECONOMY IN A STATE OF LONG-TERM INSTABILITY

   Two hundred years after the revolution of 1821, our country is once again entering into conditions of uncertainty and insecurity similar to those that prevailed during the long submission to the Ottomans. The new coronavirus not only hinders the organisation of anniversary events which require large public participation, but also undermines the psychology of the citizens and their financial stability because of the uncertainty about how much longer the pandemic is going to last. However, just as during the independence struggle we had the obligation to fight, taking into account all the details of the events that ocurred on the battlefields, so in the current conditions we have the obligation to evaluate all the data available, so that we can minimise the individual and societal risks from the coronavirus and its many mutations. Especially we, Maniots, descendants of the heroic warriors of that period, we have the obligation to show the same effectiveness as they did in fighting all kinds of dangers, under the present conditions.

    The pandemic and the many measures undertaken for the public’s health protection, have caused a severe slow down in economic activities, thus creating large government deficits. Responding to its social mission, the state, despite the reduction of its revenues due to the sharp reduction of economic activity, has tried to provide subsidies to companies and large groups of citizens, so that, as much as possible, businesses and employment are kept at pre-pandemic levels. This complex landscape, due to the uncertainty in the evolution of the pandemic, creates the need for elaborate prohibitive measures for the present as well as the foreseeable future. This need is becoming even more urgent because our country had already been in a bad debt situation even at the beginning of the pandemic a year ago. The increase of the public debt to twice the gross national product (GNP), in combination with the  repayment plan of reduced installments only until 2032, require measures based on foresight, sound decisions regarding the distribution of subsidies and maintaining significant monetary stocks in order to deal with unforeseen situations. The risks of a new financial crisis after the pandemic remain high.
 
   In order to address all these risks, our partners in the European Union have implemented different strategies. For example, in Italy there was a government crisis due to its policy of diverting a significant part of the money owed to the Recovery Fund towards repaying the country's high debt (it must be mentioned that their debt is much lower than ours…), while in Great Britain the super-conservative government decided to pay the government deficit, which was created by implementing measures to support those affected by the economic crisis, by taxing the rich! Our government has decided that the revenue from the Recovery Fund be directed to projects and actions that aim to modernise the development of the economy in order to, through the attraction of private investment, achieve high economic growth rates. This approach was chosen because it is believed that it will lead to increased government revenue, thus making it possible to meet our high debt obligations without imposing new taxation.
   Of course, the efficiency of all measures is judged by positive results, which, however, cannot be foreseen. This effectiveness can be achieved through the thorough adherence to the implementation design in the stages of development and through the strict observance of intermediate deadlines. We will be able to judge the effectiveness of our country’s program after its final approval, which is expected in the coming months. Until then, however, we have an obligation to draw attention to the long-existing tendency for fraud and corruption that prevails in several strata of the Greek society, both in the private and in the public sector. We have already observed this tendency even at the present preliminary stage of implementation: there have been twice as many applicants for subsidies as those entitled! This makes us suspect that there has been long-term concealment of assets and tax evasion.
 
 
 
 
   Let us hope that the mechanisms for allocating the Recovery Fund resources aimed at overcoming the effects of the pandemic and advancing our economy, will be strengthened by the appropriate measures to eliminate wide-spread corruption. The ordinary citizens should follow these developments, which so far have been directly related to the preservation of the positive measures already taken by the government. 
 
                                                                                                           THE EDITORIAL BOARD

WILL THE SECURED E.U. CAPITAL OF €32 BILLION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE GREEK ECONOMY BE USED TO BEST ADVANTAGE THIS TIME?

The coronavirus pandemic has temporarily put a stop to the economic development of almost every country in the world. This stagnation has created many debts, and measures have to be taken to make up for the losses. The European Union, after difficult negotiations, has decided to make financial loans available to its member states. Most of these loans will not be paid back by the states that will receive them, in order to thus help close the growth gap that has been created. One of the most notable terms of these financial allocations is their absorption by each member state over a predetermined, relatively short, period of time. If funds are not spent within that strict time frame, non-absorbed funding will be withdrawn and redistributed to other member states that have exhausted their allocated funds. This strict condition brings to mind the phrase: “time is money”, first used by Benjamin Franklin in 1748.

   The question is whether the organisation of the Greek state, and especially those related to the design, planning and execution of public works, have the necessary capability to comply with the full and effective absorption of funding, according to the tightly defined terms set by the EU. Unfortunately, the answer to this question, based on our experience so far, is negative. However, this does not mean that, if new administrative and managerial approaches are implemented and if strict conditions are set in time at each stage of development, it is impossible to overcome this negativity. We will list below some of these conditions:

   1) At the top level, the governance of our country so far creates confidence in the intentions for change for the better. But intentions are not enough, if they are not accompanied by the right leaders who will implement them. These leaders must not only believe in these intentions, but also have the required managerial ability. Two actions taken so far give us hope: first, the preparation of the plan of compatibility with the conditions set by the Recovery Plan, which was submitted to and was approved by the Summit, and second, the selection of a Minister with recognised managerial ability, who will be responsible for the implementation of the projects.

   2) The next phase, i.e. the selection of projects to be implemented, has to be based objectively on real needs, so that the best future prospects for our country can be realised. The degree of achievement of the selected objectives will show in the coming years if this phase was successful. The technocratic staff that will be selected to draw up coherent and realistic programs of projects, in addition to the necessary technical knowledge, should also steadfastly believe in the goals set by the legislative and executive authorities.

   3) It seems that the next stages, i.e., the many phases of completion of several small and large projects, will be met with the big obstacles that have been plaguing the Greek public administration for a long time. These obstacles (parasitism, private interest transactions, distancing from the common public good and much more) have been recorded many times, but so far have only been addressed to a very limited extent. In general, obstacles of this kind that prevail in our country are very difficult to deal with effectively through the usual ways that have been attempted so far. An intelligent plan for dealing with these kinds of obstacles was designed in the mid-2000s in regards to major highway construction projects. Unfortunately it has yielded limited results due to the ensuing ten-year economic crisis and also due to the change in mentality of the following administration. This approach was reflected in the relatively transparent terms of the tender and the contracts that followed. Quality construction was ensured through the provision for long-term maintenance by the manufacturer at no additional public expense, but mainly through the creation of competing interests between contractors and lenders.

   4) It has been established, for several years now, that the effective treatment of the entrenched unhealthy conditions in the public administration can only happen through radical institutional reforms. The incompatibility between being a Member of Parliament and a Minister and the introduction of an electoral system similar to the one in Germany (single-member constituencies for the election of half of the Members and a list for the other half) could be two of the most substantial initial reforms. Such changes, which separate the legislative from the executive power, lead to the democratisation of the functioning of the parties, link MP’s more closely to their constituencies, and can serve as a form of policy-modelling with a view to assimilating and operating beneficially in the overall political community.

   The average citizen, the one who suffers from the ills of the above-mentioned public administration, remembers the huge funding provided to our country in the forty years since its accession to the European Union and can, without making detailed calculations, see the disproportionately small beneficial effects on the economy, society and the natural environment. For this reason, he/she wishes and hopes that this new, perhaps last, opportunity will bring fruit.    We, the people of Mani, hope that many of our compatriots, who hold high-level positions at all levels of the state administration and regional self-government, will not forget their place of origin and, finally, will make sure that Mani will get its share of the projects that is entitled to from this latest financial package

2021: CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM AFTER A LONG REFLECTION ON PAST EVENTS AND SITUATIONS

Time is continuous, but we, humans, like to slice it into intervals… We do this in order to do all kinds of measurements and calculations during the limited course of our lives. Time, however, moves at its own speed which for humans is hard to comprehend. Events happen in time scales that do not reflect human life times. Humans need to carefully re-examine past events and situations and draw valid conclusions that will help us now, as we move forward. The reflections in this introductory paragraph are the basis for a short analysis of last year’s events and some thoughts on the new year 2021.

            Events of 2020 have erased all erroneous expectations that life on our planet will continue to progress and prosper. Most of us used to believe that health, employment, security and, most important of all, democracy, are based on reliable and steady risk prevention systems. We had forgotten, after many decades of peace and normalcy, that the relations between nature and society are dynamic and that the balance between the two of them can be negatively affected by fluctuations of power and by unforseen new elements that come up and cause changes and events catalytic in nature. The new coronavirus pandemic that humanity is currently experiencing proved wrong the consensus that the Spanish Flu pandemic, which happened a century ago, was the last one. It has reminded us that all countries have to cooperate and develop common stable health policies. We have now internalised not only that public health is the most important public good, but also that emergency, exceptional and temporary measures can adversely affect other sectors, such as the economy and employment.

            In our country, we have clearly observed once more that the policy of “putting things off for later” and the extensive corruption in public administration are not just data for statistics, but also the causes for the big imbalance between us and our neighbouring country. This power imbalance was what fuelled the Turkish provocations, which we experienced many times this past year. Finally, the ludicrous political events that are unfolding in the USA remind us once more that the populism of the working classes can severely threaten democratic systems. The unfair distribution of wealth and the poor efforts by the state to provide education for the young are the main causes for the rising populism.

               Now that mobility is limited due to the pandemic, our extended stay at home gives the opportunity for everyone, citizens and government, to examine all the events of the past year and reflect on the causes. In this way, everyone (citizens as well as their representatives, the politicians) can cooperatively and coherently move from the surface to the deeper causes, and contribute by all performing their own duty. It seems as if last year’s disasters can be reversed, but only if individual actions are carefully co-ordinated. Vaccinations and effective medication as well as the experience gained in the treatment of the disease, are all positive developments in the course for radical treatment of the new pandemic; however, we need to form a unified stance on preventive measures. Subsidies for workers and businesses affected by the coronavirus, combined with favorable loan repayment terms and new lending, can counteract the negative effects on the financial sector, as long as they are not abused by parasitic tactics, as in the past. The strategic alliances which we are steadily forming, the careful, although late, planning for the purchase of military equipment, and the recent election results in the USA, all strengthen the sense of our national security.
 
               In our region, it seems that the low population density, a product of the special way of social coexistence chosen by our ancestors, has limited the expansion of the new pandemic, while the generally positive effects of the new motorway have greatly supported the finances of the people who live and work in Mani. In matters of national security, the disposition to protect our national sovereignty, as we inherited it from our ancestors, is considered given, permanent and essential. All that remains now is to formulate a firm desire to fight populism. A key factor in promoting this goal in our region is to enhance the effectiveness of our schools, which now face the added difficulty of integrating the many children, who come from foreign families permanently settled in Mani, into the national and local culture.
 
                                                                                                           THE EDITORIAL BOARD 

A COMMON VISION FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY IS NECESSARY FOR DEALING WITH THE MANY CURRENT ADVERSITIES

     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.

CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC: ATTITUDE SHIFTING FROM FEAR TO FRIVOLITY

   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.