The pre-election period constitutes a “sensitive” time for the political system. The pursuit of a majority result that will lead to governmental power causes the parties to give a “sympathetic ear” to demands of local societies, as these are presented through the documented petitions of their representatives. “Good conductors” for the transmission of these demands are the parliamentary candidates of each party. They act as go-betweens, bringing local demands to party leadership and getting commitments to address them. By doing this, they hope that voters will reward them with their vote and that they will be among their party’s elective representatives. Local societies that have brought forward worthy representatives in local government bodies—municipalities and regions—as well as in other collective expressions of their areas, plan their interventions jointly, draft well-documented proposals, and schedule meetings with political figures, party representatives, and parliamentary candidates. The final success is securing acceptance of their proposals emerges as a result of the organisation and documentation that has preceded it.

For Mani, which constitutes a single geophysical space, one that encompasses approximately the territorial areas of its two municipalities (δήμοι), it emerges naturally that the road to success of its developmental proposals passes through the formation of a common framework of demands and the procedures for promoting it to the parties and the candidates. This is dictated both by the interests and the needs of residents and property owners in the area, who see its economic development and the strengthening of their household budgets through the generalised benefits that will be generated by the public investment program. It is a widely acknowledged fact that public works in the area lag far behind private investments, and the need to bridge the gap between them presents itself as a just demand and a social necessity.

When social needs are visible, representatives of social bodies have a duty to rise to the occasion and to overcome personal entanglements, selfish or inherited suspicions, and exaggerated projections of grandeur—usually nonexistent. The lessons of our local history, and their projection onto the present horizon, guide us as to how we should act and what we should avoid. It is worth recalling the great achievements of Maniot arms in the liberation struggles of 1821, when local leaders acted with unity and cooperation, as well as the ill fate—for them and for our region—whose echoes reach our own days, created by their divisions and rivalries. We may mention, briefly, the conflict between the Mavromichalis and Mourtzinos families, which weakened the families themselves and brought lasting disrepute upon our land through misguided and traumatic actions caused by their lack of cooperation.

The unified Maniot territory urgently calls for the creation of unified proposals and their joint, forceful promotion toward the political system during this pre-election period. No one needs to look at a map to recognise the necessity of a radical reconstruction of Mani’s central axis, what the old Maniots called the “Maniot road.” The new highway that reaches Kalamata and Sparta speaks for itself as to the need for its completion through the upgrading of the remaining road section so as to connect its two ends with a road of reliable quality. Until now, the presentation of related demands over the past three decades has been countered with the argument that Mani’s rocky terrain requires very high levels of funding for radical interventions along this axis. Nevertheless, wherever and whenever individuals were active and mobile within the political system, significant interventions were advanced on certain sections of it. We note the high-budget interventions on three sections of the Gytheio–Areopoli route, despite the serious objections we have raised regarding budget overruns and the overcharging of supplementary works, which constitute the evil demon of public projects. We also note the failure to advance substantial interventions over the past thirty years —except for the new Koskaraga bridge— on the Kalamata–Areopoli section, with the Kampos–Stavropigio bypass having been under study for thirty years, consuming budgets that approach the amount required to execute the project itself!

It appears that the fragmented pursuit of funding —separately by the municipalities, at the level of Messinia by one and at the level of Laconia by the other—has produced this reduced effectiveness. Mani’s administrative division between two prefectures (νομοί) ninety years ago, and the replacement of maritime transport links with overland road openings seventy years ago, have given strong impetus to distancing ourselves from the perception of Mani’s land as a unified whole. This approach, however, is superficial and opportunistic, as contemporary realities confirm. We note, for example, the obvious: the strong tourism asset of the Diros caves could be accessed quickly and easily from the airport in Kalamata via a reliable road. The same holds true for the Kalamata market of 60.000 inhabitants, serving the households and businesses of all Mani’s regions.

It is not the intention of our newspaper, nor of the association that publishes it, to issue admonitions to the elected representatives of Mani’s local communities. Our sole aim is to express the need for self-awareness that Mani’s history imposes upon the psyche of us all. Let our representatives note this view and utilise jointly the opportunity for Maniot affairs that the prolonged pre-election period in which we find ourselves has created.     

THE EDITORIAL BOARD