A. A. Tsipras has focused in the first weeks since the founding of ELAS on introducing new faces—including defectors from PASOK—and on communication.

At the same time, by capitalizing on the weakness of the other parties in the opposition, it appears to have gained momentum over the past two years. In the first round of polls, it stood at 15.3% in the vote projection, and it now appears to be hovering between 16% and 17%.

Not bad at all, but the campaign has only just begun, and no political development ever unfolds in a linear fashion, whether upward or downward. A. Tsipras knows he has two plus one problems: his track record as both the opposition and the government, which has consistently resulted in 65%–70% opposition to him, the absence of a comprehensive program that offers new ideas and is inspired by fresh perspectives, and, of course, the potential reactions and political initiatives of former allies who feel he is belittling them and want to respond in some way.

However, the most fundamental problem is the Platform, because its absence has already become apparent when new faces, ELAS officials began proposing taxes on everything under the sun or saying unbelievable things. A. Tsipras realized what was about to happen, and that is why, in his latest interview, he rebuked them somewhat humorously, but very dismissively. However, the founding of Alexis Tsipras’s new political party, EL.A.S., was accompanied by announcements of a “new Metapolitefsi” and a different model of economic policy.

There are proposals he himself has put forward—not some unknown new official—specifically regarding DEI and bank taxation. The question that arises, however, is whether these positions represent a genuine renewal or merely repeat policies that have already been tried, revealing an obsession with and an inability to move beyond outdated notions. The new rhetoric may be phrased differently, but—according to many—the essence remains the same.

Let’s focus on repetition of the proposal essentially for a state-owned Public Power Corporation. In Greece, it has been proven that excessive political interference in a publicly traded company can limit investment, negatively affect its competitiveness, and create uncertainty in the markets. Striking a balance between social mission and economic sustainability remains a difficult challenge.It is well known to everyone that PPC’s financial situation in 2019 and today is fundamentally different, and this directly affects its ability to act as a stabilizing force in the electricity market.

In the summer of 2019, PPC was facing serious financial problems. For example: Cash reserves were particularly limited, and there were even warnings of liquidity problems. Overdue customer debts exceeded 2.5 billion euros. The first half of 2019 showed losses of hundreds of millions of euros. The company had a high level of debt and was struggling to finance new investments.

Its dependence on lignite-fired power plants, which were burdened by the rising cost of CO₂ emission allowances, was worsening its financial position. At that time, there were even international reports that characterized PPC as a high-financial-risk company. The picture today is completely different: it shows steady profitability, has significantly higher operating profits, has much better access to international capital markets, is investing billions of euros in renewable energy sources, has acquired the Romanian company Enel Romania, and is evolving into a regional energy group, maintaining a stronger credit rating compared to 2019.

PPC is no longer considered a company struggling to survive, but one of the largest energy groups in Southeast Europe. Its Business Plan includes investments of 24 billion euros by 2030 and a 4 billion euro increase in its share capital.

The financial strength it has built up from 2019 to the present is of enormous importance not only for the company but also for the lives of citizens. You don’t need a deep understanding of economics to grasp this. When a company is operating at a loss, as it was in 2019, it cannot easily absorb part of the increased costs. If it attempts to sell below cost for an extended period, it puts itself at risk.

In contrast, a financially strong PPC can: temporarily absorb part of the increases, set competitive rates, put pressure on private suppliers to lower their prices so they don’t lose customers, and offer discounts or special programs without jeopardizing its viability. This does not mean it can sell permanently below cost. It does mean, however, that it has greater leeway in its commercial policy. We saw what a strong PPC means after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Following the Russian invasion in 2022, natural gas prices skyrocketed, and with them, wholesale electricity prices across Europe.

In Greece, the response was based on three pillars: government subsidies for utility bills, taxation of a portion of excess profits in electricity generation, and an active commercial policy by the Public Power Corporation (PPC). PPC repeatedly announced discounts on its bills, which forced many private providers to adjust their prices to remain competitive. The company would not have been able to implement this policy if it had been in the same financial situation as in 2019.

This is precisely where questions arise regarding Tsipras’s stance. What positive impact would nationalization have, when the Greek government already owns 35% of its shares? Is it an obsession? Is it an ideological stance? Is it a signal to old comrades: “Don’t think I’ve abandoned my leftist beliefs”? Doesn’t he understand that if the company is forced to systematically sell below cost for social reasons, it risks returning to a state of financial weakness, ultimately shifting the burden to taxpayers or its shareholders? Has he not seen the PPC’s progress reports and failed to grasp that the challenge for any government is to leverage PPC’s financial strength as a tool for market stabilization without undermining its long-termsustainability and its investment capacity?

What is certain is that the claim that Alexis Tsipras is presenting “new positions” will be challenged to the extent that several of his key proposals are simply a continuation of older, well-known policy choices. This is a fundamental problem that A. Tsipras must address in the coming period, since no party has ultimately convinced the public that it is new when it simply repeats old ideas that have failed, even with new faces.

Let’s not forget, however, that the public debate is not just about whether the proposals are new or old, but primarily about whether they can be implemented without undermining the country’s growth, investment confidence, and the country’s fiscal stability. This is the real criterion by which they will be judged by the public.

* The article was published on Liberal.gr