Costas Arvanitis: the “talent” of Tsipras and his “manipulated” theories

The Kostas Arvanitis is undoubtedly one of the most talked about and often controversial figures within SYRIZA.

His career, closely linked to the trust shown to him personally by Alexis Tsipras, quickly made him one of the so-called “poulaines” of the then leadership. As the spearhead of the communications strategy of the once-strong Syriza party, Arvanitis enjoyed the president’s full support, turning his journalistic expertise into a frontline political weapon.

However, this rapid rise was accompanied by a series of statements and actions that many political observers now describe as a monument to political folly.It is noted that his tendency to slip into constant stumbles is not an accidental occurrence, but a repeated pattern that irreparably exposes both him and his political establishment, which often seems embarrassed by his moves.

According to political observers, the MEP’s rhetoric often straddles the line between populism and extreme aggression. This is because, for Arvanitis, political debate does not seem to be a process of exchanging arguments, but arena, where the “enemy” must be morally and personally eliminated.

A typical example is the incomprehensible attack he launched against Antonis Samaras, when his speech was not limited to harsh political criticism, but drifted into personal characterizations and derogatory expressions that soured even moderate members of the Left.

The attempt to deconstruct an opponent through insults revealed an aspect of his character that seems to prefer low-level conflict to substantive political debate.

To other observers, in his attempt to satisfy a fanatical audience on social media, Arvanitis took a hard line, confirming those who argue that toxicity is his only fuel on the political stage.

One of the darkest spots remains the handling of the “dead Maria” case in Evros. The MEP took the lead in adopting a narrative that turned out to be fabricated and orchestrated by foreign centers after the fact, causing serious damage to the country’s international image.

His haste to accuse the Greek state and the Security Forces of criminal indifference and “murders” of infants, based on unconfirmed information and dubious publications, was seen by many as a conscious choice to instrumentalize human suffering for micro-political gains.

Even after the full truth was revealed – that the incident was a sadly staged drama – the lack of self-criticism on his part was proverbial. The insistence on a stance that blurs the boundaries between reality and propaganda has reinforced criticisms of political irresponsibility.

On the occasion of the above incident, more than a few people argued that for an MEP, defending national interests should go without saying, but in the case of Arvanitis, the need for “opposition gymnastics”appeared to trump all.

His penchant for conspiracy theories and “spurious” readings of reality became even more apparent in his recent statements on the outcome of the last election. Instead of an honest, painful but necessary analysis of the structural causes of SYRIZA’s crushing defeat, Mr. Arvanitis chose the easy path of “tweaked” theories. He left clear barbs about the way the electoral process was conducted and the reliability of the results, implicitly questioning the popular verdict. This questioning of democratic processes, dressed up in the cloak of suspicion of dark centres and manipulation, was reminiscent of the rhetoric of extreme elements and was interpreted as a desperate attempt to create an internal alibi.