The background behind the conflict over the independent authorities is not just another parliamentary dispute.
It is an episode that reveals, in an almost blunt way, how PASOK perceives its institutional role as a tool of tactics rather than a guarantor of stability.
The public denunciation by the press spokesperson of the New Democracy party, Alexandra Sdoukou, that while there was an agreement on the formation of the Independent Authorities it was then cancelled, is not just a political spike.
If it is true – and as of this writing there has been no convincing rebuttal – then we are talking about a clear example of political unreliability, which erodes not just bipartisan understandings but the very core of the institutional functioning of Parliament.
Because the Independent Authorities are not a field for petty partisan maneuvering. They are not a lobbying tool to serve opportunistic balances. They are institutions that require continuity, consistency and – above all – honesty.
When a party appears to agree behind the scenes and backtrack at the forefront, the problem is not political. It is deeply institutional. Even more worrying is the apparent choice of Nikos Androulakis to invest in an opposition line that looks more like a conjunctural coalition than a coherent strategy.
The alliance with the Liberty League and other forces of the so-called “democratic opposition” does not follow from a common program or clear principles. It arises from the need for political survival in a changing and pressing landscape.
And herein lies the crucial point: when the political line is formed on the basis of which way the wind blows,agreements turn into worthless pieces of paper. commitments become expendable and institutions become collateral damage.
PASOK attempts to present itself as the “responsible second pole”. But the image it sends out is that of a party that says one thing in closed rooms and another in the public arena. One that signs consensuses and withdraws them when the political costs seem unbearable. That flirts with the rhetoric of denunciation, at the same time as it is supposed to defend institutional seriousness.
This attitude not only hurts the credibility of the party itself. It also undermines the possibility of any future understanding. For who can trust an interlocutor who appears to change his position from one moment to the next?
And let there be no illusion: the “democratic opposition” to which PASOK chooses to attach itself is not a united front of principles. It is a mosaic of reactions, often contradictory, that converge on only one point: opposition to the current government.
When this becomes the only glue, politics loses its content and becomes a sum of negations. The background, then, is not a detail. It is the essence.
And if the allegations are fully confirmed, then the question will not be whether PASOK made a mistake. It will be whether it can be considered a credible interlocutor on issues that require basic consistency.
Because in politics you can disagree. You can clash. But you can’t play with institutions as if they were bargaining chips. That’s where politics ends and the crisis of confidence begins.
At the end of the day, the problem is not a failure or a misjudgment. It is the conscious choice of a party like PASOK to walk in two boats, agreeing behind closed doors and then publicly reneging. That is why we are not talking about political tactics but political and institutional cynicism.
Nikos Androulakis cannot simultaneously pretend to be the guarantor of seriousness and the willing companion of an opportunistic opposition with the Eleftherias People’s Party as its ally.
The masks are coming off. And behind them is revealed a party that sacrifices its credibility for a few points of political survival. Anyone who instrumentalizes institutions eventually collapses with them. And then neither the system nor the correlations are to blame. It’s the choice.
Nikos Androulakis’ attitude reflects a permanent pendulum between institutional seriousness and tacticalism. PASOK appears to seek a role, but often ends up subverting it itself, opting for easy oppositional convergences instead of clear strategy. Thus, instead of establishing credibility, it is trapped in an image of political ambiguity.
.
