“Mr Mitsotakis is a prime minister of aberrations, true to his family’s traditions.”
From his very first sentence to Antonis Sroiter, Nikos Androulakis left no room for misunderstanding. He did not attempt to develop a political rationale. He chose to strike by innuendo, to trigger memories and to bring the debate down to where tension substitutes for argument. On the floor.
The reference to “family traditions” is no accident. It points directly to a culture of political targeting that has deep roots. It recalls the logic of Avrian, the newspaper that marked an entire era, not for the quality of its words, but for its aggression, personal attacks and silent quibbling. Where the opponent was not dealt with politically, but morally and personally annihilated on the front page.
Androulakis often appears as a defender of institutionalism. But this particular position shows something different. It shows a politician who, under pressure, returns to tried and tested recipes for tension. The involvement of Constantine Mitsotakis, a man no longer alive, adds nothing to the substance of the debate. On the contrary, it reveals an intention to impress. And a heavy stench of Aurianism.
The question is why now. The answer lies in the intensifying competition. The possible return of Alexis Tsipras with a new political entity is changing the landscape of the centre-left. And when space narrows, politics becomes more aggressive. Not more substantive.
In this environment, the contradiction becomes apparent. The same politician who talks about “status quo” and institutional aberrations is the same politician who was involved in discussions with the government about the positions of heads in the independent authorities. There, the tone was different. There, there were no complaints, but negotiations.
The picture that emerges is clear. Two faces, two measures. Public denunciation and behind-the-scenes collusion. And above all, a rhetoric more reminiscent of old practices than a modern political proposal.
Finally, Androulakis has not renewed the political vocabulary. He recycled it. And in its most worn-out version. If this is the answer to the challenges of the times, then it is not an alternative power proposal. It is a return to what is most divisive has been tried and tested. In other words, he is faithful not just to some “traditions”, but to those that society itself has left behind decades ago.
</html
