The Nikos Androulakis is attempting via Constitutional Review to emerge as an alternative force, reinvesting in denunciation and anti-militarism.
The joint meeting of the Parliamentary Group and the Political Council of the PASOK on the Constitutional Review turned out to be yet another political performance starring Nikos Androulakis, who attempted to dress in an institutional cloak his familiar oppositional weakness: his obsession with Kyriakos Mitsotakis. With heavy-handed references to “democratic awakening”, to “institutional decline” and to “political change”, the PASOK president tried to appear as the authentic spokesman of the progressive party, at a time when his own party has been unable for months to convince even its traditional audience that it has a clear governmental plan. The picture was revealing: a PASOK trapped between nostalgia for the era of high ratings and the agonizing need to find a political reason against a government that continues to dominate the political scene.
Nikos Androulakis attempted to present New Democracy as a factor of “regression“, arguing that a third term in government would lead to institutional decay and democratic crisis. At the same time, he brought back to the forefront all the familiar opposition narratives of wiretapping, Tempi and OPEKEPE, investing again in the logic of generalized denunciation. With an obvious effort to address both the centrist and the more left-wing audience, he spoke about the social state, institutional counterweights and protection of democracy, while he did not hesitate to present PASOK as the only “moral” political force against an allegedly “decadent” government. However, behind the high tones and theoretical references to Chatso and Manesis, the key element was missing: the convincing power proposal.
And this is where the real political problem for the PASOK president begins. Because the more he attempts to appear as “prime ministerially viable”, the more the more the strategic embarrassment of a party that remains trapped between the opposition rhetoric of SYRIZA and its inability to chart an autonomous course becomes apparent. The debate on the Constitution, instead of functioning as a field of serious institutional intervention, turned finally into yet another opportunity for anti-government slogans with academic investment.
The PASOK of “institutional indignation”
Nikos Androulakis has been trying for months to build a new political narrative on the concept of “institutional normality”. The problem is that this strategy increasingly resembles a communicative recycling of slogans without political depth. Every public intervention now includes the same words: institutions, transparency, accountability, democracy, counterbalances. Only the constant repetition is not enough to create power dynamics.
What is even more ironic is that PASOK attempts to appear as the guardian of institutional seriousness, while its own political identity remains blurred. On the one hand, it attempts to wink at the centre and moderate voters; on the other, it adopts almost unchanged the rhetoric of SYRIZA about “diversion”, “decadence” and “disintegration”. The result is a political hybrid without a clear stigma.
The permanent investment in anti-Metsotakism
In fact, Androulakis’ entire strategy seems to be based on the assumption that the deterioration of the government will automatically bring the rise of PASOK. It is a political logic that is extremely convenient, but also deeply problematic. Because it does not answer the basic question: why should a citizen trust PASOK as an alternative to governance?
The phrase “to defeat Mitsotakis” has almost become an ideological platform for much of the opposition. But the insistence on personally targeting the prime minister is not enough to constitute a government proposal. And this is exactly what was evident in the Constitutional Review meeting. Instead of a concrete vision of productive reconstruction, competitiveness or geopolitical strategy, the focus was again on denunciations and dramatic descriptions of the “decline of democracy.”
Ironically, the more the opposition invests in hyperbole, the more the government’s image of political stability is reinforced. Because the average citizen, despite the difficulties and individual disagreements, does not see a country in collapse. He sees a government that still maintains a strong European orientation, investment dynamics and political sovereignty.
The “big cuts” that remind us of an old recipe
PASOK’s proposals on justice, the criminal responsibility of ministers and transparency were presented as big institutional cuts. In reality, much of them sound either self-evident or already discussed for years in the public debate. The attempt to present the revision as a historic battle for democracy looked more like communicative hyperbole than a substantial political initiative.
Even more typical was Androulakis’ attempt to appear as a representative of a “new political ethics”. Except that PASOK still carries the weight of decades of power, clientelistic mechanisms and political contradictions. The invocation of “transparency” and “meritocracy” is therefore often heard as an attempt at political oblivion.
The great anxiety of political survival
Behind the high tones and the dramatization of the political situation, something else is strongly discernible: the anxiety of political survival. PASOK knows that it is at a crucial crossroads. On the one hand, it fears the return of Alexis Tsipras and the possible reconstitution of the centre-left around a new formation. On the other hand, it is unable to create a real current of power.
This is why Nikos Androulakis is constantly raising the oppositional tones. He hopes that through the conflict with Kyriakos Mitsotakis he will gain political clout. But political experience shows that citizens are hardly persuaded by denial alone. They also need a positive plan. And this is exactly what is still lacking in today’s PASOK.
In conclusion, the meeting on the Constitutional Review more confirmed the strategic deadlocks of Charilaou Trikoupis than it highlighted a convincing alternative proposal for governance. And as long as PASOK invests exclusively in denunciation, it will look more like a party of political protest than a force for power.
