By This post is also available in: ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ (GREEK) TÜRKÇE (TURKISH)
At the end of the day, if the way to restrict the rise of ELAM is the total adoption of its rhetoric, what is the point of restricting it? And if the plan is to fully adopt its agenda, what is DISY’s reason to exist?
The presence of the entire leadership of DISY at Grivas’s memorial service, with a band playing, monopolised public dialogue last week. If someone saw Annita Demetriou’s expression in the photographs, in an embrace with Elli Christodoulidou they would think that she had just heard of Grivas’s death. The memorial service developed into a badly acted theatre performance, which touched on the credibility of the leadership (since it was in total opposition to what they had said last year) and made an absolute parody of political life. It also set the seal on the official turn of the new leadership to the extreme Right.
What is the direction that should be taken by the party is a discussion that began much before the new leadership took over. Some people put forward the need for the party to move in a more conservativedirection in order to limit leaks towards ELAM; others believe that the only way to stop its rise is through political opposition with it. For a long time Annita’s apolitical position kept the party away from decisions that could have led to conflict, and limited it to generalised statements. However, pressure from ELAM andthe realisation that this position was not stopping leaks, forced it to take a stance. And the choice made bythe leadership was to totally identify itself with the far right. In this framework, it hastened to start competing with the far right party and this has blurred all dividing lines: who will protect with greater passion and self-denial the institution of the family and the Church? Who will set themselves with thegreatest intensity against LGBTQ+ rights? Who, in their effort to honour Grivas will outdo the other inhistrionics and quaint antics? (with DISY the clear winner). Leading the party decades back in ideas and ways of thinking.
It is clear that by identifying itself with ELAM, DISY is attempting to satisfy its more extreme members and reduce leaks towards the far right party. But in effect, what it is achieving in the long term is the further strengthening of the far right. In its effort to capitalise on issues within its domain, it is fuelling public dialogue with the extreme right agenda. It is broadening its audience and appeal. By DISY raising ELAM up and making it a catalyst of developments, and no longer having anything original to offer to the discussion, it becomes a mouthpiece for the far right. If we look at what has happened in Europe, we can easily conclude that when right wing parties embrace the far right they do not stop flows of voters towards far right parties. On the contrary, in the absence of any response they have accelerated the far right’s rise, making it a serious alternative force. Far right parties have benefited from the hypocrisy and opportunism of mainstream parties.
Today, through its positions, DISY is normalizing and exonerating the far right rhetoric, annihilating its political capital, and doing away with its stake in political life. It is turning itself into a future pool for the right wing vote, as it expands its distance from the Centre and shrinks its core. However, in the long term it will reduce not only its penetration into society, but also the role of the party on the political scene. At the end of the day, if the way to restrict the rise of ELAM is by total identification with its rhetoric, what is the point of restricting it? And if the plan is to fully adopt its agenda, what is DISY’s reason to exist? How will it later convince that the far right and what it expresses is dangerous?
Annita Demetriou rose to the leadership of DISY and Parliament as representative of the new. From acertain point onwards her discourse developed into the very old. Now her words are matched by her political actions as well. Without carrying any political weight, she is unable to give a real direction to her party. This confirms how dangerous it is to be apolitical. For the result of apolitical thinking is a turn to the far right. Precisely the result of her inability to express political thinking, to put forward policies or an ideology. This also confirms the opportunism that characterises the new leadership. Since, given the way she operated in the past, it is clear that Annita does not adopt this particular agenda because she believes in it. Flirting with nationalism (which intensifies division in society), the questioning of rights, the choice of a political direction, are all done with absolute cynicism. Because she considers that in the short term this will give her access to a specific group of voters. And that is the worst of all.
Unfortunately, DISY appears unable to escape the dangerous vicious circle into which it has entered. A circle which began with the adoption of political nothingness and is evolving into political madness. With the result that in their effort to check the rise of the far right they have placed its rhetoric at the centre of the party. At the altar of some extreme votes they are sacrificing their last bridge with the Centre Right and liberal society. That which defined itself as the new is evolving into something extremely old, in an effort to keep DISY as the top party. In this effort, opportunism and political amorality are in abundance. And areleading DISY into thorny paths. And with it the country as well.
This article was originally published on 02.02.2025
Source: LEAN TO THE (FAR) RIGHT
