For years, a significant part of the Greek political system learned to operate with an extremely simple and effective recipe: it constructed dipoles . It limited the political debate between two people, two parties, two supposed worlds and then invited the citizen to choose. Not necessarily the one that really expressed him, but the one he considered less dangerous than the other .
This system worked. And it worked for years.
The logic was simple: if you can’t convince the citizen to vote for you because they trust you, try to get them to vote for you because they fear your opponent .
This is how the Mitsotakis-Tsipras duopoly was built and dominated for a long time. On the one hand, New Democracy, on the other, SYRIZA. On the one hand, the fear of Tsipras’ return, on the other, the need to remove Mitsotakis. The political confrontation was personified to such an extent that many times a vote for one is actually a vote against the other .
But at some point this recipe started to run out.
Society grew tired. Political interest waned. Abstention grew. And with it grew a segment of the electorate that no longer wanted to choose between the two solutions offered.
When the old dipole began to lose its strength, a search was made—consciously or not— for new packaging for the same product .
For a while, the Mitsotakis-Kasselakis formation appeared in the spotlight. Political communication, social media, personal image, a different way of public presence and an intense discussion around identity issues and the so-called woke agenda . For a while, there was noise. However, no corresponding political current was created.
The product did not sell.
An attempt to give the Mitsotakis-Androulakis duopoly more weight followed, with PASOK claiming the role of the main opposition force. However, this version also failed to create the momentum for a real political upheaval.
And here begins the really interesting part of the story.
Because in a political scene that seemed to be desperately searching for Kyriakos Mitsotakis’ next opponent, a factor emerged that could hardly fit into the known balances: the public differentiation of two former prime ministers and former presidents of New Democracy itself, Costas Karamanlis and Antonis Samaras .
Their interventions on foreign policy, the Greek-Turkish relationship, Europe, and the party’s course acquired particular weight precisely because the criticism did not come from the traditional opposition . It came from people who governed the country and led New Democracy.
And especially in the case of Antonis Samaras , the discussion took on a different dimension when the possibility of his more active political return began to be raised.
That’s where the game changes.
Because a potential new political entity that would attempt to appeal to New Democracy’s traditional, patriotic, and socially conservative base would not simply compete with the government from the opposite side of the political spectrum. It would question the very ability of the current ND to represent its entire historical space.
And that is much more difficult to deal with.
It is not surprising, therefore, that the debate surrounding Samaras has become so intense. Nor can it go unnoticed that old political conflicts, cases, and entire periods of his political career are resurfacing in the public debate.
Some may consider this criticism justified. Others may consider it an organized effort at deconstruction. The political interest, however, lies elsewhere: why is the possibility of a political movement that has not yet been announced causing such great excitement?
At the same time, Alexis Tsipras is making a dynamic return to the public debate .
And here political memory takes on particular importance.
Because Alexis Tsipras is not a new person who is now appearing for the first time asking for society’s trust. He was prime minister and therefore has a specific governmental footprint , which can and should be evaluated.
There is the third memorandum . There is the period of capital controls and the closure of banks. There is the Superfund . There is the Prespa Agreement , which caused deep political and social division. There is the Katrougalos law , which caused strong reactions. There is, finally, the political path of a party that from a government force ended in a deep crisis and successive divisions.
All of this cannot be written off because a new opponent is needed against Mitsotakis .
And yet, the impression is once again created that the political system is seeking a return to the familiar and safe format:
Mitsotakis or Tsipras.
Two faces we know. Two political paths we have already lived. Two camps that can easily be set up against each other again.
The old product in new packaging.
Only there’s one problem.
Society seems less and less willing to buy it.
And this is perhaps most clearly reflected not only in movements between parties but in abstention , in distancing oneself from the political process, and in the expansion of a social zone that essentially answers: “Neither.”
This is the message that the political system has difficulty hearing.
Abstention is not just a number on the electoral roll. It is not a technical problem that disappears once the percentages are divided among those who ultimately voted. It is a profound political message of alienation .
Hundreds of thousands—and in some cases millions—of citizens are no longer saying “I want the other.” They are saying something far more alarming about the system:
“I don’t want any of the ones you’re offering me.”
And when that happens, you can’t constantly blame the voter.
When people turn their backs, it’s not always the people’s fault. It can be the product’s fault.
And when a product doesn’t sell, there’s a temptation as old as political communication: instead of changing the content, you change the packaging .
New faces. New slogans. New logos. New communication campaigns. New dilemmas.
The basic scenario, however, remains the same:
“Either us or them.”
And this is precisely where the end of an entire political era seems to lie.
Because citizens have now seen the same play many times. They have seen politicians clash before the elections and later implement policies very different from those they promised. They have heard of “historical dilemmas” that were forgotten a few months later. They have watched opponents exchange heavy accusations and then come together on common political choices.
The public gained memory. And most importantly, it gained distrust.
This is why the discrediting of any political voice that is outside the predetermined dipole may ultimately bring the exact opposite result from what is intended.
When, instead of responding to a politician’s positions, you simply attempt to discredit his person, a part of society begins to wonder why you are so afraid of what he says being heard .
And when this method is repeated, it breeds even greater suspicion.
Here lies perhaps the greatest delusion of the current political system: it underestimates the memory of the Greeks. It underestimates their judgment. It underestimates their political instinct.
He believes that all it takes is a change of protagonists to fill the room again.
But the project is no longer selling tickets .
And when a play fails over and over again, at some point you have to consider the possibility that it ‘s not the audience’s fault. It’s the script’s fault .
Greek society does not need another artificial dilemma. It needs real political choices , clear positions, different proposals for the economy, foreign policy, demographics, security, education, social cohesion and Greece’s place in the world.
Above all, citizens need to be able to vote for what they believe in and not against what they fear .
This is perhaps the biggest message of the era.
Constructed dipoles do not die when the protagonists change.
They die when the audience stops believing the script.
And this time it seems that the problem for the political system is much bigger than finding the next “opponent” of Kyriakos Mitsotakis.
Because we may be facing something deeper:
It’s not just the protagonists who change. The era of manufactured dilemmas is ending.
MAXIMOS TH. KYPRIANOU
