A basic principle (many consider it a philosophy) for the full practice not only of our abilities but also for our definite benefit is that nothing is useless if we decide to properly process it. That holds for all aspects of our everyday life and every contact we have with those who are out to gain customers, political power and/or political safety is not an exception to the rule.
Every debate presented in assorted manners, now that the pre-election propaganda is climaxing as well as all sorts of speeches/ statements/ argumentation in talk shows and other kinds of public appearances offer innumerable capacities to see beyond the general convictions or impression we have for every politician/ political party and specifically see through the direct plans of each one. The only thing we need is to have in mind as a ‘decoder’ the following thoughts/ guidelines/ tools:
A. GENERAL RULES OF BEHAVIOR:
1. in the question asked, does the one questioned answer directly? A direct answer means that the one asked will not made an introduction to it resembling high school argumentative essays. He/she begins the answer with a short and concise answer (of the type “yes/no” or “I will do this following these rules/numbers/statistics/ absolute numbers”) which is followed either by a presentation of the steps towards the goal stated or by specific arguments substantiated to support (instead of being unrelated or irrelevant) the idea/statement with which the answer began.
2. in the question asked, does the one questioned respond with an attack? To attack means in essence to deny answering, unless the question demanded from the one questioned to make criticism of the adversary. In all other cases, however, through this policy we as listeners can infer that not only there is no different or sincerity or transparency but the one questioned is launching an impressions tactic, trying to divert the attention from his/her own self by turning negative attention where he/she is focusing, evading giving an answer he/she knows would undermine his/her profile, earning in the same time a few notches of sympathy from the audience, if possible. This occurs because it is a natural reaction to like anyone decrying an injustice and tend to assume that because he/she is decrying it, he/she is also fighting it. Careful, so that when that happens we have the discipline as mature and balanced Citizens to remember the former actions of those seeking our sympathy.
3. in the question asked, does the one question answer with an irrelevant comment? An irrelevant comment has the following structure in the answer of one being questioned: “Yes, there was a mistake made/ crime committed/ error/ problem/ calamity/ major destruction but no more errors/crimes/problems/ calamities/ major destructions occurred, imagine from what I must have saved you and don’t look at what I didn’t protect you from or what what happened cost you”. When that happens, what we, as listeners, must understand is that beyond the fact that the counsel of each one being questioned has not managed to find a viable excuse to whatever needs justification, the one being questioned is brazen, non-penitent and unabashed. Moreover he/she is informing us without pretense that if he/she is given the message that there is still tolerance for him/her, he/she will consider us unintelligent enough so harmlessly for him/her, he/she will go on to worse behaviors than up to now.
4. does the one questioned gesticulate/ use distracting methods? A tool that facilitates communication can also be used to stunt it or forge it to the will of the one using the tool. The excessively much and with the form of pantomime or over-stress/ metronome rhythm stress of assorted words in the phrases uttered (often with the words or phrases stressed disrupting the capacity to remember the ideas said, breaking up continuity) gives to the informed and intelligent listener the message that the speaker is secretive and with ill intent. The examples of pantomime-gesticulating and metronome stressing are excellently presented by K. Karamanlis and G. Papandreou respectively.
5. does the one questioned give the impression that he/she is addressing nursery children, slow-minded people or people speaking another language? When someone speaks almost in syllables or with very large and frequent pauses or with ‘refrains’ (i.e. the continuous repetition of specific phrases or figures of speech) regardless of the issue being discussed, must get across immediately to the aware and mature listener that beyond the fact that he/she is insulting and brazen, he/she is also a really bad actor who cannot juggle responses beyond the basic ideas and expressions given to him/her by his/her coaches. He/she is, therefore, a simple regurgitation machine without any capacity for thought. Expressing oneself with vocabulary or figures of speech or ideas given in a manner that does not match the audience addressed protects a speaker from the direct need to defend what he/she is saying, maybe, but it also shows that he/she has completely failed to make a simple and proper evaluation for communication. Any scientist/ craftsman/ professional can speak with the terminology of his/her science or field of expertise, excluding the non-initiated from the conversation. But everyone knows that when they want to explain to someone important that is not of their sector something that must or must not be done and why, they do so WITHOUT USING HARD-TO-UNDERSTAND LANGUAGE OR SPECIAL TERMINOLOGY/LINGO. Only when they want to cheat or convince that they are important and authorities do they churn out assorted terms/ methodologies without any or just partial explanation (that is a rule whether we are dealing with a painter or a politician listing Treaties/ people/ actions/ locations by name without also adding what they contain or mean or signify).
B. ON CONTENT
Because all the aspiring politicians-parliament members- government members are in essence participating in a procedure and a game where roles for the show have been allocated in a way that might convince the People that there is pluralism and Democracy, everyone tries to hide the fact with several tactics more or less successful:
1. Continual criticism of the adversary without essential mention-description-presentation of one’s own position: this methodology is applied mostly by representatives of the left wing (KKE – SYNASPISMOS, i.e. Communist Party – Communist- aligned Alliance) and aims mostly, as we have analyzed in the article dedicatedto the left wing, in not becoming a serious contender to the governmental position. We do have to say, however, that after the criticism of A. Papariga by us, a definite qualitative improvement has been noted in all the parameters we touched upon. But still there is no full dynamic as there should be if she herself did not represent a party with at least suspect stances regarding vital social issues.
2. Continual criticism of the adversary(ies) as an argument for selecting one’s own party through the logic of ‘lesser than two evils’: this methodology is applied mostly by N. Democracy (the right wing) as a basic manner of maintaining not only the governing power but also the abject lawlessness of unconstitutionality and anti-humanitarianism they are announcing to make more intense, because the other party will make this worse later.
3. Continual criticism of the adversary(ies) as an argument for comparing and hiding the former matching lawlessness and criminal activity: this methodology is applied mostly by PASOK (middle-left party) which, trying to use the level of anger of the People to blind them regarding the anger they also had for PASOK as well, is presenting itself as ‘renewed’ (regardless if all the basic members and ideology remain the same), as resistance to N. Democracy (the right wing party). We must mention here that the roles described in items 2 and 3 were reversed in 2004, and earlier on again reversed in 1983, 1989/90 and 1981.
4. Mentioning one or two ideas/ stances that are extremely appealing to the People as a cover for not further examining of the stances/ policies of the party/ alignment: A policy that in yesterday’s debate was adopted by the president of LAOS G. Karatzaferis (extreme right wing party) in one of the best displays of competence and presences in the political scene of the last months at least. Following several of the points a leader is obliged to cover and show he/she has, he mentioned the expropriation of the fortune of the church as a measure of his policy, that is something that the Greek People greatly desires to the point that it could even change the setting (as displayed by the policy of A. Papandreou on the subject). That can hide from or not turn the Greek Citizen towards thinking or remembering not only the shady relationship of G. Karatzaferis with the ousted Palace and the illegally and unconstitutionally titled andself-proclaimed king of Greece (while there is no regent Democracy or regency in Greece and the Constitution forbids the ascription of titles). The same can be said for the representative of the Ecologists-Greens N. Hrysogelos who, behind the vital subject of ecological soundness of Greece he seeks to withhold from the People the highly anti-Hellenic positioning he represents regarding matters of land and National soundness, that is, the very frame within which there can be everything else, from economy to ecology. That is, to protect Greece’s environment means primarily that we must possess it territorially and by title. His take on National matters such as the ones with Skopje, Turkey and the rest of the Balkan countries as well as the uncontrolled immigration that N. Hrysogelos has will lead to terrible and adverse changes in the say Greece will have for her own lands including the environment on them.
We should not, as listeners, feel bad or be afraid by seeing that in essence all the choices presented are bad or dangerous, if not catastrophic. There is always the choice that nobody wants us to realize there exists, that is the non choice of any of the available contenders of our life and fortune so that we can enforce self-determination through truly Democratic processes such as Referendums and the application of the Constitution and Human Rights.
We must, on closing, note that just the fact that throughout this article we have been listing manners and tricks of deception and handling of the People as well as ways to neutralize them shows the span and size of the fear and difficulty they have presenting outraging views and intentions to the People, trying despite the rage they are causing to avoid having it befall them as godly wrath in the manner of the Popular saying “The Voice of the People is God’s Wrath”.
The behavior of the leaders of the political parties upon exiting the debate building, and especially the frightened and desultory manner with which K. Karamanlis stole glances all around him, with his well learned frozen expression, as he rushed to enter his bullet-proof limousine displays just how well they are aware of the danger they are running before the true People.