In the general framework of the communicational policy being applied by the entire political scene, not only by the governing party, it is the right time to analyze why New Democracy fell and how the completely unexplainable behavior of K. Karamanlis can be explained along with the manner that his profile is attempted to be reconstructed and why.
After the attempt by K. Karamanlis in the ITF of 2008 to impose on the Greeks a policy highly anti-democratic (of the type ‘I rule and arbitrarily order’) and completely thieving and supporting to thieves and unethical not only con men but also traitors (see Zahopoulos case, the Vatopedi land swap, etc), which failed miserably, we observe that he intensified the displays of incompetence and vileness (himself as well as his administrations) which climactically increased in scope and severity, with the epitome being the murder of Alexis Gregoropoulos and the second great fires of 2009.
Also, we see that he made no effort to improve his image via a general projection of his absence from current events and finally his so-called ‘political suicide’ of calling for early elections.
Of course it would be superficial to say that K. Karamanlis was an idiot of such levels that he would do all in his power to anger the People or listen to anyone who talked to him indiscriminately, as it is now being said regarding his advisors. His activity as some kind of monarch is not due to a lack of knowing the audience from which he would ask approval for the third time. He proved that when in 2004 the roles were reversed and PASOK was the one playing the role of the crazy totalitarian while he was the much-promising pro-People, ethical and organized proxy of the People. Therefore, there was another reason for this sort of grossly obvious behavior.
In essence much was achieved after the first failure in the 2008 ITF: the goal had been the full subjection of the People to the great capital holding interests (see our analysis of his speech in our matching 2008 article), which however did not work and instead completely turned the tables, pushing the People to the first phase of political awareness: anger and indignation.
Since, therefore, the effort to ‘show who’s the boss’ failed and had a reverse reaction, a very important issue presented itself: if the People already had the wish to oust K. Karamanlis for simple anti-People policy related to the economy and because he refused to punish those who gave away National lands, it became clear that he wouldn’t be able to impose on the People what has been programmed by the EU and NATO/USA, i.e. the dispersal of the borders, uncontrolled colonization of Greek soil, official ownership of huge land expanses by a few ‘aristocratic’ families and possession of state infrastructure completely by matching private parties-progeny of dynasties and multi-national corporations (in the governing councils of which there are such dynasty members).
So, there was need for someone else who would be able to do it, and another paving of the way in order for the attempt to succeed: thus K. Karamanlis became more and more totalitarian, more and more grossly anti-humanitarian and anti-Constitutional achieving the following two things:
1. have the People turn to ‘anyone else but him’ in order to be rid of him
2. be able to apply, liquidate and vote in laws, decrees and selling of National property quickly and essentially without being interested in the political cost.
In the same time, he ensure that he would shine through his absence regarding communicational policy (i.e. what was projected through the mass media) and therefore a great part of the popular wrath would be shared with or transferred to other members of his political party or his government (not without them also objectively deserving it, but in any other occasion this image would not have been allowed to be projected).
So when everything was ready, he called for the early elections (the fires had just been over), knowing full well that he was not going to be elected and furthermore cultivating as much as possible the assurance that he wasn’t going to. This explains the mass turn of the mass media against him, including classic supporters of him.
On the night of the elections, began the reconstruction of his profile, characterizing him unfoundedly (after his speech that night) as ‘brave’, ‘responsible’, ‘with guts’, ‘sincere’ because he ‘paid for’ the unacceptable course as PM with fifteen minutes of admission and seeming sorrow for the defeat. And that, (the ‘shambles’), was commented on as a blow so heavy that made him withdraw from politics. We must note that his uncle had also withdrawn from politics after a murder and similar political moves as his, until he was ‘called back’.
PASOK now in essence is floating on the lifeboat that K. Karamanlis made for them, and in this alibi, making relabelings and changes in the structure of administration (including changes of staff from top to bottom, with more indirect ways than in the past age of the green party followers of the 1980s) but no actual change, meaning in taxation, internal and external policies, the canceling of basic laws and decrees costing the state huge losses such as the lands of the Vatopedi case, the Olympic land/ properties that were liquidated, the ports, the roads, the public state enterprises and the stolen capital of the public cashtills, and so on. Also, since they do not allow for Justice to persecute the enemies of the People who should have been declared illegal since PASOK itself as parliamentary opposition had characterized the shutting down of Parliament (before the Euroelections) anti-constitutional and therefore illegal.
Considering that G. Papandreou speaks of reviewing the Constitution to correct laws contained in it, surely he would have been able to use this unconstitutionality as a legal way to reopen all the cases that closed during New Democracy rule and tear down all laws they voted for that were unconstitutional. The fact that he is not doing so showing that he doesn’t want to do it and that the whole process of succession from one political party to the next, now and earlier is just to show the People that things ‘change’ from totalitarianism when it becomes clear that it is going to be abolished in other manners by the People (actually and not superficially) without the capacity for control by the ‘ruling class’ if this change does not take place.
That, then, is why N. Democracy fell: because the People demonstrated that they are still too combative to allow for the antisocial, anti-humanitarian and anti-popular decrees to be passed and that they need still to be manipulated, not directly terrorized into totalitarianism.