I had lost interest in the SYRIZA devolution after it sold out Macedonia, and after it turned NO into YES in the 2015 referendum.
Already, however, the situation within it must create complex concerns, not only for the future of SYRIZA, but also for the entire country. And this, because it is about the need to have a worthy official opposition.
It is, in principle, arguable that the likable, otherwise, Mr. Stefanos Kasselakis, is justified in not having absolute control of our language, because he lived for years abroad.
However, the allusion to the "state", I am sorry to say, that attributing it to poor handling of language does not seem quite convincing to me. Furthermore, and because the event is itself terrifying, for reasons that I suppose are obvious, it should not be seen as an exclusively partisan problem, since it is clearly national.
It is, of course, possible that those who support Mr. Kasselakis, I would say without hesitation, know more about it than all of us, and that's why they don't seem to worry.
However, in the bitter position that Greece is in, with threats from many sides, its worst possible choice now would be to risk similar statements to that of Mr. Kasselakis in the future.
Therefore, in order to convince the voters of Syriza, and not only, but also the entire Greek people, that the "state" was a bad moment, which cannot be repeated, there was a sure way, which, however, for unspecified reasons, was not was followed. That is to say, that the vote had been preceded by a televised discussion of all the material, between all the candidates, for the leadership of Syriza, such as ethnic, economic, immigration problems, and any other issue deemed necessary.
I would argue, moreover, that such a debate should be the norm whenever someone is running for a position of responsibility for which there is more than one candidate. I believe that in this way accusations of nepotism, which sometimes correspond to reality and sometimes not, would be avoided, and above all there would be a safety valve regarding the suitability of the person selected.
In particular, in the case of Mr. Kasselakis, I believe it is now clear that this discussion/confrontation between the candidates was absolutely imperative. And this, even though it is very likely that Mr. Kasselakis is absolutely excellent, and exactly what Syriza needs. However, given that he is a contender for the leadership of the official opposition, who emerged suddenly and out of nowhere, as a rising star, special caution is required. Let me repeat that it is by no means excluded that Mr. Kasselakis is indeed the Messiah who will save Syriza, and who will prove valuable for the quality of Greek political life. But what if it is not so, and it is something quite different? Since, unfortunately, the unknown, as is the case of Mr. Kasselakis, necessarily has an unpredictable content.
So, how much better and safer would be the expectations of Syriza, to become a respectable official opposition or even a government again, if this necessary, in my opinion, discussion had preceded it! But, and how much, unfortunately, the doubts and fears are increasing, about what might arise, in Syriza, as well as in Greece in general!
A mystery, indeed, without an explanation at the moment, regarding the reasons why Syriza did not hurry to avoid, as it should have, possible mishaps, in the case of Mr. Kasselakis.
https://www.newsbreak.gr/politiki/509896/ti-mporei-arage-na-symvainei-sto-syriza/
photo https://efsyn.gr
