To Antonis Samaras, Member of Parliament for Messinia, here

Written by Manolis Kapsis

One of the first things future fellows learn when they begin their journalism training is that when we report, we avoid certain words. Such as, for example, the word boycott. It seems a bit insulting to those who live (or even reside…) outside of Athens, reminiscent of an ancient era when the countryside was synonymous with tardiness. It smells slightly of the gendarmes and the operation is heard over the radio. So we prefer an area that is also a bit technocratic.

I point this out on the occasion of those commentators, without injustice, who have pointed out to the reactionaries for the family law reform that the Mitsotakis government is trying, that it is different to be an MP in Athens, and to be a province, sorry, a different region. As Poulakis says, go ahead and explain the necessity of organization in the mountain villages.

But of course (also) this is the job of the representative. To clarify and persuade. Not just transfer requests and that's why we now have emails, we don't need to pay an MP.

To the difficulties we must also add the influence of the metropolitan province, and of the Church in general, even in the distribution of votes. How much more so when choosing candidates in the New Democracy ballot.

However, I think that all these difficulties do not concern Antonis Samaras, who has always been a proud member of parliament from Messinia. Who is elected even without a cross, because we truly believe that the presence of a former Prime Minister in Parliament can contribute to the political system and collective knowledge, because his experience is valuable.

But I am very afraid that Mr. Samaras – who is appreciated by an audience beyond the New Democracy Party, due to his positive contribution to saving the country during the Samaronisles period and also his initiative with the Dindias – will send a message that the drafters will do everything in their power to refute this admission. Or in other words, it is revealed.

Recently speaking to Kathimerini and wanting to express his disapproval of same-sex couples having children, he said the following:

The Cohabitation Convention for Same-Sex Couples “solved any problem of rights. Since then, if we recognized it as marriage, later on – in order to equalize unequal things – we would have to recognize procreation in same-sex couples. But children need parental role models of both sexes, they need – They have the right – to have a mother and a father, not the “first parent” and the “second parent.”

Yes Yes. That is, the former prime minister realizes the necessity of respecting the rights of gay people, and can even accept marriage, but he suffers from a problem in having children. Here lies the crux of his argument. But with the difference that Antonis Samaras was among those who did not even vote for the Coexistence Pact promoted by Syriza in 2015. Like others in his faction – and others in other factions let us not forget this too… – he made sure that he was absent from Parliament in the decisive vote. prisoner.

Since there is a human rights problem, as he says, and it had to be solved through a coexistence agreement, why did he not vote for it? Was he afraid of the Metropolitan?

He later made other statements. He also disagreed with abstaining from voting in the upcoming vote on same-sex marriage, as Kyriakos Mitsotakis suggested to the dissenters, so that they would at least not vote against the government's initiative. Save the excuses. When cutting the bar association cake in Kalamata (sic) he said:

“I know that all politicians have been asking the Greek people for years not to abstain from the elections and to vote in favor of the republic. Therefore, we will ask the Greek people to vote and not to abstain from voting, and at the same time we are asking the representatives and ministers to abstain from voting?”

A nice argument, although irrelevant – because abstaining from voting is a political act for representatives – but the problem is that he took exactly the same position with the Coexistence Charter. In other words, the former prime minister is doubly exposed, as Pavlos Marinakis (rather politely) reminded him.

However, Mr. Samaras came back, through his companions, and after wondering what kind of lesson Mr. Marinakis wanted to teach him – although I think he was clearly lying and contradicting – he asked a crucial question: “He does not know that the cohabitation agreement concerns legal matters for spouses.” Homosexuals, while marriage is about procreation, i.e. children, mother and father? But without again answering why it has not fulfilled its duty, at least with regard to the legal issues of same-sex couples. We will be left with the question.

We will still have the question of what Antonis Samaras is seeking. “I argue for the sake of existence” is one explanation, “I argue because I am bored” is another. The other theory, the scorpion theory, is far-fetched.

But I'm sure he himself sees it differently. He believes he will be vindicated in this matter as well. What he sees in front of him, he sees clearly and developments will justify it. Maybe this is a bit of his obsession. Justification. I remember he said the same thing about Greek-Turkish. That it is wrong to talk to Turkey because Erdogan has not changed his views, and how both the former prime ministers, he and Karamanlis (the junior and not the ordinary) can be wrong. It's a good thing he didn't remind us of Procopis Pavlopoulos.

I'm sorry to write this, but the former Prime Minister has no concerns about justice. The fact that developments in Greek-Turkish relations do not seem to corroborate his words is the least that can be said. But the future will tell us, even though the first signs contradict it. He was also not right about the memo, and now let him say many supposedly technocratic things. But what is certainly not justified is his political project. In the subject in which he invested his entire political existence. The case that thrust him into the political spotlight. Macedonian. Thirty years later, no one cares, no one discusses the matter, and no one fears the presence of a small state entity on our northern border. We did not suffer from anything that used the geographical designation in the name of their country. They did not steal our culture, our soul, or our heart. The shirt was empty, too much ink was unjustly spilled, we unjustly ran to marches with Macharistos, and we unjustly wasted too much diplomatic capital for too many years.

It's just that our minds were stuck in the past…