The Debate’s Over: Where’s the Hope?

In order to come up with some sort of measurable result for the debate – I cannot comprehend why they refuse to use the Greek term! – among the seven (7) party leaders, we have to define a couple of criteria:

The first one is whether one of them distinguished themselves to the extent of being recognized as the leader of the pack.

The second one is whether a young person who was contemplating migration, after watching the dialogue, would decide to migrate or not.

In order to evaluate these closely related criteria, let us examine whether that long discussion was one of substance or not.

The obvious response to this, I would dare say, is that substance was the big absentee here. There was nothing new. No brilliant ideas to say the least. Speaking frankly to the people was what was missing big time too.

Nobody dared explain to the people the root cause of our current miserable situation; or the actual status the country is in now for that matter, and what should the people expect in the immediate future.

On a personal level, the journalists through their questions were able to highlight the credibility problem Mr. Alexis Tsipras has.

His short term as Prime Minister painfully demonstrates that he did exactly the opposite of what he was promising while campaigning. One could call this ironic or unfair, because at the end he did do – fortunately – the right thing; although in doing so he deceived his voters.

Of course his claim “we didn’t surrender, we fought a battle” is unfounded. He will go down in the annals of history as the Prime Minister who raised the white flag.

As for Mr. Evangelos Meimarakis, the New Democracy candidate, he looked sort of tired, somewhat indifferent. There was no “fire in his gut.” That might have been the reason why a journalist asked him whether he really wanted to be Prime Minister.

Nevertheless he should be able to present an image of a leader bringing starting out new, without the burden of austerity programs on his back.

I still feel compelled to mention that excluding Golden Dawn, a democratically-elected party, is absurd, and also likely to make them more popular, to the detriment of the country.

Therefore, the answer to the first question is that the leader the country needs so badly is not yet in sight.

Now, on the basis of the fact that the dialogue failed to create hope for a better future, would you care to guess the decision the young man or woman made on whether to migrate or not?