By ZEKE MILLER AP White House Correspondent WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump will host Jordan's King Abdullah II at the White...

Global News Through a Greek Lens
Global News Through a Greek Lens
The assessment of a prime minister’s contribution to the development of his country is determined by the ability to distance himself from party identities, political stereotypes and the breadth of his vision. PASOK leader Costas Simitis’ first four-year term from 1996 to 2000 brought Greece out of a historical phase in which significant social and institutional interventions were carried out, but was also characterized by continuous fiscal deficits, inflation, weak growth, deindustrialization and uncertainty about the future. His second four-year term (2000-04) sought to place the country on a more solid developmental, extroverted and international political trajectory, to give it the credibility that a member of the European Union should have and to reap the benefits.
In particular, his second term was characterized by an attempt to bridge perceptions that were being overcome by the new era, with the adoption of the euro and the economic, technological and other developments of globalization. However, after securing Greece’s accession to the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), the social and political scene was dominated by the constant search for resistance or even conflicts and the insistence on maintaining shaky achievements, which were not related to any kind of collective goals or values. The consequences for the country were not a concern.
At the beginning of his second term, the changes in identity cards and the reform of the social security system were two major areas in which political tension proved sterile or negative. What happened after the IDs changed? No one was particularly interested. What happened to social security? Eight years later, a huge economic crisis erupted, a near bankruptcy, serious pension cuts, and much more. Analyses document the strong presence of a generalized refusal of Greek society to accept and incorporate modernity and evolution. Although political and social contradictions are an element of the functioning of a democracy, a society that simply refuses everything, indifferent to a better version of what it rejects, simply undermines its path to the future. We lived this very scenario.
There is a lot of discussion about the reforms in Simitis’ second four-year term. Yes, large and small reforms and adjustments were needed. As before, and after, and to this day. But initiatives in this direction were faced with a culture that had been cultivated by the country’s recent history and a tangled political past. So, some were achieved, and they succeeded. Others were partially carried out, others came to nothing at all.
Leaders are judged – and compared – by their mistakes, but also by their successes, and the end result of their policy for society. Everyone, without exception, has made mistakes, and Simitis was no exception. It would be comical, however, to evaluate the contributions of each leader by their mistakes instead of their positive results. Simitis’ second term brought the country into European processes.
Through reforms in the organization of investments, he implemented the most important – quantitatively and qualitatively – public investments, which we have all been enjoying for 20 years. He ensured excellent economic and social performance. Through reforms in the country’s foreign and European policy and the positions he took on the major problems of the EU (such as the invasion of Iraq, enlargement and integration of Cyprus, cohesion policies etc) and the organization of major projects (such as the 2004 Athens Olympics) which gave a uniquely distinct and positive identity to Greece.
Perhaps the even greater contribution of Simitis’ governance – both first and second terms – must be sought in more obscure fields: in his effort – in a society that was enchanted by an imaginary past, resisted rationality and ranked collective values low – to introduce rationality into politics, to contribute to the realization of part of the great expectations of 1974, to ensure a better future for the people of Greece, for which he had fought since the 1960s, and to achieve a balance between economic, social, political and international politics, so as to build a future with a better starting point. The success was partial. It was worth it.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Dynamis Media Group llc, NeaProini.gr or NeaProini.us. Any content provided by our authors and/or contributors are of their opinion and are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual or anyone or anything.