Blog

At the time of writing this text (July 10, 2015), efforts are intensifying by Greece and its partners to achieve not only the so-called "honest" agreement, but to find a solution to achieve the economic rescue of our country and its stay in the Eurozone, even at the last moment.
As the time limits are running out, the voices in favor of Greece's exit from the eurozone are becoming increasingly numerous. At the same time, however, the voices in support of our stay are also increasing, coming mainly from outside Europe and putting forward mainly geopolitical reasons. The alternation of hope and despair is reflected daily in the news reports, with the Greek people having acquired a passive stoicism, tired of the setbacks and regressions of the negotiating statements and efforts. The people's confusion was added in the last week by the painful consequences of the capital controls on banks (bank holiday) and the unprecedented and even insulting European ultimatum. 
The initial post-election and post-referendum enthusiasm has subsided, giving way to uncertainty about the future of Greece and doubt about basic national choices (joining the eurozone). Meanwhile, for months now, the Greek economy has been trapped in the marathon of negotiations, suffocating, and thousands of businesses are being driven to bankruptcy or decline, with corresponding consequences and unemployment. Capital controls have also dealt the final blow to the ailing economy.
The Greek crisis is attracting the attention of all economic organizations and experts with conflicting positions and different approaches and proposals. Ultimately, only time will prove which side was right (at least from the economic perspective) and this crisis will be the subject of study, teaching and doctoral dissertations for years to come. However, at the height of the crisis, it is possible to draw certain conclusions which we must take into account, on the one hand, in the ongoing negotiations (and those that will certainly follow if an agreement is finally reached) and, on the other hand, in the settlement of basic political, economic and social issues.
Understanding the functioning of the global economy (with all its pathologies) is the key element that will allow us to plan our movements on a realistic basis. The pathologies and injustices of the global economic system will not be resolved by our own rebellion and "suicide" but only through a gradual and well-thought-out and multifaceted effort by cooperating members of the system who will seek the cooperation of certain powerful players. Similar conclusions can be drawn regarding our participation in international organizations in which unanimity in decision-making is a safety valve for our national policy, provided that it does not become an instrument of continuous and unjustified confrontation on all issues based on ideological rather than national criteria and interests. With these data, we can understand the limits of our maneuvers in global affairs and wean ourselves from the obsessions of our national uniqueness and the constant and perhaps graphic invocation of our cultural and historical contribution.
In addition, we must understand our own diachronic choices and mistakes that led us to the accumulation of enormous debt without at the same time managing to establish the necessary institutional and state infrastructure. The squandering of community funds and the oversupply of loans (of course with the responsibility of the lenders as well) led not only to the shrinkage of every productive process but also to the prevalence of a culture of easy enrichment in an environment of corruption and lawlessness. The key responsibility lies with the political world and the entire society that tolerated the situation and sometimes drifted into extreme consumerism and general indifference under the blessings of our current partners and critics.
Only by understanding the reality and our overall responsibilities can we understand the real power that our current favorable geopolitical situation and position provide us with, with the basic premise of national unity in the effort to exit the crisis. Can we imagine the positive results that we would have recorded if our political leaders had negotiated from the beginning (2010 and after) the recovery of the country, cooperating with consistency, boldness and without petty political expediency and egoism?
Even at the last moment, there is time for a national understanding and effort that we hope will not be limited to a temporary theatrical acceptance of a painful agreement but will be accompanied by a sincere campaign for its implementation and improvement. It is comforting that the ruling party and the opposition parties seem to realize the need for a minimum of understanding and achieving a painful compromise. Even at the last moment, the distinction between the desirable and the feasible becomes understandable and we realize the limits of our capabilities and our maneuvers, as well as the consequences of our choices. Our society, with unprecedented composure, fortitude and amidst conflicting emotions and emotional manifestations, has recorded its political preferences and choices for the future of the country, even amidst misleading questions. It remains for the political world to assume its responsibilities and work, at least for once, away from petty political expediencies and obsessions. Every solution will have costs and consequences that will once again be shared by the people. At the very least, the political world, and especially the government, must offer it the hope of a way out of the crisis and recovery through a sincere and comprehensive coordinated effort and, above all, a fair distribution of the burdens. In such a coalition and effort, I believe that there will be a more positive response from our lenders and partners who primarily seek to secure their capital and profits and secondarily the stability of the problematic European structure, while maintaining short-sighted political insight.