Government spokesperson Pavlos Marinakis was asked during a briefing with political editors to what extent the new parties could reduce the New Democracy party’s chances of winning an outright majority.
“Whether we manage to secure a clear mandate depends on how convincing we are with our track record, the implementation of our program, and how much citizens believe that our program for the next term will be the best possible choice. It has nothing to do with what the other parties will be, without underestimating them. When there is a specific political narrative from them , with a cost estimate, then we will have that discussion. Personal agendas do not constitute a political proposal.”
The goal of the New Democracy party, as he said,“remains to be self-sufficient once again; the citizens will decide. This goal of ours is not an end in itself but stems from reality: the lack of a programmatic discourse among our opponents, our own policies, the assessment we will make, and the statements and decisions taken by the other parties. PASOK itself has provided the answers. “Androulakis’s PASOK is one thing, and the PASOK of the late Gennimata or Venizelos is another.”
Specifically regardingAlexis Tsipras, he said: “A lot of communication, a lot of image—all of that matters, but I don’t see any substance. No faces, no programmatic discourse, no self-criticism. The point isn’t to become the next Barcelona, but to propose costed policies —and certainly for a former prime minister, we want to see what he has to say; so far, we haven’t heard anything interesting.”
Regarding the letter from European Prosecutor Kovesi and the concerns she expresses about the government’s recent legislative initiatives, Mr. Marinakis responded:
“As soon as we receive the text of the letter or become aware of it, we will respond institutionally as a government to everything. Based on the leaks, reasonable questions arise. We are talking about two areas of discussion. One concerns the judiciary’s decision to renew the terms of its officials; obviously, the government does not interfere in this.
The second concerns the much-discussed legislation. The intention was known both generally and specifically to the European Prosecutor. It does not undermine the functioning of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in our country; on the contrary, it strengthens the investigation of cases. Given these undisputed facts, a question arises. Certainly, the best answers regarding the rule of law in the country do not come from us, but by European and broader institutional actors who observe a picture that is completely at odds with certain reports and the slander of some Greeks against their own homeland.”
When asked about Antonis Samaras and what he said in Parliament last Friday, Mr. Marinakis said: “It is not my job to analyze the motives behind the statements of former prime ministers. We respond with facts and reality itself; we have proven that we do not water down our stance, we do not discuss issues of sovereignty and sovereign rights. We will wait to see what is legislated in Turkey; Greece will do everything required and will not allow any red line to be crossed.”
On the issue of wiretapping, he said that “in Western democracies, the investigation of such cases is handled by the judiciary; we trust it. It has issued three rulings at the highest level, and from there on, it remains to adjudicate the case of the four private citizens. As for the opposition parties’ walkout of Parliament during the relevant debate on the establishment of an investigative committee, it demonstrates a lack of respect both for the role of Parliament and for the citizens’ vote. Politics is conducted through debate, not through walkouts; this is part of a broader strategy to create a climate of polarization in the absence of a substantive policy agenda. As for the substance of the matter, in the previous vote the government did not vote against the motion; it abstained without raising any side issues, but now it has voted against it. The opposition’s own stance over the years in a number of cases demonstrates just how much they respect the confidentiality and secrecy of proceedings.”