Good morning, friends!
Kyriakos Mitsotakis already knows whom he could govern with if he fails to secure an outright majority. He also knows that this potential partner does not want to govern with him. And just like that, the problem is solved. Or, more precisely, shifted elsewhere.
Speaking yesterday at the “Greece Talks” conference, the prime minister reiterated that New Democracy is seeking an outright majority. Not simply because he considers it preferable for effective government. But also because, in his view, there is no other realistic route to forming a government.
He rules out a coalition with parties to the right of New Democracy and with Alexis Tsipras. That leaves PASOK, which has resolved at its party congress that it will not enter a coalition government with New Democracy.
So, in the prime minister’s view, an outright majority is the only option. But this is where things get difficult.
First, Mr Mitsotakis is not simply looking for a coalition partner. He is identifying in advance who will be held responsible if none can be found. If New Democracy emerges as the largest party but without a parliamentary majority, Mr Mitsotakis is signalling that he would seek an agreement with PASOK. If it refuses, as it is currently declaring, the prime minister will be able to argue that he did his duty and that the responsibility for the impasse lies with the opposition.
This is a politically astute tactic. The failure to secure an outright majority is recast as the failure of others to show responsibility.
Second, the prime minister is preparing the ground for the possibility of another election. The so-called second ballot. He is not announcing one. On the contrary, he insists that the election is a single process and that the largest party must explore the possibility of coalition agreements. But if those efforts fail, who will be blamed for another trip to the polls?
The answer is already taking shape: it will not be the person who failed to secure the votes needed to govern, but the person who refused to give them.
Third, this strategy is aimed primarily at New Democracy voters.
The message to those considering switching to smaller parties to its right is clear: your vote will not help form a broader centre-right government, because I rule out such a coalition. If you want a New Democracy government, vote New Democracy.
In this way, an outright majority is presented not only as a political objective, but as an insurance policy against a failure to form a government.
There is, of course, another side to the story.
PASOK has every right to refuse to enter a coalition with New Democracy. It is not obliged to support a government simply because the leader of the largest party wants it to.
But it must answer an equally important question: if no party emerges from the election with an outright majority, what governing arrangement does it propose? Refusing to join a coalition is a political position. It is not, in itself, a proposal for governing.
This is precisely the trap for Nikos Androulakis. If he sticks only to “no”, he risks appearing to be a source of deadlock. If he leaves the door open to an agreement, he risks weakening his central opposition message.
Finally, there is another contradiction.
Mr Mitsotakis cites the difficulties coalition governments face in Europe to defend the effectiveness of single-party governments. At the same time, however, he acknowledges that he would explore a coalition with PASOK if the election result made it necessary. That is logical. Politics requires adapting to the balance of forces.
But that means coalition governments are not by definition a recipe for paralysis. They are a legitimate democratic option, whose success or failure depends on those involved, their agreements and their ability to govern.
The more the prime minister explains why there is no alternative to an outright majority, the more he draws attention to the possibility that he may not secure one. After all, if it were more or less a foregone conclusion, he would not need to prepare so insistently for the day after.
Kyriakos Mitsotakis is therefore not just trying to win the election. He is also trying to win in advance the argument over how its result should be interpreted.
If he secures an outright majority, he will have been vindicated. If not, he will be able to argue that the others refused to govern with him.
But an outright majority is not the largest party’s right. It is a mandate from voters. And if voters do not give it, responsibility for what comes next cannot be shifted in advance to a single political opponent.
The ballot box delivers mandates. It does not hand out alibis. And the failure to form a government cannot be blamed in advance on those who refuse to support it.