The decision by Kyriakos Mitsotakis to open a direct political confrontation with Antonis Samaras may prove to be one of the greatest strategic blunders of his prime ministerial career.
And this is not because Antonis Samaras is currently the leader of a major parliamentary party, but precisely because he does not need to be one to inflict serious damage on New Democracy.
The prime minister should have been better acquainted with the character of the former prime minister.
Antonis Samaras is not a politician who forgets easily, he does not abandon a fight lightly, and, whenever he feels challenged politically or personally, he can become almost obsessive about confrontation.
This is well known in the political arena.
Therefore, the question is why the Maximos Mansion chose to offer him exactly what he needed: an open war and a central opponent.
Kyriakos Mitsotakis, instead of ignoring him, opted for irony.
His remark that Antonis Samaras possesses «know-how» in harming ND was a phrase that may have aimed to rally the party base, but at the same time achieved something far more significant: it elevated Antonis Samaras to the status of his primary political interlocutor.
Strategic errors
And that is the second strategic blunder.
When you clash publicly with someone, you inevitably grant them political space.
You turn them into a protagonist. You offer them an audience.
You compel them to respond and, crucially, you create the conditions for a segment of the political faction to begin listening to them again.
Furthermore, Antonis Samaras possesses something that the Maximos Mansion cannot afford to ignore: access to dissatisfied party cadres and to a substantial portion of the right-wing electoral base that has drifted away from ND.
According to political assessments circulating within the party grassroots, at least 500,000 right-wing voters have abandoned New Democracy.
If a fraction of these voters feel that Antonis Samaras once again embodies the traditional values of the movement, then the problem confronting ND ceases to be merely theoretical.
Indeed, there is also a numerical figure prompting political concern.
In the elections of 2012, amidst the harshest years of the Memorandums, New Democracy under Antonis Samaras garnered 1,192,103 votes.
Conversely, in the European elections of 2024, during a period when the Mitsotakis government was at the apex of its political power, ND received 1,125,510 votes.
This is noted because Kyriakos Mitsotakis mentioned following his interview that ND secured 18% in the first elections of 2012.
The comparison on its own does not convey the full truth, as these were distinct electoral contests held under differing circumstances.
However, it demonstrates something difficult to overlook: the electoral influence of ND is not indestructible, and its right-wing base cannot be taken for granted.
Better not to have turned the rivalry personal
For this reason, Kyriakos Mitsotakis had every incentive to avoid engaging with Antonis Samaras altogether.
Neither he himself, nor the Maximos Mansion, nor his ministers and senior party officials should have been feeding him daily political oxygen.
Even more so, attacks ought to have been avoided by those who politically matured or returned to ND via the Samaras era.
Because when several prominent figures of the current administration joined New Democracy under Antonis Samaras (such as Adonis Georgiadis and Makis Voridis) and now appear as his fiercest detractors, the political paradox is obvious.
The prime minister had the option to leave Antonis Samaras talking into a void. Not to elevate him into a central player. Not to hand him the opportunity to portray himself as the guardian defending an «old» ND against a «mutated» ND.
He chose the opposite course.
Now the conflict is wide open.
Antonis Samaras now possesses the motive, the audience, and every justification to press ahead.
www.bankingnews.gr
Readers’ Comments