By Vasilis Polemitis
We are witnessing an endless “party” of incompetence and fear of responsibility, amateurism and a tragicomic attempt at managing impressions. This is not nihilism. It is a broadly accepted conclusion that sterile criticism and the wholesale dismissal of a government’s work, as well as crude and unsubstantiated negative labelling, contribute to rising toxicity, political polarisation and discredit. They also have a particularly negative impact on the morale of citizens and workers and undermine their sense of national and state pride. When, in addition, this climate spreads beyond the country’s borders, reaching international public opinion and the environment of those who make important political and economic decisions, which nowadays happens almost automatically due to media pluralism and the rapid dissemination of information, the damage is significantly greater. It affects quality investment, the attraction and return of talent and, more broadly, the country’s external appeal.
No one can claim that human societies are perfect. Corruption, amateurism, maladministration, crime, incompetence and superficiality have always existed and always will in any state. The question is that we should not encounter them so frequently in the individuals entrusted with managing our country.
Similarly, no political leader, no head of an organisation and no senior official is infallible, nor can anyone operate at 100 per cent of their capacity at all times. Naturally, no one is so fortunate that everything goes smoothly all the time. This is why method and planning are required, so that “protocols” and management plans exist for handling situations and operating mechanisms, especially when crises and misfortunes arise.
There is no need to provide examples to support the above. It is enough to underline that all this stems from the absence of ability and capacity. For the first, ability, talent is required, and unfortunately most of the political heads of our government ministries do not possess it. For the second, capacity, resources and procedures are required. We have neither. That is why we move from one embarrassment to the next.
The most unfortunate aspect of all this is that these individuals, who know who they are, do not submit their resignations to the President of the Republic once and for all, in order to facilitate him. That is what they should do. Alongside them, several permanent secretaries and senior officials of ministries and institutions surrounding the presidency should also resign. They too failed to advise effectively and to guide adequately their political superiors, as well as the President himself, as they were institutionally obliged and duty-bound to do.
Instead, we are watching an endless “party” of incompetence and fear of responsibility, amateurism and a tragicomic effort to manage impressions. This is not nihilism. It is a fact and contributes far more than any ill-intentioned or sterile criticism to the cultivation of toxicity and the erosion of the credibility of the government and the state, both domestically and internationally.
We would do well to recognise that with the image we project, beyond the damage caused internally, there will be corresponding negative consequences externally. If the impression prevails that our state is not “adequate”, to put it politely, then we will attract the corresponding level of interest from clients and partners similar to us in stature, prestige and “adequacy”, with the well-known consequences. We should also understand that even the few credible and high-level foreign investors who have operated here in recent years are unlikely to increase their footprint in our country when they see that, beyond the reasons that initially drew them here, we have not proceeded with the substantive progressive reforms we promised and that are required to strengthen our attractiveness in the known strategic sectors of the economy, as well as the efficiency and effectiveness of the state and government. Worse still, when they observe recent domestic developments and, more importantly, what we are doing or failing to do to manage them. They are certainly not positively impressed, nor do they feel “proud” to have chosen us as a base for their business, however problematic the country they came from may have been.