I am totally against these attacks. Absolutely. Especially during ceremonies, because you honour history then not the people of nowadays. They themselves, however, must also understand that they are not the object of this honour and that they do not honour anything. This means that politicians, in turn, behave in an affected manner somehow. The National Day on 25 March is our history, not Mr. Minister on the stand. When people honour their history, politicians have to understand that we must honour the people and not believe that politicians are the representatives of history.
In this sense, I would say that it is more a matter of social agreement on certain things. Politicians, and I mean all politicians must shake off their arrogance and other vices. There is a very bad attitude on their part.
How would you comment on the attacks against the singer George Dallaras? What drives people to go to his free concerts, which are organized solely to attack him?
I repeat that I am firmly against these attacks. Today I read that he has interrupted his performances. I do not see what all those who went there to protest gained with their reactions. I do not understand this type of custom of generalizations. I.e. a party or a minister is responsible for something and because I cannot "attack" the party or the minister, I am attacking someone who I think is a part of the whirl. It makes no sense.
I am for symbolic, I stress, for symbolic acts. What they did in the Fthiotida area, where they said to some lawmakers that they will not greet them on the street and do not want to admit them to their homes is an interesting symbolism. People show their disapproval of certain political actions. The same can happen in case of disapproval of a professor, doctor, lawyer, artist, etc. This is one thing and it is quite different to go and throw yoghurt at someone because his opinion differs from yours. I do not understand the logic of this behaviour.
Do you think these actions can spread among the public and reach extremes? There is such a discussion in the media and especially in social media.
Look, I do not believe in extremes. When things go wrong, there will appear the crazy, the paranoid, the disillusioned, etc. Anyway, these phenomena are around us. Imagine such a person being entitled to have a gun. He will shoot someone just because he is crying very much, for example. They are "shooting" now in the social networks, but if extreme positions, practices do not gain political backing and do not coordinate subsequently, and "inspire," all of these actions will be sporadic acts of more or less discontented people, more or less well-balanced people.
What do those increasing extremes of the political spectrum portend?
Even in the presence of extreme political positions, democracy and confidence in institutions should be strengthened. It is impossible to go against them. It is impossible for a snake egg to scare us and make us hide in our homes, make us suspicious of everyone and have no trust in the state.
On the one hand, people are squeezed by a state government that is indifferent, inefficient and corrupt and on the other - by criminal gangs and organizations, representatives of political extremes. They cannot stay in the middle. They must decide where to focus. My opinion is that they are choosing to go to the side of democracy. They could not go elsewhere, despite the problems and shortcomings of this democracy.
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
