For it is entering an inextricable maze when one thinks how easily smiles in photos are prevailed by the most refined western politicians to be bought by the un-refined, subduable Arabs who have forgotten the wisdom of their 10th century poet, Al-Mutanabbi, when advising, “If you see the canine of a line, do not think that the lion is smiling at you.” Very soon therefore, the lion will paws restlessly at everything that was formerly owned by the Arabs, roaring the closing of the curtain, to indicate the ending of the theatrical play. Perhaps it is better for one to leave their seat in the audience and travel back in history and time to understand how, firstly, the Middle East realm that were united in the Arab peninsula, got divided into lands and boarders.

One, consequently, would discover through the work of historians who Virginia Woolf points out “records not opinions but facts,” that the west had put their hands on this as well through their secret accord of Sykes-Picot agreement which was conducted in May 1916 between Great Britain, France and with the consent of Russia, for the detriment of the Ottoman Empire. The existence of this was diffused to the world through the break of the 1917 Russian Revolution.

What this agreement wanted to accomplish is gaining power and control over the Middle East and its surrounding lands. The French were to be given control over Syria, Lebanon, South-Eastern Turkey, and northern Iraq; whereas the British were content with owning power over Southern Iraq, Palestine, Jordan, Arabia, and areas surrounding the Persian Gulf. Jerusalem on the other hand, was to be ruled by an international body. One needs to clarify that these two western powers didn’t ‘own’ these territories in the sense of the word, but controlled the governments and its administration (achieving the division of the area: dividing based on economic factors) and thus, one is permitted to use this term, in this context.

Consequently, one is required to learn about their past for a better understanding of their future. To divine this future would be exemplified through the study of history which roots through the blossoming of remembrance.

Herodotus, “whom Cicero called pater historiae,” embraced the task of history Arendt writes, in order “to save human deeds from the futility that comes from oblivion.” Should Arabs remember their past accordingly would elevate their status from that of oblivious to a more dynamic one approaching ahead start to the chess board, relishing the only wining strategic plan, while maintaining the safety of their king (territory) throughout the game and managing to tame the bitter, savage, greedy lion.

I would like to acquaint the reader that our current lion, if I’d borrow from Richard Steele, would “groan under life, and bewail those who are believed from it.” But, is the lion to be blamed? Not exactly I would say, for the Arab societies compose of such individuals Gayle Pemberton, warned to be aware of. Individuals with no memory of their past and whom are powerless to connect pervious events and current ones to future acts, who would wake up to scratch the same mistakes yet another time. These communities I would say with utmost confidence are the mileage of ignorance, lacking premonition to posterity, for they unfortunately took the acidic bait in what they called “The Arab Spring.”

Spring (Aniksi) – a war term was firstly used by Herodotus in The Persian Wars where in book seven (POLYMNIA) Gelo talks of the lack of order recipients (from the Athenian men) even if there is commanders to give orders, telling them that “ye had best make haste back to Greece, and say that the spring of her year is lost to her.” What this conveys is that Gelo’s troops are compared to spring (beginning of summer and is the finest season of the year) transmitting the meaning that his troops are the premium of the Greek army and a deprivation of his coalition would be like a year, the spring, is executed and drawn from it. “Arab Spring” therefore is the beginning of the end of hope for pure revolution and an end to the foundation of progress in the region, where no flower blooms, no tree grows and night refuse the recuperation of dawn.

One would walk into isolated roads reminiscent of previous decisions and remember that at the approach of these decisions, there were two voices communicating with equivalent power in their mind: one rational speaking which studies the reasons behind the west need and urge to help peoples living in far lands and inform of the realization that should they accompany that flow would driven them into floods of regret and live with the understanding that they have sold their country freely, with no worth of charge earned; for this torrent flood they have engaged in, no human power could save them from it. The other voice speaks with passion and converses of the urge one needs to consider in their memory, of the deprived years they have had experienced thus far in surrendering to dictatorship and looks for but a hole of escape. Perhaps in the peaceful silent moment one holds between themselves would bend towards the first one, but within their Arabic society they would conform to believe in the latter, thinking they’d have power over their country in embracing liberalization, which in turn they believe, would secure happiness.

But, what is power if not a mere word one assumes understands. Leo Tolstoy asked a long time ago in War and Peace “What is the cause of historical events? Power (he says). What is power (then)? Power is the sum total of wills transferred to one person. On what condition are the wills of the masses transferred to one person? On condition that the person express the will of the whole people. That is, power is power. That is, power is a word the meaning of which we do not understand.” In the arena and principle of International Relations or politics, possessing power (a word a meaning of which no one truly comprehends) is the force dominating all states, even if it brings with it corporeal suffering and winter solstice all year long.

Thucydides asks if the relations between states could be directed by principles/norms of justice, when power is an important factor to be considered. If we look at the lion or lions governing us today, the answer to Thucydides question would exclude the word justice and replace it with sadism. For both Politics and International Relations for that matter are governed by egoistic and languid individuals exacting more power with absence of moral values. These factors therefore present “a conflict-based paradigm of international relations” where power develops into the solstitial concern and where there is little, to no residue of morality.

Does this overwhelming idea and enforcement of power provide happiness? Graham Greene, according to Shirley Hazzard, converse on happiness saying, “point me out the happy man and I will point you out either egotism, selfishness, evil- or else an absolute ignorance”. Flaubert like Greene also felt that “to be stupid, selfish, and have good health, are three requirements for happiness, though if stupidity is lacking, all is lost.” Now a day is no difference which hurts me to say, that happiness is achieved when one holds a blind eye to the pure truth, is ignorant of the lion and its plans, and approaches the chess board thinking it would provide ecstasy of mere moments of happiness.

In 1920 Muslims were more than 15% of the population of the “Great Greece”. In fact, they were the big majority in a lot of regions.

Greece, in contrast with the Neo-Turks, did not follow a policy of systematic ethnic cleansing but an impressive policy of support of the moderate Muslims whose the peak was the law 2345/1920 “About the temporary Great Mufti and the Muftis of the Greek Muslims”. Eleftherios Venizelos himself, nominated a Muslim as the first prefect of liberated Adrianople while in a series of documents of the Greek Government, the Muslims are characterized as “peaceful and easy to be administrated people”.

All the Greek governments have given the same answer to the essential question “which is the best way to treat the Muslims” for 132 years: a) full support to the emergence of the moderate Muslims as privileged allies of the Greek State, b) support of their religious freedom and identity and c) maintenance of the Saria. This policy is more promoted even compared to what is done by the Muslim countries like Turkey.

The only exception in this general policy were the periods that Greece was trying to ensure the support of Turkey against Italy and Bulgaria. It was then when the Muslims of Thrace were left in the hands of the “Grey Wolves” (Turkish nationalist movement) with the known results.

Even when Turkey completed the policies of the extermination of the Greeks, Greece did not turn against the Muslims of Thrace. It did not turn the genocide into a confrontation between “Christians – Muslims”.

On the contrary, it invested seriously, in a long term period and effectively in the development of special relations with the Arabic world but also with Iran. The peak of this policy were the decisions of Andreas Papandreou for the support of the Palestinians and especially of the PLO when all the others had turned their backs against them. 184 countries and 1,8 billions of people must not follow the Turks.

The role of our Orthodox Religion has been especially crucial throughout this course. Greece has got an invaluable position and importance, thanks to the most ancient Patriarchates, which doesn’t seem to fully understand and this is a sample of our fundamental weakness to manage successfully the heritage of the glorious Byzantium.

What has Greece won out of this policy?

A) in 1920/1923 the Muslims of Thrace asked by themselves to be incorporated in the Greek state, b) despite the restless efforts of Kemal Ataturk and the Bulgarians, the Muslims of Thrace did not form partisan groups behind the lines of the Greek army in 1920-1922, c) Greece holds the unique example in the whole Europe of a native Muslim minority settled in its borders which has not only caused problems but during the war of 1940-41 against Italy and Germany it did in full its patriotic duty (how many people know that there are war memorials for killed in action Muslims or that Muslims have been awarded medals for their bravery in the battle?), d) Greece has a very good image in the Muslim and in particular in the Arabic world despite the permanent efforts of Turkey to destroy it, e) it did never enter the map of the “enemies of Islam”.

What does Greece jeopardise today

The way in which the Nazis of the Golden Dawn are moving has already created important cracks in the big success of Greece and threatens to lead to devastation the most successful policy of management of the Islam in the whole Europe.

Our essential difference with the Westerners is that the State played a fundamental role for the organisation and the support of Islam not leaving thus any vital space for its radicalisation, in contrast with the western tactics of “laissez faire”. It is completely incomprehensible for which reason, especially since 2000 and afterwards, we have been doing everything we can to imitate the fundamental errors of the Westerners.

At the same time, incredible lies are disseminated in the internet starting from mentioning completely unrealistic numbers of Muslim immigrants in Athens and reaching the invocation of statements of Arabic Islam distinguished figures who even if they died in 1949, are mentioned to have said in the year 2013, that they want to see “the Islamic flag on the Greek islands” again!

The Greek extreme right and especially the two dictators Metaxas (1936-1941) and Papadopoulos (1967-1974), was neither anti-Semitic nor anti-Islamic. They both followed the permanent Greek policy of supporting the moderate Muslims and did never allow the development of anti-semitic ideas. During the Papadopoulos governance a special agreement of immigration with Pakistan was signed, having as a result the fact that the Pakistan community in Athens be one of the oldest. The Greek extreme right should not be unwisely and hastily identical to the Nazis of the Golden Dawn.

The policy of the Golden Dawn about the Islam (from its identification with the problem of immigration and the construction of the Mosque to the motorised marches in Muslim villages of Thrace) serves the Turkish strategy to present our country as an anti – islamic state, it jeopardizes the position of the Orthodox Patriarchates in the Arabic world, undermines the peace and the social cohesion in Thrace, weakens the position of Cyprus and opens the way to a provocation against the Muslim people in a Greek territory.

The potential victimiser or perpetrator, in order to be able to take a human life, firstly dehumanises himself and afterwards the “opponent”. This ideological procedure progresses intensively (“the immigrants are deplorable and subhumans who carry every kind of illnesses”, E. Zaroulia member of the parliamentary group of the Golden Dawn 18/10/2012). Many people think that the racist texts dominating especially the internet are just words without danger. They make a fatal mistake. In 1999, in a period of big prosperity and with the racist sermons having a much smaller audience than today, Greece experienced an unprecedented racist crime when a 23-year-old Greek man with a permanent job shot people in cold blood just for one reason: the colour of their skin. One man died, two were left paraplegic and four were heavily wounded. That was the result of this action. One insane man inspired by sermons, as those of the Golden Dawn, is enough in a period of crisis to immerse a country in a cycle of racist or religious violence.

We have already very serious problems; let us not commit suicide humiliating the history and our culture.

Dr. George Kalantzis is General Secretary of Religious Affairs, Ministry of Education.

Apparently though, as George Orwell had once stated, the fact that statistical figures might be looking good (or improving, at least) does not guarantee happy citizens. On the contrary, Greeks are destitute.

To be quite honest, I am surprised by the fact that our society is still in one piece. I fear the day though, when it finally cracks. I sincerely doubt the current calm before the storm will be prolonged.

I have been using public transport for the last month and as always have kept my eyes and ears open. One tends to pick up the national mood when in a bus or the tube. Everyone is moody, bad-tempered and hopeless. Frustration is all over the place. The only topic on the agenda is ‘we’re finished’.

Historically, revolution takes place when people lose all hope. We’ve reached this point. No politician can offer the people hope anymore and besides that, the latest images from last week’s parliamentary debate and voting on whether a number of politicians should face justice on a number of wrongdoings have confirmed the fear that we are governed by irresponsible and corrupt political parties.

I say we look to other social powers to face the crisis. I believe that it is definitely a time for social revolution. It is a time for changing guard and starting all over again. A time for people from all walks of life to re-establish a democracy that cares for every citizen, a just society that provides for everyone and in which public goods and services are accessible to all.

As Einstein once remarked, doing the same thing every day and expecting a different result is a clear indication of schizophrenia! And unfortunately, that’s what Greek society has been doing the last few years.

As a nation we have many rivers to cross, but as our history shows, we always get there.

The National Museum aims to tell the story of South Sudan and its people. Therefore, as many people as possible will be consulted to provide their inputs and ideas on how this story should be told.

The experts, from the British group Metaphor, will give public lectures at universities, organize workshops with high school youth, hold meetings with government and parliament officials, and conduct field visits. There will also be social media platforms to engage young people and especially the large number of South Sudanese living abroad.

The absence of a traditional arts collection, combined with the unique historic context of South Sudan and the role that the National Museum is to play as a symbol of nationhood and democracy, requires the conceptual design of the National Museum to precede any planning of the construction and development of the institution.

South Sudan became the world’s newest country in July 2011 after decades of nearly continuous conflict. . Understanding and promoting the country’s rich diversity represents a key part of the solution as well as one of its main challenges. Culture lies at the basis of sustainable peace and development in South Sudan.

The young Government of South Sudan is working towards fostering a national identity that respects its diversity, which will be among the key requirements for sustaining peace and social stability.

Significant progress has been made in recent years, but South Sudan remains one of the most under-developed countries in the world and the government is facing one of the largest capacity gaps with over half of its civil servants having completed primary education. State-level institutions, capacities and relevant policies need to be built, including in r the culture sector, which has currently no institutions or policies in place.

South Sudan’s first National Museum will be created taking into account the country’s development challenges at all levels. It will be accessible to a population (73% of which is illiterate) and will feature an outreach programme that allows for the participation of even the most remote communities in the country. The building will take into account South Sudan’s energy restraints, and the need to use sustainable building technologies.

According to an UNESCO announcement, the potential of the first National Museum is an important -and neglected- resource in the construction of South Sudan; not only embodied in its intrinsic link with the culture and history of the country, but also in the institution’s potential contribution tto promoting education and life-long learning as well as a participatory and democratic society. A museum that tells stories and teaches history through objects, sound recordings, written texts and video images; a museum about South Sudan’s people, about the different cultures and communities, the customs and traditions, the refugees, returnees and diaspora, the young and the old, the women and the men; a museum about arts, crafts and cultural expressions

It is hoped that the National Museum of South Sudan will be a place where South Sudan’s people, their culture and their history are presented in an innovative and interactive manner. It will be a place for learning – about South Sudan, its culture and heritage, the struggle for independence, and the creation of a new state. It will provide an opportunity to move beyond an identity based on independence and conflict alone, by highlighting the rich heritage of its people. As such, the National Museum will need to be designed as an interactive educational institution, reflecting South Sudan’s rich cultural diversity.

For a very long time, definitely since the fall of the Junta in 1974 and arguably since the post-war “boom”, the two main political parties contending the elections (the National Radical Union and the Centre Union in the 1960s, New Democracy and the Panhellenic Socialist Movement since the late 1970s) expressed the differing (but not opposite) objectives of a wide spectrum of people, representing the majority of the body politic. Both parties conveyed the pursuits of a lower-middle class (what the French call “Petite Bourgeoisie”) seeking to climb the social staircase and enter the middle class, as well as peasants and workers (specifically those at the upper end, income-wise) aspiring to become “petits bourgeois”.

It is unfortunate that these objectives were realized not through a strategy of development but by way of a policy of economic expansion fuelled by a corrupt system of clientelism. Nevertheless, to a large extent and thanks to the money pouring in from the European Union, the objectives were indeed achieved – sadly at the expense of the national economy that found itself heavily indebted.

The end result of this process was Greece’s near-default, the bailout, the haircut and the Memorandum of Understanding, signed by the Greek government, the IMF, the EU and the ECB. The bailout agreement imposes rules of fiscal discipline and is expressed in the form of aggregate overall targets; it is up to the Greek “political personnel” (as it is now disparagingly known in Greece) to set and allocate the narrower, partial and individual targets. And the “personnel” is desperately trying to preserve its “client system”. The consequent fiscal policy has had a number of different “casualties” – groups of people hurt by the measures.

This is the first reason these elections are interesting and unique: the ballot of 17 June is the first since the 1950s where the stakes are set, and the votes are to be cast, along class lines.

Those who have seen their income dwindle dramatically and their taxes swell to unsustainable levels, those who are unemployed or expect to get a minimum-wage part-time uninsured precarious employment, those who face the specter of both bread-winners in a family being out-of-work, those who are in danger of retiring into poverty and those who can’t afford medical services anymore, in short lower-level public servants and newly-pauperized blue-collar workers, feel they have very little to lose and are expected to vote against the Memorandum.

Those who hold some assets, those who have a large home or a flat and a summer house, those who own a small or medium enterprise, those pursuing a career as executives in large companies and corporations, those who are self-employed or free-lance as professionals, experts and consultants, those who have enjoyed a certain lifestyle and are now seeing that quality of life reduced and fear losing it altogether, in short apprehensive white-collar professionals and an uneasy middle-class, are afraid of a possible “Grexit” and might presumably vote in favor of Greece remaining in the Eurozone.

The choice Greek voters are called to make is stark and will be based on their class-consciousness and their overall political viewpoint; this of course is usually what happens when one is called upon to choose whether one’s own interest is subordinated to the general good, or vice-versa.

And this is where the second interesting point arises: these two groups are not necessarily working at cross-purposes, nor are their goals incompatible. That is to say, those who consider that the most important choice is that Greece remains in the Eurozone are not automatically in favor of the Memorandum, nor are those who reject the Memorandum inevitably against the Euro.

Yet, the fact that these two, more-or-less distinct, groups articulate different narratives is rather problematic and probably explains better the difficulties in forming a viable government than the linear explanations offered by the media about personal strategies and petty party tactics.

As long as the two camps don’t back down from their confrontation and try to forge a compromise or, better still, a new political formation appears, able of proposing a novel set of ideals and offering a brand-new over-arching narrative to the Greek people, the stalemate is bound to persist, and the country will not solve its problem of belonging.

–

Spyros Α. Vretos is a journalist and translator. He has worked as columnist on economic websites, as editor or editor-in-chief in all major Greek financial magazines, as well as consultant for UNEP/MAP and the Bank of Greece.