“Pasok is neither given away, inherited, nor divided into fiefdoms,” declared Andreas Papandreou, the party’s founder.
Though time has proven this statement wrong -along with many others he made- it remains deeply etched in the minds of Pasok’s loyal voters.
Today’s leadership election will decide whether Pasok seizes or squanders yet another opportunity, perhaps its last, as former leader Kostas Simitis warned on September 3rd. Pasok was born and thrived in Greece’s post-dictatorship era, channeling the hopes of many generations. For nearly four decades, it shaped the nation’s political landscape with its bold social reforms, but also its inevitable mistakes. Its populist rhetoric, sweeping visions, and deep social roots left an indelible mark on Greek society. Pasok championed social justice and introduced daring reforms but also became associated with patronage, overspending, and scandals.
Then the hard times arrived.
Two qualities defined Pasok, especially from 1993 onward: its leaders showed responsibility during critical moments, and its members and voters displayed a rare instinct for political survival. The final phase of Andreas Papandreou’s leadership was his most mature. He moved beyond the populism and empty promises of his early years, embracing responsible and realistic economic policies. He laid the groundwork for reducing deficits and ushering Greece into the Eurozone—a task completed by his successor, Kostas Simitis, during his eight-year tenure of modernization.
But when the crisis hit, the issue of succession arose. Leadership passed to George Papandreou, and despite his famous name and fresh ideas, it took five years (2004–2009) for Pasok to return to power. Yet the comeback was short-lived, as the economic crisis and austerity measures soon followed. George Papandreou, misjudging the severity of the crisis and the markets, made significant errors. He put the country’s interests above party politics and stepped aside, but by then, Pasok was in freefall. Despite this, it didn’t die. Its survival can largely be credited to Evangelos Venizelos, who made the difficult decision to keep Greece in the Eurozone by partnering with New Democracy.
Fofi Gennimata, who succeeded Venizelos, planted the seeds of Pasok’s revival. She kept the party alive, though sadly, she passed away before seeing it fully realized. The baton then passed to Nikos Androulakis, who managed to increase the party’s share of the vote by practicing responsible opposition, steering clear of sensationalism. While he didn’t bring Pasok back to its former heights, he kept hope alive. Meanwhile, Syriza, which had surged from 3% to power under Alexis Tsipras during the crisis, has since plummeted. Having failed to maintain its momentum, Syriza now finds itself struggling to reach double digits in the polls, with its internal strife drawing both pity and ridicule.
Pasok’s leadership election today will determine whether the party can seize the current political moment to regain its strength as a powerful opposition force—and perhaps even return to government. Alternatively, it risks stagnation, which could signal the end of its political relevance.
Some may argue that too much is being asked of candidates who may not have the capacity to deliver. But the world moves on, and so do the expectations of the people. There are no "Messiahs" or charismatic leaders anywhere today. Yet, capable leaders exist everywhere—responsible, perceptive, innovative, and hardworking.
The most critical challenge for Pasok is to reconnect with its disillusioned voters. It needs to inspire them to get off their couches, leave their coffee shops, and vote again. Participation will be the party’s victory. Apathy will be its tombstone. The second challenge is choosing the right leader.
Pasok’s next leader carries a heavy burden. They must inspire voters from across the center-left while also demonstrating the responsibility and realism required by today’s political climate. The leader must inspire, mobilize, convince, and offer hope. Not just a technocrat, but a visionary who can spark enthusiasm. They need to lead the party democratically, sharing power, nurturing talent, and decentralizing authority. Above all, the new leader must present a compelling alternative vision for Greece’s future. They must offer a fresh approach that reenergizes Pasok, reconnects with its social base, and makes it once again a party with broad appeal and a path back to governance.
I would go one step further: perhaps the new leader should consciously adopt the role of a “transitional” figure, paving the way for the creation of a broader center-left movement, should the conditions allow. They must be willing to rise above personal ambition, even if it means being a bridge to something larger.
Lastly, the unity of Pasok’s members after October 14th will be crucial. Unity is non-negotiable if Pasok is to resurrect itself. If internal divisions, defections, or undermining of the new leader occur, the party’s fate will be sealed. They need only look at Syriza to see the consequences of disunity.
One final thought: perhaps Pasok’s leadership candidates should study the example of Kyriakos Mitsotakis. Once considered an outsider, Mitsotakis became leader of New Democracy, won consecutive elections, and is now serving his second term as prime minister—with the potential for a third. He remains the undisputed dominant figure in Greek politics. As recent history shows, those who underestimated Mitsotakis have faded into obscurity.
by Angelos Moschovas