Internal crisis deepens in Greece’s “Hope for Democracy” party
Internal tensions within Greece’s “Hope for Democracy” political party appear to be intensifying following the expulsion of Political Council member Thanasis Avgerinos and a new public intervention by founding member Ilias Michalas, who has criticized the party leadership and questioned its internal procedures.
In a strongly worded statement, Michalas criticized party leader Maria Karystianou and Maria Gratsia, arguing that decisions made by the leadership group have altered the original character of the political initiative. He referred to what he described as unusual decisions and behind-the-scenes directives without directly identifying those responsible.
Michalas recalled that he was among the first signatories of the party’s founding declaration, alongside Karystianou, Gratsia and Avgerinos. He argued that the initial momentum behind the movement had changed over time due to choices made by the leadership, claiming that the party had moved away from its original goal of becoming an open citizens’ movement.
He also raised concerns over decision-making procedures and the lack of established institutional mechanisms within the party.
The controversy follows the removal of Avgerinos from both the Political Council and the party, a move that has triggered further debate over the party’s internal structure. Sources close to members who have distanced themselves from the party have questioned whether formal procedures were followed, arguing that no Political Council decision or detailed process regarding the expulsion has been publicly presented.
The same sources claim that Avgerinos had repeatedly expressed concerns during Political Council meetings about the party’s organizational structure, particularly calling for the preparation of a formal statute and the establishment of clear operating rules. They allege that his proposals were not accepted for discussion.
Criticism has also been directed at recent organizational decisions, with former members suggesting that concerns over appointments to key positions within the party structure were not taken into account. Questions have also been raised regarding the organization and responsibilities of the party’s press office.
The developments have intensified scrutiny over the future direction and internal governance of “Hope for Democracy” as the party faces growing disagreements among its founding figures.
