[ad_1]
The 1821-2021 celebrations committee seems to have taken a position on one of the most important issues in Greek historiography: was Kapodistrias a dictator after all? Did he rule dictatorially? This subject is important in the first place for Greek history as a whole. For example, Ioannis Metaxas, who considered himself a follower of the work of Kapodistrias, was ideologically based on this point of view. But it is also important to our constitution. Why do we accept any opposition claim as liberal and democratic, while it may have oligarchic and totalitarian characteristics? The “kapodistriana dictatorship” is part of our national myth. But a myth that does not come from the sources.
The Third National Assembly called Kapodistrias governor of the country. The National Assembly itself elected a Chamber and voted in favor of the Troizina Constitution. At the headquarters of the provisional government in Aegina, from January 12 to 17, 1828, Kapodistrias accepted all the powerful political factors present and spoke to them. He told them that he could not govern on the basis of the voted Constitution. He cited the fact that he prohibited “the Governor and Parliament from agreeing on any treaty, with the aim of abolishing the national policy of existence and independence” (article 115).
However, the forces (which had just captured the Turkish-Egyptian fleet at Navarino) did not agree with the independence of Greece, nor could the Greek military forces enforce it. We had lost all of central Greece and the Peloponnese, except the Argonauts. Few islands were still free. The only solution for the survival of the Revolution was the acceptance of the Treaty of London (July 6, 1827) that defined the autonomy of Greece under Ottoman rule. The issue was legal and substantive.
Furthermore, the serious political problem that arose from this drafting act is that the power belonged to Parliament and not to the Governor. Parliament draws up the laws, sends them to the Governor, and he has the right to return them twice. Then it is established that: “A third party will be notified to the Governor, who will be immediately accused of ratification and publication, and this will become law” (article 73). It is true that many of the provisions of the act of Damalas (Troizinas) were really liberal and guaranteed the rights of citizens. But the regime he proposed was completely oligarchic. The inviolable ruler did not even participate in the work of Parliament. It is clear that they had asked Kapodistrias to save the country, but to retain power.
The obvious state solutions that Kapodistrias had in his quiver were two: First, to declare a dictatorial government with the help of the army. Second, push the people into a revolution against that House. Even his later political opponent, who gave rise to these imaginative dictatorships, Spyridon Trikoupis, wrote: “People have never accepted their savior in a more favorable way.”
Instead, Kapodistrias proposed a “change” in the regime, in which all political actors agreed. He called for the self-dissolution of Parliament (which was pro-Kapodistrian). He called for the creation of a body with 27 politicians from all factions, including those who did not want him in Greece or especially from them, as it turned out in practice. This body was named “Panhellenic” not without reason. It was a condition of the “national reconciliation” policy. He called elections for a new National Assembly in April. He emphasized all the tones in the temporality of his government. The word “change” is the one used in official documents. If you want to use a modern term to convey this concept, you could only use the term “postcolonial”.
Of course, none of its historians and opponents used the term “coup d’état”, “dictatorship” or any other equivalent in the language of the time. All modern historians speaking today of the “dictatorship” followed the story of Spyridon Trikoupis, who accused Kapodistrias (after) of banning this decision. He emphasized that only with a new National Assembly could Troizina’s “Constitution” be suspended. However, elections for a new National Assembly were immediately impossible. First, the problems of life and death, such as the real food crisis, the removal of the nation’s isolation from the protective forces, etc., had to be addressed. Second, where to hold elections? How to reunite the Stereoelladites and the Peloponneses when almost all the regions were under the military occupation of the Turkish Pashas and Ibrahim? This argument is a farce of history reproduced by most historians, mainly foreigners, but also Greeks.
Elections were finally held in the spring of 1829, when the Peloponnese and much of Sterea were liberated by the Governor’s military and diplomatic efforts. The opposition, which had then clearly manifested itself, was in control of the Panhellenic. Trikoupis again informs us that this required that not all male citizens of Greece over the age of 25 vote, but only “natives and states”. In other words, militants who were not born in Sterea or the Peloponnese, workers, sailors, and the vast majority of citizens, landless farmers were excluded. Kapodistrias, however, insisted, put nine new members into the Panhellenic and approved his, that is, the vote to be universal.
Elections were held for the first time in the history of the Revolution in absolute order, without violence and without civil conflict. No one was excluded from the process. And here we have the second patient and also drowned in remorse, a story about Kapodistrias’ “anti-democracy”. This time for Makrygiannis. The general wrote: “He directed his commanders and comrades everywhere, he also gave the means of money to make the elections of the representatives in his spirit.” In opposition to Panhellenic, Kapodistrias had called elections with an official as president of the electorate. Kotzabasides demanded that the president be a local voter. Panhellenic’s opinion prevailed. In other words, Makrygiannis accused Kapodistrias of giving money to state representatives to assist and prevent fraud during the electoral process. Continuing, Makrygiannis also accused him of campaigning and being very popular.
Therefore, it is clear that Kapodistrias proceeded to “change” the regime by coming to Greece for legal and substantive reasons, which ultimately allowed the nation to survive. Then he went to the polls, calmly, legally and by universal suffrage. He clearly won them with percentages that perhaps no governor of the country has acquired in the two hundred years of our history. He ruled democratically. During his time, political assassinations ceased. He was strict only with the harsh oligarchic factions of the Kotzabasids and the Phanariotes. He ruled with the people and for the people. Of course, these opponents called him a tyrant. But even that has been an even bigger farce in history that needs more analysis.
* Mr. Panagiotis Paspaliaris is a historian, author of the biography of Kapodistrias for the “Leaders” series of “Kathimerini”.
Related Bibliography
• Nikolaos Kasomoulis, Military Memoirs of the Greek Revolution, Volume III, Athens 1942.
• Stratigou Makrygianni, Memoirs, 2nd Edition, Volume II, Athens 1947
• Spyridon Trikoupis, History of the Greek Revolution, Third Edition, Volume IV, Athens 1888.
• Alexandros Despotopoulos, The Governor of Kapodistrias and the Liberation of Greece, second edition, Athens 1996.
• Andreas Idromenos, Governor of Greece, Athens 1900.
• C. M. Woodhouse, Capodistria: the founder of Greek independence, Oxford University Press (1973).
[ad_2]
