Once the beating heart of Hellenism abroad, traditional Greek institutions now face decline. In their recent book Whose Homeland Is It?, long-time friends Dr. George Vasilakopoulos and Dr. Toula Nikolakopoulos explore the identity, politics, and future of Greek-Australian communities. The book raises questions about how these communities adapt to modern Australia and emphasises the need to rediscover their democratic tradition and actively participate in debates about social justice — rather than relying on political representation from the Church or other institutions. It also critiques the Archdiocese for often claiming to speak on behalf of the entire community, thereby weakening collective dialogue.
Its publication coincides with a time when new leadership — embodied by Archbishop Makarios of Australia, based in Sydney — is reshaping how Ecumenical Hellenism connects with Greece. Appointed in 2019 after his unanimous election as Archbishop of the Greek Orthodox Church of Australia, Makarios arrived to find a disconnect between leadership rhetoric and the lived experiences of the community — a gap often reinforced by exclusiveness and outdated hierarchies. The gravitational centre of Greek Australia has since shifted northward: from Melbourne’s traditional dominance to Sydney’s emerging role under a more inclusive and culturally dynamic vision. The coincidence of institutional decline and the rise of the Archdiocese has, in my view, been inevitable.
The Structural Layers of Greek-Australian Institutions
The Greek community’s institutional landscape resembles a layer cake with three distinct layers:
-
Top layer: formal organisations and church hierarchies;
-
Middle layer: cultural associations and local committees;
-
Grassroots layer: families, small businesses, and younger generations negotiating hybrid identities in secular Australia.
Historically, the Greek Orthodox Community of Melbourne and Victoria (GOCMV) occupied the top layer, serving as Greece’s principal point of reference. Its schools, festivals, and civic networks once reflected a confident, united Greek-Australian identity. Yet financial strain, governance challenges, and democratic fatigue have eroded that cohesion, revealing the fragility of a structure built on centralised authority rather than shared renewal.
By contrast, the middle and grassroots layers — parishes, regional communities, and cultural networks — have proven more adaptive, embodying the living Hellenism of everyday experience. I have been part of that grassroots layer for what seems like an eternity.
Archbishop Makarios and the Renewal of Engagement
Archbishop Makarios has successfully tapped into these layers through a leadership style grounded in inclusiveness and participation. His initiative Our People, Their Stories has rekindled pride and recognition across generational and regional divides. Launched with the blessing of His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, the project celebrated its first anniversary on 4 October 2025 at the Australian National Maritime Museum.
The event — attended by Greece’s Minister of Culture Lina Mendoni, clergy, diplomats, and community members — symbolised the meeting of past and present: a narrative of migration, endurance, and renewal. Supported by €120,000 in funding from the Greek Ministry of Culture, the initiative reflects a broader vision of cultural continuity. Unlike the more exclusive structures of traditional “top-tier” institutions, Our People, Their Stories embodies an openness that has re-energised the diaspora’s cultural voice and positioned Sydney as a new hub of Greek-Australian creativity.
Leadership Tapestry: Elpidoforos, Tutu, Archbishop Makarios III, and Bartholomew
Makarios’ leadership in Sydney is part of a broader network of global Hellenic and interfaith connections. It parallels the approach of Archbishop Elpidoforos of America, reflecting shared priorities in diaspora engagement — inclusiveness, youth participation, and cultural preservation. These principles also resonate with the global civic and human rights work of figures like Desmond Tutu, illustrating how inclusive leadership can foster cultural recognition, community engagement, and interfaith dialogue.
The parallels extend to Archbishop Makarios III of Cyprus. Like his historic namesake — though in vastly different circumstances — Makarios of Australia has stepped into a context marked by institutional gaps, blending moral authority with practical initiatives that empower his community. Both show how religious leadership can move beyond hierarchy toward inclusion, cultural vitality, and civic participation. In maintaining close ties with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Archbishop Makarios situates his leadership within a global framework that connects Sydney, New York, and Istanbul — showing how contemporary Hellenism can thrive through cross-regional collaboration.
The Loverdos Visit: Beyond Ceremony, Toward Measurable Outcomes
The visit of Deputy Foreign Minister Ioannis Loverdos to Sydney was welcomed with enthusiasm, reflecting the diaspora’s ongoing desire for recognition from Athens, with Archbishop Makarios at the forefront. Meetings hosted by the Greek Orthodox Community of New South Wales and other institutions again raised familiar concerns — consular delays, Greek language education, cultural events, and broader recognition of diaspora contributions.
Yet, as so often, a framework of measurable outcomes was missing. Official visits produce goodwill statements but few tangible results. The commitment to expand the “E-Proxenio” digital consular platform — first announced in 2020 and piloted in Perth — was repeated by Loverdos, but five years on, progress remains minimal, illustrating a lack of follow-through.Policy continuity has also suffered from frequent turnover.
In the past six years, several deputy ministers — including Antonis Diamataris, Andreas Katsaniotis, Giannis Kotsiras, and now Ioannis Loverdos — have overseen diaspora affairs. This rapid succession of five deputy ministers within six years suggests that the portfolio is not treated as a strategic policy priority but rather as a symbolic or secondary appointment. It is well documented in the literature that frequent reshuffling weakens institutional memory, disrupts program continuity, and undermines credibility among diaspora communities that expect long-term engagement.
Furthermore, comparative evidence from the OECD (2024) and SEESOX at Oxford indicates that such ministerial instability reduces stakeholder trust and civic participation, especially when policy coordination depends on personal networks rather than enduring institutional frameworks. In effect, the pattern reflects a structural disequilibrium between Greece’s rhetoric of global Hellenic unity and the sustained commitment required to achieve it.
Other nations provide instructive contrasts. Ireland’s Global Diaspora Strategy 2020–2025 sets clear goals, allocates funding through the Emigrant Support Programme, and publishes annual progress reviews. South Korea’s Overseas Korean Foundation links diaspora communities to national development with measurable outcomes and transparent tracking.
For Greece to move beyond ceremony, it must adopt similar accountability mechanisms. At the same time, the Greek-Australian diaspora largely remains silent on Athens’ policy inertia — focusing on local concerns rather than supporting structural reforms. Yet demographic and fiscal challenges cannot be met through sentiment alone; they require the active engagement and expertise of global citizens. As President John F. Kennedy famously urged, “Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country”
The Role of Greek-Australian Media
A contributing factor to the persistence of leadership gaps and institutional exclusiveness, particularly in Melbourne, is the selective coverage by Greek-Australian media. Rather than examining governance, inclusiveness, and accountability within community institutions, reporting often emphasises ceremonial events and leadership symbolism. This reinforces traditional hierarchies, marginalises grassroots perspectives, and slows recognition of innovative leadership such as that demonstrated by Archbishop Makarios in Sydney.
To address these challenges, a more proactive media approach is needed. Greek-Australian outlets could promote critical discourse by investigating leadership structures and their impact on inclusiveness, diversify editorial voices to include underrepresented perspectives, and collaborate with independent journalists to produce analyses that challenge entrenched narratives. By doing so, the media could once again become a catalyst for renewal, amplify grassroots voices, and support the emergence of more participatory and accountable leadership.
Conclusion: Restoring Balance in Global Hellenism
Greek Australia today exists in a state of disequilibrium—between traditional institutions and grassroots vitality, ceremonial engagement and measurable action, and the diaspora’s needs versus Greece’s policy responsiveness. Archbishop Makarios’ inclusive leadership in Sydney shows the promise of bridging these gaps, fostering participation, youth engagement, and global Hellenic connections. Yet repeated leadership turnover, selective media coverage, and the lack of follow-through on initiatives like the “E-Proxenio” platform highlight persistent accountability challenges.
Restoring balance requires transparency, shared leadership, and civic reciprocity: institutions must listen as much as they speak, the diaspora must actively support Greece’s policy reforms, and the media must amplify diverse, grassroots voices. Only by addressing this disequilibrium can global Hellenism move beyond ceremony toward a vibrant, sustainable, and inclusive future.
Dr. Steve Bakalis is an economist and has worked with La Trobe University, The University of Melbourne, Victoria University, and universities across the Asia-Pacific and Gulf region.
