I
decided to come into politics for one reason: to support Alexis
Tsipras in his fight against debt serfdom. On his behalf, Alexis
Tsipras honoured me in conscripting me for one reason: a particular
understanding of the crisis based on the rejection of the
Papakonstantinos dogma; namely, the view that given a choice between
anarchic bankruptcy and toxic loans, the latter is always
preferable.
It
is a dogma I rejected as being a standing threat, which helped
enforce policies that guarantee permanent bankruptcy and,
eventually, lead to debt serfdom. On Wednesday night, I was asked in
the parliament to chose between (a) espousing the aforementioned
dogma by voting in favour of the document that our “partners”
imposed on Alexis Tsipras in the Euro Summit by putschist means and
unimaginable aggression, or (b) say “no” to my Prime Minister.
The
Prime Minister asked us “Is the blackmail real or make-belief?”
expressing the hideous dilemma that would burden all in everyone’s’
own consciousness – his too. Clearly, the blackmail was real. Its
“reality” first hit me when on the 30th of January,
J.Dissjenbloem visited me in my office to present me with the
dilemma “memorandum or closed banks”. We knew from the beginning
just how merciless the lenders would be. And yet we decided on what
we kept repeating to each other during those long nights and days at
the PM’s headquarters:
“We are going to do all it takes to
bring home a financially viable agreement. We will compromise but
not be compromised. We will step back just as much as is needed to
secure an agreement-solution within the Eurozone. However, if we are
defeated by the catastrophic policies of the memorandum we shall
step down and pass on the power to those who believe in such means;
let them enforce those measures while we return to the streets.”
The
Prime Minister asked on Wednesday “Is there an alternative?” I
estimate that, yes, there was. But I shall not dwell on that now. It
is not the appropriate time. What is important is that on the night
of the referendum the Prime Minister was determined that there was
no alternative course of action.
And
that is why I resigned, so that I would facilitate his going to
Brussels and coming back with the best terms he could possibly
deliver. But that does not mean that we would be automatically
committed to enforcing those measures no matter what they were!
The
Prime Minister, on Wednesday’s parliamentary meeting asked us to
decide together, to share the responsibility. Fair enough. But how?
One way would be to act, all together, as we had said time and again
we would in case of defeat. We would declare we had been
compromised, announce that in our hands we held a deal we considered
non-viable and ask all those politicians that judged the agreement
to be even potentially viable, regardless of their parties, to form
a government and enforce the measures.
The
other way would be to do as the Prime Minister suggested: protect
the first left government, be it by enforcing an agreement – the
product of blackmail – that the Prime Minister himself considers
impossible.
Both
aspects of the dilemma were equally merciless for all of us. As
Alexis Tsipras rightly announced, no one has the right to pretend as
if the dilemma is burdening their own conscience any more than any
other’s – be it the Prime Minister or some other member of the
government. Accordingly, this by no means implies that those who
decided that the government should enforce the “impossible”
agreement were led by a stronger sense of responsibility that those
of us who reckoned that we should quit and leave the enforcement of
the deal to those politicians that believe the deal to be
enforceable.
Euclid
Tsakalotos flawlessly captured the reality of it all while
addressing the Parliament; he said that those who believe that the
government of SYRIZA must not be charged with the task of enforcing
this deal have arguments just as strong as those who believe that
the government of SYRIZA owes it to the people to enforce this bad
deal so that an anarchic bankruptcy be avoided.
None
of us is more “anti-memorandum”, but neither is any of us more
“responsible”. Simply enough, when you find yourself at so
dreary a crossroad, under the pressure of the Unholy Coalition of
International Power, it is acceptable that some comrades will chose
one way and some the other. Under these circumstances, it would be
criminal for one side to label the others “compromised” and for
the other to label the former “irresponsible”.
At
the current moment, in the midst of sensical disputes, the unity of
SYRIZA and the people who believed in us, handing us that grant
61,5%, is the main goal. And the only way to ensure this is by
recognizing each other’s arguments, bearing in mind as an axiom
that the opposing side has intentions that are just as good,
responsible and revolutionary.
That
being said, the reason why I voted “NO” last Wednesday is
simple: we should have handed the power, as we had said we would, to
those who can look in the people’s eyes and say what we cannot
utter: “The deal is tough but it can be enforced in such a way
that will leave room for hope that we might recover and reverse the
humanitarian catastrophe”.
The
left government cannot promise Europe what it knows it cannot
deliver. The ultimate asset that the government of SYRIZA needs
protect is the promise we would repeatedly give throughout our
visits to the European capitals: In contrast to the others, we shall
not promise anything (e.g. a certain primary surplus) that cannot be
accomplished. On the other hand, the left government has no right to
pillage any longer the victims of a five year long crisis without,
at the very least, being able to answer in the affirmative the
question: “Have you at least compensated for the recessionary
measures?”
Many
of my colleagues ask: “Is it not better for us to be in charge? We
that care for the people and have good intentions targeting
corruption and oligarchy?” Yes, it is better. But what tools have
we left to work with? The decision of the Euro Summit establishes
and furthers the complete lack of social control over the banks
while society will be burdened with a further 10-25 bn of debt to
support them.
And
to make matters worse, we have the creation of an uber-HRADF
(Hellenic Republic Asset Development Fund) that is going to take
once and for all complete control of all public assets, depriving
the Hellenic Republic of all managerial benefits. And exactly how is
it that we shall control austerity when the troika, with a plain
liner from the ELSTAT (Hellenic Statistical Authority) –we gave
over the control of this on Wednesday– is going to single-handedly
determine the primary surplus?
And
when the harsh reality of the results of this newly found austerity
dawns upon society, when young and old alike either take to the
streets or stay at home and rot in despair in the face of such
measures, those people – the people we have been speaking for all
along – who in the political scene is going to represent them
then? Can it be that same party that brought these very measures
before the Parliament? Measures which the well-meaning ministers are
forced to defend to the parliament and media while being ridiculed
by the anti-memorandum opposition?
“But
are you not just serving Schauble’s plan when you vote against the
deal?” I am asked. And I reply with a question of my own: “Are
you sure that the agreement to these measures is not part of
Schauble’s plan?”
Note
the following:
► The
latest IMF report that calculates dept over 200% of GDP, essentially
forbidding the IMF to give out new loans;
► ESM’s demand, as
per Schauble’s command, that there will be new loans from the IMF
to Greece;
► A Greek government passing reformations which not
only does it not trust but openly considers the result of
blackmail;
► A German government that passes through Bundestag
an agreement for Greece that it already, from the start,
characterises as untrustworthy and failed.
Do
you, dear reader, not concur that the above facts are powerful allies
of Schauble’s? Is there really any safest means for the country to
be shut out from the Eurozone that this non-viable deal that grants
the German Finance Minister time and reasons to plan the Grexit he
much desiresя?
‘Nough
said. My judgment led me to vote against the current agreement,
believing, as I still do, that the Papakonstantinos dogma is to be
rejected. On the other hand, I respect fully those colleagues of mine
who held differently. Neither am I the more revolutionary/ethical one
nor are they the more responsible ones. Today what we are judged for
is our ability to protect with all our powers our unity, comradeship
and collectivity while retaining our right to differ.
To
conclude, let me note a philosophical hew of the dilemma that burdens
the conscience of everyone of us; is there a time when we may allow
the idea that certain things should not be done in our name,
transcend utilitarianism? Is this, such a time?
There
are no right answers. Just an honest intention to respect the answers
our comrades are giving, even if they disagree with our.
Please
note that
Thepressproject is still trying to offer high quality investigative
journalism under very difficult circumstances. Paypal will not
accept money transferred from within Greece. Now, more than ever, we
need our international readers to support
us
. Read
why
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.