I have been following the news on Greece the last week all too closely. Way too closely. And I want to argue that we are witnessing the true face of democracy worldwide.
Beginning Monday, Papandreou (GAP) announced a referendum soon after European leaders had agreed on a new, hopefully final, plan to make Greek debt sustainable.
A large number of Greeks have been demonstrating on the streets against the austerity measures for two years. They think the austerity measures are unfair, that the people are not to be blamed for the problems. They blame the politicians. They think the austerity (imposed by the IMF/EU) are a means of the capitalist world to oppress the people. They also have the objection that Greece's supervision implies no sovereignty.
Polls had shown that the majority of Greeks are against the austerity measures.
You might agree or disagree with them. I always felt I had no right to talk about the protestors. I have not lived in Greece the last decade and cannot have a say. But still, I have an opinion as most would. My opinion is that the protestors are irresponsible in their demands. They should share responsibility. But, bear with me, they have no real power, and the so-called indignation is an expression of their feelings. And it is a legitimate feeling. The thin line between these legitimate demonstrations and their possible meaning in politics can be a matter of debate.
Then comes GAP announcing a referendum. His real motives are unknown, but I see no pettiness. The week before, Greeks boycotted a national parade and invaded the space of VIPs. They booed the president of democracy, a figure whose role is largely symbolic. The picture two weeks ago showed signs of a society collapsing. So, I will take his motive of calling a referendum to be this: he wanted to proceed with the austerity measures with the people's agreement. Giving the people a true voice - real power - he hoped the austerity measures and Europe's aid would be accepted by the populace. It would resolve a nation-wide conflict and make things clearer.
Note that polls had shown that the majority are against the measures. But it is taken for granted that they are for remaining in the EU and the euro zone. So his gambit was to realise a reconciliation of the two. One cannot remain in the union without agreeing to the measures imposed by the rest. The realm of the social sphere is fluid and dynamic. It is self-referencing and renewing. The agreement or disagreement of the people is tantamount to their say having any consequence.
Were they to say "no", it would be their choice.
Also note that, a part of the demonstrators have been calling for a referendum for a long time. This never included the communists, who believe that referendums do not resolve anything. To them, only elections (and mass protests) do and that will bring radical change.
The call for a referendum didn't last for long. The main players in Europe's pact, Sarkozy and Merkel, were caught by surprise. They summoned GAP to the G20 for an explanation. Merkel declared unilaterally what the referendum's question would be. The Swedish Foreign Minister said, what would the people be asked? "Do we want to be saved or not? Is that the question?". But it went further. The Japanese minister said it was a bad move. Hu Jin Tao hoped the European leaders would call Greece out of it. China giving lessons of democracy.
The vast majority of media around the world, and people's opinion around the world (expressing it via their media) were against the referendum. Excusing their objection either by a) it is legitimate but the wrong time b) the Greeks' decision would jeopardise the economy worldwide so they should have no say.
At that moment, I felt proud to be Greek and that this is a monumental moment for democracy worldwide.
Let's take China for a moment. A development project does not need the people's concession. They are asked to be moved. Provisions are given. But are they to object, they are moved by force. This has happened many times throughout its history. More recently, a recurrent scandal is the imprisonment of petitioners in Beijing. Most Chinese, the ones not involved in the area of protest, are convinced that China's rise should not be impeded by the protests and so, the government is doing the right thing - the best for China.
China has always hated referendums abroad. And elections. When in 2004, the independence party in Taiwan was seen to win the coming elections, China was bombing the Taiwan strait. It was a message to the electorate. In the case of Greece, what would the world do to ensure the required outcome of the would-be referendum?
And my thoughts of Greece vs Taiwan were moved by the idea of referendum and sovereignty. Accepting any of the following implied accepting the rest
I will not go into the creation of the nation-state and the notion of its sovereignty. But what I know firsthand (we all do) is the rise of the global market. It is here more a matter of the Greek economy being intertwined with the rest of the global economy. Is sovereignty compatible with globalism? And is democracy compatible with this capitalism?
The forefront of the battle between the global markets and sovereignty was to be given in Greece in 2011 CE. The rebirth of democracy in the same place where it was first born. Note how ancient Athenian law was born out of Solon's laws. Back then, many had opted in borrowing and couldn't pay back. The contracts they had signed made the borrowers into real slaves. One of Solon's laws was to abolish this, and write off all debt (σεισάχθεια).
Or, Greece was to be the place were democracy and sovereignty, the right of the Chinese residents of X place to object the state, the right of a country to object its real or symbolic enslavement, ... would be lost.
I am not saying that the Greeks did not borrow money. I think they are directly responsible for the debt. I am not saying they wouldn't be punished for it. If they remain in the euro zone they would go through austerity. If they leave, then they would go through the austerity that follows bankruptcy. I am defending their right to decide themselves.
It only lasted 24 hours. It was farcical. The first to denounce the prime minister was his own finance minister. The main opposition party asked him to resign, while they accepted the new deal. When only a few weeks ago they didn't! The whole political spectrum showed its hypocrisy and inconsistency (with the exception of the communist party that remained self-consistent). The Greek media were against GAP. The people asked on the streets were also against it, saying GAP's actions had put Greece in danger.
And everyone implied that the people are too stupid to decide for themselves.
I feel embarrassed to be a member of this group. The group? Greece? The world? I feel Greece might be on the brink of economic bankruptcy. The whole world, Greece nonetheless, is already politically bankrupt.
Beginning Monday, Papandreou (GAP) announced a referendum soon after European leaders had agreed on a new, hopefully final, plan to make Greek debt sustainable.
A large number of Greeks have been demonstrating on the streets against the austerity measures for two years. They think the austerity measures are unfair, that the people are not to be blamed for the problems. They blame the politicians. They think the austerity (imposed by the IMF/EU) are a means of the capitalist world to oppress the people. They also have the objection that Greece's supervision implies no sovereignty.
Polls had shown that the majority of Greeks are against the austerity measures.
You might agree or disagree with them. I always felt I had no right to talk about the protestors. I have not lived in Greece the last decade and cannot have a say. But still, I have an opinion as most would. My opinion is that the protestors are irresponsible in their demands. They should share responsibility. But, bear with me, they have no real power, and the so-called indignation is an expression of their feelings. And it is a legitimate feeling. The thin line between these legitimate demonstrations and their possible meaning in politics can be a matter of debate.
Then comes GAP announcing a referendum. His real motives are unknown, but I see no pettiness. The week before, Greeks boycotted a national parade and invaded the space of VIPs. They booed the president of democracy, a figure whose role is largely symbolic. The picture two weeks ago showed signs of a society collapsing. So, I will take his motive of calling a referendum to be this: he wanted to proceed with the austerity measures with the people's agreement. Giving the people a true voice - real power - he hoped the austerity measures and Europe's aid would be accepted by the populace. It would resolve a nation-wide conflict and make things clearer.
Note that polls had shown that the majority are against the measures. But it is taken for granted that they are for remaining in the EU and the euro zone. So his gambit was to realise a reconciliation of the two. One cannot remain in the union without agreeing to the measures imposed by the rest. The realm of the social sphere is fluid and dynamic. It is self-referencing and renewing. The agreement or disagreement of the people is tantamount to their say having any consequence.
Were they to say "no", it would be their choice.
Also note that, a part of the demonstrators have been calling for a referendum for a long time. This never included the communists, who believe that referendums do not resolve anything. To them, only elections (and mass protests) do and that will bring radical change.
The call for a referendum didn't last for long. The main players in Europe's pact, Sarkozy and Merkel, were caught by surprise. They summoned GAP to the G20 for an explanation. Merkel declared unilaterally what the referendum's question would be. The Swedish Foreign Minister said, what would the people be asked? "Do we want to be saved or not? Is that the question?". But it went further. The Japanese minister said it was a bad move. Hu Jin Tao hoped the European leaders would call Greece out of it. China giving lessons of democracy.
The vast majority of media around the world, and people's opinion around the world (expressing it via their media) were against the referendum. Excusing their objection either by a) it is legitimate but the wrong time b) the Greeks' decision would jeopardise the economy worldwide so they should have no say.
At that moment, I felt proud to be Greek and that this is a monumental moment for democracy worldwide.
Let's take China for a moment. A development project does not need the people's concession. They are asked to be moved. Provisions are given. But are they to object, they are moved by force. This has happened many times throughout its history. More recently, a recurrent scandal is the imprisonment of petitioners in Beijing. Most Chinese, the ones not involved in the area of protest, are convinced that China's rise should not be impeded by the protests and so, the government is doing the right thing - the best for China.
China has always hated referendums abroad. And elections. When in 2004, the independence party in Taiwan was seen to win the coming elections, China was bombing the Taiwan strait. It was a message to the electorate. In the case of Greece, what would the world do to ensure the required outcome of the would-be referendum?
And my thoughts of Greece vs Taiwan were moved by the idea of referendum and sovereignty. Accepting any of the following implied accepting the rest
- do you want to pass the new austerity measures by the EU?
- do you want to stay in the euro zone?
- do you want economic supervision and forfeit that sovereignty?
I will not go into the creation of the nation-state and the notion of its sovereignty. But what I know firsthand (we all do) is the rise of the global market. It is here more a matter of the Greek economy being intertwined with the rest of the global economy. Is sovereignty compatible with globalism? And is democracy compatible with this capitalism?
The forefront of the battle between the global markets and sovereignty was to be given in Greece in 2011 CE. The rebirth of democracy in the same place where it was first born. Note how ancient Athenian law was born out of Solon's laws. Back then, many had opted in borrowing and couldn't pay back. The contracts they had signed made the borrowers into real slaves. One of Solon's laws was to abolish this, and write off all debt (σεισάχθεια).
Or, Greece was to be the place were democracy and sovereignty, the right of the Chinese residents of X place to object the state, the right of a country to object its real or symbolic enslavement, ... would be lost.
I am not saying that the Greeks did not borrow money. I think they are directly responsible for the debt. I am not saying they wouldn't be punished for it. If they remain in the euro zone they would go through austerity. If they leave, then they would go through the austerity that follows bankruptcy. I am defending their right to decide themselves.
It only lasted 24 hours. It was farcical. The first to denounce the prime minister was his own finance minister. The main opposition party asked him to resign, while they accepted the new deal. When only a few weeks ago they didn't! The whole political spectrum showed its hypocrisy and inconsistency (with the exception of the communist party that remained self-consistent). The Greek media were against GAP. The people asked on the streets were also against it, saying GAP's actions had put Greece in danger.
And everyone implied that the people are too stupid to decide for themselves.
I feel embarrassed to be a member of this group. The group? Greece? The world? I feel Greece might be on the brink of economic bankruptcy. The whole world, Greece nonetheless, is already politically bankrupt.
No comments:
Post a Comment