Is SYRIZA Greece’s hope?




By George Venizelos

In this period of radical social and economic changes, the spark of SYRIZA, the Coalition of Radical Left, as its name stands for, gave hope to some of those who felt betrayed and pessimistic about the future of socialism. For in Greece, a radical party seemed to be threatening the political status quo for the first time since Andreas G. Papandreou; not because Papandreou was an exceptional socialist reformer but because in the strange years after the fall of the military regime, democracy was needed and Papandreou carried all this rhetoric, from the ‘exile’ until the ages of corruption. Nevertheless, the case of SYRIZA is much different; the deep economic, social and democratic crisis of Greece brought SYRIZA to the gates of crucial responsibilities.

Many academics, notable people, Greek voters and internationally likeminded people seemed to be sympathetic towards SYRIZA.  Oliver Stone, Slavoj Zizek and David Harvey stated that SYRIZA and its leader Alexis Tsipras are the hope of Greece and Europe (tovima.gr 17 May 2013, avgi.gr 26 Jun 2012). Indeed, prior to the last elections of June 2012 SYRIZA and the young passionate Alexis Tsipras seemed like a dangerous opponent of the ‘Merkel camp’; neoliberalism and austerity. Not though, to the supporters of the non-reformist radical left. Indeed, any kind of party would antagonise another one, especially in Greece where the Left is massively divided into hundreds of small sects; yet, a critique of SYRIZA coming from the left it is not necessarily a sectarian action but maybe a constructive one. Thus, this article will focus on some crucial economic aspects as collocated by the party itself which have been criticised by the non-reformist left and the economist Costas Lapavitsas, who have identified it as the main economic concern in the program of SYRIZA. Also, the article will grapple with the recent conflict within SYRIZA which highlighted issues of the inner democracy and its quality.

The economics

Indeed SYRIZA managed to do what other parties of the left did not. It managed to gather a significant electoral percentage in a very small period of time. In simple terms, this can be explained as an outcome of the economic crisis and the non-scientific theory that suggests poll percentages are shifting further, both to the left and the right poles. SYRIZA has anti-racist tasks and also exposes, rhetorically, anti-neoliberal stance. Yet, as time went on, this one year from June 2012 till now, SYRIZA seems to be shifting more to the right, under the dream of governance. In no case, I will not be trying to undermine the significance of SYRIZA as an opposition in Greece but to give an evaluation of their sustainability in relation to their economic plan, as recently criticised by the economist Costas Lapavitsas.

The manifesto proposals of the party that has gained the sympathy of people around the globe seemed to be fairly controversial. Prior to the elections of 2012, where SYRIZA came 2nd, the party seemed to have a stable anti-neoliberal rhetoric and aimed to provide alternatives to the debt and memorandum in order to drive Greece out of the crisis; this time from the left . In the latest conference of the party (July 12′), SYRIZA seems to analyse and criticise many aspects of the Greek society, providing alternatives. In relation to the Greek debt they do not, since there is only one paragraph troubling with this issue which can be described as the most crucial one and the root of all the others.

The Greek economist Dr. Costas Lapavitsas, which the economic comments of this article will be based upon, has made some important observations on this. Primarily, as it was mentioned above, SYRIZA only troubled with the issue of the Greek debt in one paragraph and as Lapavitsas stated on his personal blog, the party’s main aim is not what it was a year ago; ‘it is not to abolish the Greek debt, but to renegotiate the deals with the troika, erase the greater amount of it and then pay off what left’, after a renegotiation of the time, in relation to the future economic growth of Greece. Lapavitsas also states that the only paragraph in relation to the debt is ‘well written’; ‘SYRIZA will not stop the debt payment during the re-negotiation of the debt. The party knows very well that the debt issue is a great issue.. ‘. These words make us understand that SYRIZA recognises the huge challenge that might end up in difficulty; the task of ‘economic solution’, is for SYRIZA a taboo and SYRIZA might not want to get involved in reality, to the freeing of Greece from the memorandums.  Evidence for this possibility could clearly be the neutral stance of the party in the latest governmental crisis after the decision for the closure of the Greek public channel, ERT, where the Democratic Left withrdrew its support from the government leaving the, until then, three-party coalition to a much weaker two party coalition. Therefore, the question that arises here is: would SYRIZA have taken the governmental crisis in advantage and push for elections if they felt stronger but more crucially ready to govern? I believe the answer to be yes. Yet several other questions arise here; what type of government would SYRIZA want and what type of governing would serve?

This shift regarding the party’s politics can answer the question if SYRIZA primarily a radical party and secondly if it can save Greece’s economy. To answer the first Paul Blackledge stated that the differentiation of the social democratic parties from the conservative/right wing parties is the debate, not between the austerity or not but in relation to the way of implementing it (ISJ 139, 4/7/13). Now, if SYRIZA changed its tactics, maybe in order to be more attractive inside the country, proposing a re-negotiation of the debt instead of cancelling it, does it differ from what Blackledge expressed? If a part of the debt is to be paid and the influence of the troika still visible, then new neoliberal measures are to be taken. How can a party that advocates democracy and alternatives to neoliberalism be sustainable if it does not fully challenge payment of the debt?

Democracy

The July conference created numerous tensions within the Greek party. The direct attack on the party’s factions, especially on its left exposed that the nature of the party is changing and preparing for a formation of a mainstream parliamentary party, ready to win elections, govern and ultimately end up as a systemic and bureaucratised party.

So, what are these attacks we are talking about? And why the latest conference of July was an attack to the party democracy? The pre-conference conversations implied that all the currents within SYRIZA would be abolished and then SYRIZA can be called a party and act as a party and not a coalition of small sects. After the registration of SYRIZA, last year, as a political party and not as a coalition in order to gain the ability to govern, now, SYRIZA abolishes its factions. Thus, all the democratic pluralism within the radical party are gone for good and the existence of multiple traditions that could lead to multiple discussions in relation to problems, solutions and debates is no longer visible. The second point is that, following the removal of the party’s platforms, and the elections of the president through the conference which is to be hold every three years, no party instrument such as the Central Committee or the platforms will be able to check the president and balance the conditions and the debates within the party leading at the end, to a very centralised situation the party’s democracy; especially now, where the several platforms are weaker.

syriza-synedrio01-28august2013

Obviously, a direct democracy should be a crucial task for every modern political party or organisation of the Left and it is indeed for SYRIZA as well. However, does the election of the president from the conference mean more or less democracy? With the old system of electing the leader through the Central Committee, it might seem too centralised and bureaucratic however; criticisms of SYRIZA’s post-conference era say that the CC had the chance to meet regularly and check the president, replace him or shape the decisions if needed. Especially, if the CC members are elected members of each of the party’s platforms and they express, through inner and democratic processes the desires and demands of all their members, there is an obvious democratic structure within the different currents of the party which provide the party itself with qualities of democracy. If, on the other hand, the party’s CC does not fulfil the democratic criteria mentioned above and including every single current within the party, then it simply becomes bureaucratic and too centralised. In another case, similarly to what Tony Cliff said, the leadership of the party will be in complete distance from the base of the party, unchecked, leading the whole party to a direction that its base does not desire.

In other words, until the next conference of SYRIZA, in three years, the party politics will be formulated by the current president Alexis Tsipras; if in one year Tsipras and SYRIZA managed to shift the party further to the right, what now, where the situation will be what it have been explained and Tsipras will be the absolute ruler? One end can be visualised; SYRIZA will have a radical and rapid ending in terms of quality. As it rapidly grew, that rapidly it will become another promising party that lost the game with the system and became slave of its misconceptions, settling itself at the levels of social democracy; far from modern, yet, radical ideas.

Left Reformism

Sectarianism is a problem indeed. Reformism is another. There have been several discussions on the nature of SYRIZA; apparently the most constructive ones taking place within the International Socialist Journal offering an overall evaluation of both the positive aspects and the importance of SYRIZA but also a critical evaluation of left reformism and the dangers that parties like SYRIZA may carry.

While the revolutionary left identifies the problems of reformism and social democracy, which fundamentally deriving from its shaking ideology and the will to accommodate with the current system, SYRIZA seems to do so as well; it seems willing to use the current structures and the current methods to proceed to its work and that ends up being in controversy with its radical rhetoric.

Debating the fundamental problems of reformism is not necessarily dogmatic since these fundamental problems are what shape the false-consciousness within social democratic parties. Since SYRIZA is not willing to clash with the local and European capitalism and therefore it is willing to accommodate with it, then, it does not form an actual threat to it. This leads us to understand what Paul Blackledge explained as the ‘ fine line between on the one hand avoiding sectarianism and on the other hand liquidating socialist groups into formations that despite breaking with social democratic parties have not broken with the logic of reformist politics’ (ISJ 139, 4/7/13). And the reasons why SYRIZA did not break with the reformist policies have been mentioned above and derived primarily from the fact that it seems now willing to stay under the hegemony of the EU and the memorandums by only willing to renegotiating the debt. If SYRIZA manages to gain power and do that, then there may still be observed issues of dependency to foreign capital and foreign politics.

The fundamental reasons behind why SYRIZA has shifted so rapidly the past one year is probably linked to what has been assessed earlier regarding its inner democracy. Again, Paul Blackledge stated, two weeks before the conference of SYRIZA that ’social democratic type parties have become what they have become for structural reasons, and any attempt to forge left unity that inadequately addresses the causes of this process will tend to repeat past mistakes. Indeed, there is a danger in this situation that more radical currents within these coalitions will get pulled to the right by a leadership whose politics is essentially electoral’ (ISJ 139, 4/7/13).  And that is what happened. The radical currents where voted out of significance by the more mainstream, right, current, the one supports Tsipras. Indeed, one may say here that this came through a democratic process but, a vote at a conference is not what characterises democracy. Especially if one followed the debates of intimidation prior to the conference and the ‘necessity’ to move towards a ‘unified party’. On the other hand, within parties there will always be dominant ideas coming from above and shaping the consciousness of the bases of the part. In SYRIZA’s case,  the leadership silenced in that way the platforms that were the radical currents within the party and it is now moving to the right preparing for future governance, reinforcing in that way the reformist nature of the shining star that even before its possible governance, lost the battle.

Conclusion

At these crucial times it is highly welcome to see parties from the Left, like SYRIZA, becoming an option for the citizens and indicating the problems of the representative democracy, neoliberalism and all their outcomes such as racism, the destruction of the welfare state, poverty. However, as it has been stated, support for these parties should be critically viewed. Indeed, the term ‘critical’ can be easily used and abused on the radical left space and be seen as sectarian. Yet, as it has been expressed in this article, the identification of the problem of SYRIZA does not derive from a sectarian perspective but from the fundamentals of the foundations of its ideology, its program, the dominant ideologies within it that shift to the right and curry its whole base but primarily the fact that this party aims for a change within current structures.

The anti-capitalist, anti-neoliberal and anti-dependency phraseology of the party was vanished when the electoral percentages increased; Tsipras prefer to play it more safely, ‘recycling’ the importance of democracy and throwing away the politics of radicalism. In addition, Tsipras did not hesitate to approach Democratic Left (theoretically centre left – until recently in the coalition government) and the Independent Greeks party (Right wing/populism/conservative/Greek nationalism/anti-austerity) in order to set an anti-austerity front and who knows what more.

When Marx debated the necessity of the self-realisation and the destruction of the liberal rights as a product of the narrow democratic and structural conceptions of the bourgeoisie one can strongly reflect his word and find parallels with any kind of ideology, institution etc. produced and ‘distributed’ by the superstructure; in antithesis, SYRIZA seems not to, also, challenge this social status quo but in contrast cohabit with it.  Can radical democracy coexist with a system that it stands as it stands now? Can anti-racism coexist with a system that feeds inequality? Can devastation be vanished within a system that builds on it?

As far as the economics of the party are concerned, SYRIZA does not seem willing to challenge capitalism directly; question the debt, the memorandum and evaluate as an option the exit from the Eurozone challenging the European, monetary and political hegemony imposed upon the country but also the austerity policies that have been proven ineffective and paved the way to greater attacks on the economy and the lower layers of the society. In antithesis, SYRIZA only troubled with the economic issues in one small paragraph in its conference, creating a series of questions; what is the party going to do in case of election? Continue the politics of the PASOK – New Democracy coalition or proceed to the already shifted plan, to partly re-negotiate the debt? Alas the hegemons would allow SYRIZA to partly cooperate; partly consent in neoliberal politics and partly challenge them. In no case! I do not wish to make any predictions about how the future will treat Greece if SYRIZA gets in power. This is not the point. The point is that if SYRIZA plays it from a safe ground in the sense that it will not challenge any fundamental economic structures of the Greek capitalism but just adds some tones of radicalism in social and political issues. In this case Greece will not exit from the capitalist circle that will cause in the future more and more crises; economic and social.

For the end, I will state this again: sectarianism is a problem indeed, reformism is another. The modern radical left should strongly stay away from dogmatism but that does not mean it should trap itself into reformism. Either the defeatism as an outcome of the Stalinist Soviet Union or the false consciousness within modern social democratic parties but also a variety of other reasons by conclude to why the Left as a generic term is either weak or wrong. Unfortunately, for one more time the left faces an economic crisis and it is unprepared.

@GeorgeVenizelos

http://internationalcritique.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/is-syriza-greeces-hope/

Hellasjournal - Newsletter


%d bloggers like this: