Galery

2

1

Anastasia Balezdrova

If you ever have the opportunity to hear Stefanos Manos, you will find that he is one of those politicians who are not limited to empty rhetoric and present things in their real dimensions and offer concrete solutions. He is a liberal and throughout his 30-year political career he has held various ministerial posts in the government of New Democracy. He graduated in mechanical engineering in Zurich and has a Master's degree in business administration from Harvard University. He was first elected to parliament in 1977, and in 1998, the then President of New Democracy Costas Karamanlis excluded him from the party because he had refused to follow the party line. Since then, he has remained independent, and today is the leader of the party Drasi (Action).

Mr. Manos, how would you assess the events of recent days? What is the outcome of this political drama?

What should happen is that the Prime Minister be changed. This change can happen in two ways: by elections, or if the PASOK party, which has a majority in parliament today changes the Prime Minister. The same had happened once with George Papandreou’s father. He was sick, the PASOK parliamentary group changed the Prime Minister, and Costas Simitis took his place. They should do that now.

Do you think that it depends on today's vote?

No, it does not depend on the vote. I do not care what its outcome will be. Even if he loses the vote, George Papandreou will remain the leader of PASOK and under the constitution the President will ask him to form a new government. He can start with 145 MPs instead of 152, find partners and form a government again. Therefore, the problem is not whether he will get a vote of confidence or not. For me, it is important that PASOK should have a new leader.

What do you think of New Democracy leader Antonis Samaras’ proposal for a transitional government?

I think it is unreal. What does New Democracy say - to form a government of limited responsibility? It will involve technocrats who, within six weeks, will complete the procedures under the contract of October 26, although it is unclear whether this could be done for such a short time. Their message is to take the money from the sixth tranche, and then hold elections.

In my opinion, the first obstacle to this proposal would be that the money would not be paid. And this would because France and Germany have decided not to help us unless we ourselves "clean the site". If we proceeded according to the proposal of Mr. Samaras, even if we ratified the agreements, our partners would not give us the money, because they would not be sure that the next government would implement the arrangements. I think the following should happen, in this particular order: Withdrawal of Mr. Papandreou, change to another Prime Minister and then, formation of a government on the initiative of PASOK, as it has the highest number of deputies in parliament. This should be a very strong and influential cabinet, having 12-15 months to clear up the situation in the country. It is not necessary to involve members of PASOK. It could be based on party officials, but be a government of the most talented individuals. I.e., we need about 15 people who will put all their efforts into solving the problems of the country within a year and a half.

I think this is the right decision. I fear, however, that this will not happen. I also fear that with the way of thinking in Greece, they will find some way to patch things up to eventually gain some time. Then, we will find ourselves facing the very same problems we have today. Much more serious changes are necessary than those stipulated in the agreement of October 26. And only a very strong government would be able to make them.

But you say you are pessimistic.

Yes, I am a pessimist. I think that they will patch things up again, this is their mentality. This error, however, will lead us to a new crisis after two - three months. And, as we know from the current term of Papandreou, any further decision is worse than the previous. The decision of October 26 may relieve us from one part of the debt, but on the other hand, Greece will have the ill repute of a insolvent country for the next 10-20 years.

This will continue until the country obtains a strong government that is not interested in elections, votes and what one union or another is saying, but which does the ten things that are urgent.

Do you think the next government will be able to carry out all necessary reforms to reduce the public sector, to capture tax evaders, etc.?

It very much depends on what it would be. Let us say that Mr. Venizelos, for example, heads it. My forecast is that he would not be able to do it because if he could, he would have done it already. We need something new, radical, to introduce a person who will "open" the government. Suppose now that PASOK invites Costas Simitis, saying "we know you do not like us and we do not like you either but we think you are suitable." He could form a government not involving only PASOK supporters, but other people too. They would not intend to make a political career, but would solve the problems. PASOK would support this government by necessity. This would save not only Greece but also the PASOK party. This is because if they are now allowed to be taken to elections, the party would be destroyed. Eventually, this reality could somehow awaken their reasoning.

What do you think will be the fate of the entire political system in Greece after the crisis?

It will end up badly hurt, but it seems that, at least for the moment, the parties do not understand this. PASOK somewhat understands how things are progressing. But New Democracy thinks that everything is like before. But it is not.

Isn't a change in the political system necessary?

"Must" in a democratic country is just a word. Ultimately, everything depends on the desire of the Greek people. The same people have chosen those who have caused the chaos. The people in power today did not come from Mars. They entered parliament because the Greek people elected them and the people, according to recent polls, are willing to vote for Mr. Samaras. In my opinion, he would not bring different results from those of George Papandreou’s government. People, however, are free to decide, it is their right.

Do you think that the end of political dynasties in Greece is coming?

You see, all are talking about it, but the reality is not indicating that their end is nigh. To the contrary, I would say that they are becoming more powerful in the ruling party and the opposition. I mean that participants in politics tend to follow family tradition. And I do not mean only the leading families of Papandreou, Karamanlis and Bakogiannis. Many deputies enter politics following the path of their fathers and sometimes grandfathers. In this parliament, many of the deputies come from such families. At the same time, at least in Greece, politics attracts a very small number of  "outside" persons.

What do you think are the similarities and differences in the end of the political careers of the son George Papandreou, the nephew Costas Karamanlis and the daughter Dora Bakogiannis?

Ms. Bakogiannis was not Prime Minister, so I will exclude her. The most typical of the other two is their "separation" from reality. Very often, people feel that Mr. Papandreou lives in his reality. Something similar was true for Costas Karamanlis. We are talking about a reality that they are creating around themselves within the relevant offices and with their close associates incomprehensible to us all. It has nothing to do with the reality in which everyone else lives. This inevitably leads to serious problems. Even what Mr. Papandreou had told PASOK members about the referendum was completely incomprehensible. The only one who would understand him is a person living in the same fictional reality. I think something similar happened to Mr. Karamanlis. There was a sense of distance and disdain for reality.

How would you comment on the fact that the Minister of Defense changed the chiefs of all military staffs a few days ago? A journalist from the French newspaper Libération posted on Twitter that George Papandreou has justified to Nicolas Sarkozy the initiative of holding a referendum due to fears of a military coup.

This change has caused great concern. British radio stations have called to ask me what was going on. I do not think anything has happened. The reason to hold these changes at this moment lies in the unconsciousness of these people and their existence in their own reality. The other thing, which caused the greatest concern, was the fact that the chiefs were all changed at the same time. Although each of them might be very good, the fact that they are all new makes the group weaker. If they were changed one by one to integrate each of them gradually into the group, things would develop in a more ordinary way. This is a common practice. The abrupt change proves that they live in their own world and they do not seem to understand what they are doing. Yesterday, Mr. Papandreou told his deputies that he had triggered the whole discussion about the referendum to press Antonis Samaras to agree with the loan agreement. As a result, he "blew" all stock exchanges and caused problems throughout the world. Hundreds of millions of euros were lost just because Mr. Papandreou had decided to say this. All these actions indicate that these people are not anchored to the ground.

When it all ends, what would the political future of George Papandreou be?

This is something I am not interested in. The only thing that matters is that he be replaced as Prime Minister. Then, let him do whatever he wants. But in no case should he remain in this post.

How do you see the future of smaller parties such as yours?

Previous experience shows that smaller parties have no perspective. This does not mean that we do not make efforts. But the truth is that the Greek people, at least for now, prefer to vote for one of the two parties, which are expected to govern. For the Greek mentality, it is alien to have coalition parties or governments. They might say they want them, but in the end they vote to have a parliamentary majority. They did the same with Papandreou and now we are paying the price for it. For if from the very first day the Greeks had not given majority to George Papandreou, as I suggested in my dozens of press releases, and he had been forced to cooperate with others, things would be quite different. First of all, he would not have the opportunity of swearing at, from morning to evening, the party with which he was cooperating and he would be forced to agree to a consensus. But this has not happened, because the Greek people wished so.

Subsequent changes in the political system followed the International Monetary Fund in all countries in which it was introduced. Do you think it will happen here?
 
The International Monetary Fund goes to countries with problems. Sometimes changes cause reactions that change parties. This may happen and may not happen. Nothing is given. For example, in Turkey, it seemed at the beginning that there would be changes in the political system, but then things soon returned to their familiar form. Recep Erdogan has not appeared as a result of the presence of the International Monetary Fund. The Fund representatives went to Turkey when Bulent Ecevit was in power. The changes took place during his term. Old parties have continued to exist, but on an already stronger base. Perhaps the most important thing is that when you invite the International Monetary Fund to the country, the government must be determined not to go to psychosis of the past. In Turkey, they were saved because they had great help from Kemal Dervis. He returned from abroad, stayed for about two years and then left again, but during that time, he has done much to change the situation in Turkey. By this, I mean that the representatives of the International Monetary Fund have not turned to the Turkish analogue of our minister Mr. Venizelos, who acts thinking only of whether he will become party leader, if he will be elected, etc. They just called a man from outside, who knew what to do. This is needed now in Greece - several people able to do the job.

Are there such people abroad?

Of course, there are. They are here and abroad. The point is that now, when the danger is ahead of us, the political system itself should decide to address them. But if it could take the right decisions, we would not end up there.

Is society aware that there should be changes?

You may have noticed that after the day of turmoil in Cannes there are no longer protest processions. People are afraid and rightly so, because things have come to the brink.

What should be done to avoid bankruptcy?

Putting aside the formalities for the ratification of the loan agreement, the most important thing is to make a very drastic cut in government spending. It will include many redundancies in the public sector. This will allow reduction of the tax burden on the rest of society and government authorities will start to work somewhat more efficiently. Cutting the public sector does not take anything you need, but quite unnecessary parts that cost money. This, of course, is very simplified. Significant changes are necessary to reduce and modernize the public sector.

The second thing is to decide that we need to use and sell a very large part of state property, which is not incurring any income. If this is done in an organized and reasonable way, the country could handle the debt issue and very quickly. I would say that this could happen next year. But of course, this is only possible with deep interventions rather than epizootic actions.

If these two things happen in a decisive manner, the problems could be resolved almost completely within one year.

How could this happen?

I am talking about a massive effort, which will include thousands of properties. We will receive money for them now, but the sale will happen in the future. Similar proposals were made not only by us but also by a German group some time ago. This would generate about € 125-150 billion. The logic here is that we get money now, but the sale will happen later, when there will be market for it and the economic environment is quite stable. There is a specific methodology for this. Of course, nothing can be sold in today’s conditions.

Therefore, the Greeks must choose between solving the problem to a large extent next year and living worse in the next at least ten years to limit the debt.

It is not certain that the debt would be limited. The decision adopted on October 26 is not a solution. What are we saying to the Greek people? That our vision is that after eight years of difficulty we would get to where we were when George Papandreou took power? He took the debt in the amount of 120% of GDP and within two years, it reached 165%. Italy, which is now declining, has a debt of 120% of GDP. Does this mean that our goal, and if all goes well, is to go back to the starting point after eight years? This is not serious.

However, there is no other choice for tomorrow. We will accept this and we must take the actions I have already indicated.

How real is the threat for Greece to exit the eurozone?

It is very real. If they do not give us money, we will not have money to exist. And the state will be forced to print money to be able to pay salaries and pensions. For example, it will give us a thousand drachmes per month. Each month, their fair value will decline and this will lead to inflation. In this case, the country cannot remain in the eurozone. Along with this, we will exit the European Union. This, I think, would be disastrous for Greece from the perspective of national security. We are located in an area that is not determined by conditions of stability. Then, we will talk about disastrous consequences for the country and they would be due to the politics of New Democracy and PASOK, which are in the present composition of parliament.