The Best of GRReporter
flag_bg flag_gr flag_gb

Media boycott reformist forces in Greece

28 March 2013 / 01:03:38  GRReporter
5877 reads

Anastasia Balezdrova

Three years after the signing of the first Memorandum of economic aid, few things have changed in Greece. There is much talk about reforms and no actions, political extremes are becoming more severe, and violence against immigrants, whom Golden Dawn has almost identified as the cause of the crisis, has been constantly growing.

GRReporter is talking with professor of economics at the Panteion University and Vice-President of the Liberal Party Drassi, Antigone Lyberaki about the crisis, Europe’s response, the political scene in Greece and the place of reformist forces in it.

Mrs. Lyberaki, do you think that the government’s policy for immigrants is moving in the right direction? The truth is that we are not seeing as many of them in the streets as before. Has this issue been resolved to a certain extent?

The issue of immigration can never be resolved completely. But it may be relieved, the conditions for immigrants can be improved and the country, to which they emigrate, can benefit from their presence. All this may be possible if there is a realistic and long-term position as regards the mutual benefits from immigration.

I think that the reduced number of immigrants in the streets is due to their fear. The manifestations of hostility against them are much more frequent than in the past. In various areas of Athens and in certain places across the country, Golden Dawn has almost managed to convince the people that they are to blame for the crisis - the weakest part of society that is unable to respond to the attacks and defend itself.

The number of immigrants who come to the country has surely decreased. They do not "blindly" decide to leave; they go to countries where there is work. At the same time, those who have already settled in Greece are not leaving it, at least not so many of them, although some politicians expected that the crisis would force all immigrants to leave. They are not leaving because of the fear that they will not be able to return, just because they know the hardships of this road. The second reason is that their children are students and they do not want to spoil the plans of the family. The third is that despite the crisis, their prospects in Greece are better than in their homeland. And the fourth reason is the optimism of hard working people that the storm will be over at some point and there will eventually be a need for labour force. I think that they are right. The more rigorous the policy for immigrants, the less they leave when they lose their jobs because of the fear that they will not be able to come back. This, in fact, causes the opposite effect compared to the striving of politicians, who think that if they apply a stricter policy they will force the immigrants to leave. In fact, they confine them to the country, although they would probably like to leave it if they had the prospects of returning.

At present, the political system is struggling to cope with the crisis and actually, there is no strategic thinking on immigration. Embarrassing actions like the police "purges" in the centre of Athens are being taken to calm the public anger, without any assurances that they will yield any results. They are being used more as communication machinations.

A step backwards has been made in relation to granting Greek citizenship to immigrants’ children. This is much more serious than it looks, because there are many cases of potential success in every second generation. Therefore, this policy is making our own country deficient in people who could give many things to both themselves and the country, in which they will live in the future.

There is a discussion on "importing" only people with occupations that we need. This is stupid. Suppose we now know that, we need 5 engineers. What we do not know now is what will happen to their children, who will be born here or whom they will bring here with them. This is the real wealth and the greatest gift of immigration that the Greek political system short-sightedly refuses to understand.

Has there been a proper policy for immigrants from third countries at European level?

Almost all problems related to this political shortsightedness of the Greek political system are present at European level as well. Any relief in the reception conditions for migrants is extremely unpopular.

However, some countries that are more "serious" in terms of identifying their future needs such as Germany are planning to receive a large number of immigrants in the coming years. They are doing so for the sake of their economies. However, while they are keeping quiet during the general discussions on immigration policy, they are announcing in their countries programmes for very large displacements of population. In some cases, we are talking about millions of people over the next five years. It is just because they need this workforce.

The number of people who are aware of the benefits from immigration is usually small. The majority indirectly benefits from it but it is not aware of that fact. When I was conducting research on immigration some years ago and was talking with the people, they shared their fears of immigration. But then, they said, “But the Albanian woman, who takes care of my elderly mother, is a wonderful person, she is a member of the family and we have even placed the ground floor at her disposal to live there with her family.”

So, on the one hand, they were saying that they respected, appreciated and loved those with whom they were in direct contact, but on the other - they were afraid of the other immigrants. The sum of these opinions results in a very interesting position. It shows that the people who are aware of the benefits from immigration are more willing to accept a political position, according to which the economy and society, and the immigrants themselves greatly benefit from immigration. Unfortunately, the politicians failed to do this when the times were better and when the positive effect of immigration was apparent. Now, during the crisis, the probability of them doing so is minimal.

Has the debt crisis surprised the European politicians? How do you consider their actions?

Many assessments have been written subsequently, namely that the crisis could have been foreseen, that it was the result of a hypertrophic growth of the financial system, which had been developing at a much faster pace than the governments and international organizations were able to control.

In fact, the bitter truth is that when something in the economy brings profits, it is very difficult for someone to say, “The party is over, the music is over. We will impose some rules and prohibitions, we will carry out some inspections.” It is because when the system works, the people do not want to hear anything negative. All that stops suddenly, it does not happen gradually. Banks collapsed overnight, some were rescued, others – were not. Large companies that provided guarantees were also close to bankruptcy, but they were saved because otherwise the problem would have been even worse. In countries such as Iceland, the governments took over the burden to fill the "black hole" of local banks. As a result, society paid much of the cost and then, many commentators pointed out that it was not possible for taxpayers, who have benefited a little or did not benefit at all from it all, to pay to save the banks.

Ireland took individual actions too and saved its banks, and as a result, the national debt increased. Spain’s case is similar. The state saved the banks, not the private but the peripheral banks, which seem to have been operating under less than transparent conditions and the country has almost collapsed due to this burden.

In Greece, things are different. The banks here have not failed. They were very conservative and in the past, we were even accusing them of not risking at all. The result of this policy was that when the crisis came, they were in relatively good condition. The problem in Greece is that the state has failed. The banks suffered because they had bought government bonds. This means that their need for recapitalization is due primarily to the fact that they had taken on a significant part of the burden of the state bankruptcy.

No one could have predicted this. But the fact is that the government was spending more than it had, the external debt was constantly growing, the high values ​​were not apparently worsening only because of the rapid growth that could not last forever and it was clear that the fiscal policy should be regulated. Many of us were saying this, but we were "the bad" ones. Unfortunately, our words have proved true and it is a pity that, three years after the signing of the first Memorandum, we have not yet realized that the time of false abundance is over and we must start doing not merely difficult but different things.

What were the mistakes of the European policy in the case of Greece?

When Europe decided to save Greece, it took a very big step into uncharted territory. This was something that was not stipulated in any of the European agreements. The founders of the European Union and the euro zone had considered that if they included in them measures to be automatically taken in such a situation, they would give a signal that they were not sure about the success of the initiative. I am not sure whether this position was correct, but that was their concept. Furthermore, Europe has taken up the challenge and decided to take action.

This has created the Troika. Europe did not know how to deal with such a situation. The International Monetary Fund knew what to do since it has been functioning as a life belt. Sometimes it succeeds, sometimes it fails but in all cases, it has gained a very rich positive and negative experience. The European Central Bank is the institution that has the money and takes decisions on it.

Similarly, the International Monetary Fund provided a small amount but its extensive knowledge in addition, the European Central Bank - the money, the European Union controlled all the actions. I think that future historians will identify this decision as a brave and well-considered action.

The fact that the Memorandum has not been implemented is due to errors in the text but more so to the problems caused by Greece’s failure to implement it. I would like to say that the Europeans and the technocrats from the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund could not believe the extent to which the state and its public sectors had decayed. They thought that they would receive accurate information about anything they asked. They believed that when someone affixed his signature and promised to do something, he would do it. In practice, the experts were involved in a process called "learning by doing" (learning while doing something), which is hard and ultimately, you learn from your mistakes. So, each subsequent loan agreement aimed at trying to solve the problems that had stemmed from the implementation of the previous one. However, I think this can be defined as an attempt, in which there was political will to solve the problems of Greece as well as generosity, because a lot of money had been put into it. Therefore, I could not say that Europe and the Troika had made serious mistakes.

But there were many mistakes in the way we acted. They were related to ignorance, incompetence, playing tricks, significant inaction and mostly to the reluctance to face reality. More or less, we were thinking that if we were dragging our feet, the problems would be solved in one way or another and we would return to the times before the crisis, which is absolutely unreal.

Shortsightedness and populism have survived, yielding results for many years. Generations of politicians have been "brought up" in these principles, because they were effective. So, there was no reason to change them. But when the moment of truth came, they did not know, could not know, did not want to and were unable to assume their responsibility.

How will this situation develop?

Unfortunately, facing reality does not give us a lot of time to become aware. Things are getting more difficult every passing day, month and year, because when you do not solve a problem it gives rise to ten others.

I do not know how long this can continue. In recent months, there has been some mobilization. It is not the best in terms of actions and results but things have stirred up. I cannot answer what the outcome of this situation will be.

According to some commentators, if there is a referendum or elections in Greece now, after the developments in Cyprus, the country will end up outside Europe and the euro zone. Do you share this opinion?

I bear strong optimism, which is based on the belief that societies do not commit suicide. Somehow, logic prevails at the last minute.

The truth is that the way in which both the Cypriot and Greek political systems are responding to the developments in Cyprus resembles the old "glorious" way of denial of reality. In this sense, it is poisonous to our efforts to pull ourselves together and look at things calmly. All this reminds us of our old bad "ego" - big words without meaning, cheating, ostentation and fictitious sacrifices. And the developments in Cyprus have reinforced all these negative things.

We see it both here and there. It's really impressive how the people, with whom we share the same opinion in the lobby, radically change their positions in front of the cameras in the television studio. I think that a significant dose of irresponsibility has recently swept us and I am not hiding the fact that it bothers me a lot.

How do you evaluate the work of the Greek government? Recently, we have seen some steps in the fight against corruption. Are they enough? How long can this last?

I consider positive the fact that some people will appear in court to explain their actions, how they got rich and how they managed the public funds. Many people are commenting that the punishment of Thessaloniki’s former mayor Vassilis Papageorgopoulos is severe. It is possible to make mistakes in the fuss although I do not think that the specific penalty is heavy. But I cannot accept the other view, because the transition from a situation in which no one is responsible for anything to the opposite is a difficult process and some may become its victims.

But surely, this is the right direction.
 
What bothers me is that while actions in the higher echelons of power are being taken, because society will otherwise explode, I do not see the same happening in the public sector. Getting rich with public money is a very serious problem and I think that it will be difficult for many state actors unknown until recently to explain the increase in their financial assets over the last 15 years. Equally serious is the corruption that allows you not to do your job, not to serve the public by inventing thousands of reasons not to work. There is not yet a sign that there is control over who is doing his or her job and who is not - In fact it is quite the opposite, the feeling is that we are tolerant towards the 'poor' public workers, who are worried and are not working for that reason. Transparency, strictness and performance evaluation should apply everywhere and to everyone.

The people who are not going to work, or are working only for a few hours or are at work but running their private business or sending the citizens to private entrepreneurs to make money will not change just because Akis Tsohatzopoulos is in prison. It takes something more to change this.

And all this worries me. Not everything that needs to be done is being done. On the other hand, when a big ship has to make a turn, the manoeuvres should be done smoothly. I do not know whether we will succeed. But this should happen for sure regardless of whether the country will be inside or outside the euro zone. We simply cannot escape from reality.

Reforms are also lagging behind.

Reforms are a persistent problem in Greece. I do not think there is another country where so many people react negatively when they hear this word. Whenever there was an attempt to push a reform, all united against it. And when reforms are not being made, someone else pays the price.

The trade unionist from the Public Power Corporation can pull the plug to supress the power, but the people in the private sector lose their jobs because the power has been cut off. A large number of public companies have not reduced salaries at all.

What is the role of the party Drassi in this situation? What is it doing to enter parliament at least?

Drassi is a very good party that has very good ideas compared to its power and to the Greek political parties. One of the problems in Greece is a very strange relationship of corruption between the media, the political parties and the state. By this, I mean that Drassi has a very limited access to radio and television stations. I would not believe how true and widespread this fact is, if it hadn’t been for my experience in the elections in June 2012. The moment I stood at the head of the coalition Drassi - Recreate Greece - Liberal Alliance, journalists, friends, who had invited me to their broadcasts for comments, told me that they could not invite me before the elections and that I could appear on screen for comments after their completion. Moreover, in nine out of ten cases, they forgot to mention, while presenting me, that I was from the Drassi party. By this, I mean that Drassi is causing the established system to react in a way, which is much stronger than the power of the party.
 
On the other hand, I would not say that we are doing everything the right way and others the wrong way. Obviously, we have not found a clearer and straightforward way to reach more people. We will try to find it at the upcoming congress in May. It is not easy, because we are not professional politicians. So, we must find ways and means to achieve this in a more professional manner. I am optimistic that we will find the way to enter parliament.

At the same time, we are trying to connect with other forces from the reformist centre. These attempts cannot produce results immediately and many traps lie behind them. All this is difficult, but we are doing it with a very strong belief, generosity and courage, because we should try to cooperate. It is impossible for us to blame the others for not being able to work well with other forces.

According to the chairman of Liberal Alliance, George Valianatos, the dilemma during the next elections will be SYRIZA or Golden Dawn. What could be changed not to get to this point?

It seems that polarization is gaining ground. This is the worst possible environment for trying to consider and trigger things in the right way. Precisely because the trend is in favour of polarization, we share the opinion that the later the elections, the better for Greece. At least for it to be able to take a breath that we are not so much threatened with bankruptcy or exit from the euro zone.

The next elections will be held in difficult conditions anyway. Even if there is positive news, it will not be positive enough to forget everything else. Difficult conditions do have a beneficial impact on extremes, which in turn further complicates the situation. So, I think a small party to say the right things and win 3% of the votes in order to enter parliament is not enough. It should try to do something more in order for its voice to reach the citizens and make them believe that their vote will not be wasted, that it will bring results.

I have said many times that if Drassi had been able to enter parliament after the elections on 6 May 2012, probably there would not have been a second round of elections. Perhaps the potential government would have been more composed and proactive. But these are only assumptions. I think that we should surpass ourselves, overcome our weaknesses, learn to be professional politicians and do the best that we are capable of.

Bulgaria is currently going through a period of instability. What is the lesson, which Bulgaria and other countries from the former socialist camp might draw from the Greek experience?

The first is that we are living in a very dynamic and unpredictable world. The smaller and lonelier an economy, the harder it will be for it to survive. An impressive shift of the centre of the world economy towards the East is underway and Europe is no longer the centre of the world, or at least not as much as in the past. It must therefore reconsider its position with modesty and composure.

The countries that are in the European Union have reason to be optimistic. Our main goal should be to continue to be in united Europe and to make it stronger because if we continue to belong to it, undermining its foundations at the same time, we are harming ourselves; we are sawing off the bough on which we are sitting. There are no other better alternatives. They are all much worse. The effects of uncertainty and instability are always worse for the weaker. This is a lesson we should not forget. First of all, we should be Europeans, we should support the stability of democracy and the European perspective. Any other decision is almost equal to suicide in our age.

Tags: PoliticsReformist forcesEuropean UnionImmigrationAntigone LyberakiCrisis
SUPPORT US!
GRReporter’s content is brought to you for free 7 days a week by a team of highly professional journalists, translators, photographers, operators, software developers, designers. If you like and follow our work, consider whether you could support us financially with an amount at your choice.
Subscription
You can support us only once as well.
blog comments powered by Disqus