Galery

3

2

1

Anastasia Balezdrova

The lawmakers who supported the austerity plan for Greece called the anger of hundreds of Greek citizens. It’s been a week since the people’s representatives, who came to parliament with the ballot of the ruling PASOK party, have become victims of attacks by groups of angry citizens who invade television studios during live broadcasts, block the way of deputies’ cars, throw yoghourts against them and curse. Posters with the pictures and names of local MPs appeared in several areas in northern Greece, and the large letters bellow read, "They voted for the austerity plan. Let's not forget who say only "yes" to the power" and "Wanted for crimes against the people and legitimizing state violence."

Public abuse and attacks provoked an exchange of sharp lines between the ruling PASOK and the radical left coalition SYRIZA that refuses to publicly condemn these acts. The only MP elected from Zakynthos was even declared "persona non grata" on the island by the chairman of the local committee of the far-left party. Yesterday, the Minister pf Citizens Protection Christos Papoutsis said that there is information about such action held in front of his house and he warned the organizers not to reach his wife and child.

GRReporter contacted Haridimos Tsoukas - Professor of Strategic Management and Organizational Sciences at the Universities of Warwick and Cyprus - who analyzed this new and dangerous phenomenon.

Mr. Tsoukas, what do you think is the reason for these reactions?

I think people respond angrily. Their reactions are not political and that is the difference from terrorist acts. We can understand that someone is driven by political incentives when placing a bomb somewhere, destroying or even taking a human life, which is typical for organizations such as 17 November, Red Brigades, etc.

There is nothing similar here. We are witnessing a profound anger that is expressed with such abuses. These acts have no political character themselves, but produce political results. The moment when violence is consolidated in political life it becomes a political event, and it, in turn, impedes the efforts of the organized society to tackle its problems in a serious and rational way.

The ruling PASOK party continuously attacked the radical left coalition SYRIZA over the past few days that it organizes these attacks. What is your comment?

This is quite natural, although the victims are not just government MPs. The ruling party is suffering the consequences of the political damage caused by the policy it is pursuing. But I would like to remind you that the New Democracy MP Kostis Hadzidakis was also attacked in a very bloody and violent way seven months ago. I mean, that most of them really are government MPs, but I feel that the people’s anger does not aim only at them, but at any representative of the Greek Parliament potentially.

Unfortunately, in Greece all this tangles with the competition between the parties. This is not serious. I do not think one particular party has turned the violence against lawmakers into a strategy. The fact that the authors are groups of people who carry out the attacks and possibly one particular party does not clearly oppose them is another matter. But I do not think the attacks stem from somewhere in an organized manner.

Could they be organised gradually?

Yes, they could be. I hope this would not happen and there would not be a separate movement of violence. It would be disastrous for the country. It should be clear that the existence of violence in the political sphere is morally unacceptable. It is something that should be firmly opposed.

This does not mean that I have no right as a citizen to express my disapproval of a MP. There is nothing negative in this action when it is within the legitimate political response. When I feel offended and disagree with something I can express my response in a verbal manner. However, when the manner implies violence, then we are talking about actions that are unacceptable for a democratic country and that lead us to the impasse.

Where does this violence come from?

See, when the policy does not solve the problems in a coordinated, organized and constructive manner, when we do not express aloud our feelings and political positions and when we do not feel that those to whom we turn hear this voice, I could understand why a person could use more primitive methods of response, such as violence. Of course, it leads to frustration and degrades the person using such methods. Let me remind you also that the major social movements for human rights, especially those in America as the movement of Martin Luther King, were explicitly based on nonviolence. This is not by accident. The followers of these movements sought to gain moral advantage. And this happens when we oppose the established order in a rational way. This gives a moral advantage, because we are conscious as a part of a wider public sphere and respect our opponents. This was the great moral achievement of these social movements. Unfortunately, our primitiveness is such that we have failed to reach this level.