Galery

3

2

1

Anastasia Balezdrova

The pre-election period is already underway in Greece. The political situation is tenser than ever. Emerging parties are preparing to benefit from the citizens’ discontent regaqrding PASOK and New Democracy, which were the main players until today. GRReporter turned to political analyst Plamen Tonchev, who has been closely monitoring the developments in Greek politics and society for decades, for analyses.

He graduated in philology and subsequently, in European Institutions and Diplomacy at the University of Athens. He worked as a research associate of Greek politicians and as an adviser to the European Commission. He was involved in EU and OSCE missions observing the elections in Eastern Europe and Asia. He is the author of a number of scientific articles and books.

"The keyword is fragmentation of the political spectrum in Greece. It is obviously a consequence of the apparent end of the cycle that began in 1974 with the establishment of the two major parties PASOK and New Democracy and the legalization of the Communist Party. It is not an accident that according to polls, the two parties together collect only about 35% of the preferences of the respondents. They seem to have lost the social support on which they relied and from which they benefited for decades. Their split and the emergence of all these small parties and factions around them is a natural phenomenon. This is not only due to the crisis in the past two years. It is just that PASOK and New Democracy have become politically and ideologically obsolete and are close to their end.

If the mission of New Democracy formed by then Prime Minister Konstantinos Karamanlis in 1974 was for Greece to join the European Community, it was completed long ago. If the mission of PASOK formed by Andreas Papandreou in 1974 was to give the left a chance to access education, health care, find its place in the political arena, it was also completed and overachieved.

As Antonio Gramsci would say, "The old world is dying away, and the new world is struggling to come forth." In my opinion, Greece is exactly at this stage - this cycle has been completed but it is not yet clear whether the new cycle has come and what it looks like."

The political analyst is not convinced that the two parties will disappear completely. He believes that even if they keep their names, they should be re-established on new foundations.

"In Greece, there have always been three fundamental forces: the Communists on the left, PASOK and New Democracy. All new small parties and factions, the exact number of which I do not even know, are the result of fragmentation of the two major parties. There have always been federations and confederations of movements and wings. In PASOK, there has always been a left wing, centrists and the so-called "right", according to the standards of the party. New Democracy has always had a centrist wing, more moderate and liberal politicians and a classic right or the so-called populist's right, as it is known here. I think that all these movements have no ideological common ground. Actually, the moderate wing of New Democracy has always been close to some extent to the centrists of PASOK. Quantitative ratios that still give some idea have always been 70% of the populist right to 30% of the moderate liberals in New Democracy. In PASOK, centrists are 20% versus 80% for the left wing.

The terms centrist left and centrist right have always been very opportunistic. They have never been grounded on an ideology and the big battles have always taken place inside the two parties. These concepts were simple tools for taking and exercising power. I.e., victories of both parties were due to the centre. Centrists, as voters, are always more moderate. Therefore, as thoughtful people, they consider "what is useful to me now and what will be useful to me later." But the battle has been always grounded on the principle of what they will give the voters, cynically speaking. Because in today's crisis, it is no longer possible to grant any benefits to people, that opportunistic principle is not effective. Clientelism is no longer in force and this explains the withdrawal of many people from parties generally. It also explains why the PASOK left and New Democracy right, which are more populist, can no longer rely on state and government benefits. That is why so many new small parties have appeared."

According to some analysts, like sociologist George Siakandaris, upcoming elections in Greece will be the clash of the forces that are "for" and "against" the European future of Greece. Many Greeks regard the European Union and its leading countries as enemies. And this despite the fact that the country is perhaps the most favoured state of the European Union in financial terms not only before but also during the severe financial crisis.

"I think all the trouble in Greece and these anti-European sentiments that are dominant in Greek society are due to the events that took place in the early 1980s. It is interesting to remember how Greece accessed the European Community. I would say that this happened by coincidence, because of the Cold War and on the insistence of Konstantinos Karamanlis. But the European spirit has never managed to spread in the society. By ridiculous coincidence, after Greece had already secured the accession to the European Community in 1981, people voted for PASOK, despite the anti-European rhetoric of the party. This purely opportunistic anti-European rhetoric of Andreas Papandreou has so much brainwashed at least one or two generations of Greeks, that it is very strong today too. While crying out against Europe, Andreas Papandreou received subsidies. I remember his slogan, "without NATO bases of death", but at the same time, he received 500 billion drachmas rent for each of them. In practice, he cried out against the bases to increase the rent. This ambiguous attitude has always been in force; it was very much strengthened by Andreas Papandreou and its spirit is still hovering in Greek society. For years, Greek society has had this attitude towards Europe: i.e., we are members with all rights arising therefrom, without obligations and with outstretched hand to get "what we are due." In fact, nothing was due to them, but that was their way of thinking. This anti-European attitude is still very strong in society today.

The main argument of Karamanlis in 1979 was that Greece belongs to the West. This historic and strategically accurate, in my opinion, phrase has not been taken seriously by the Greeks for the past 30 years since it was stated. Even today, Greek society believes that Greece belongs to the Greeks - also one of the slogans of Andreas Papandreou in the 1980s.

Over the past two difficult years, that subconscious belief that Greece does not belong to Europe but to the Greeks came to the surface and largely explains today's turbulent passions and fierce confrontation with Germany, Europeans, Brussels, the so-called "dumb Franks." My opinion is that Andreas Papandreou poisoned the Greeks with his rhetoric and that poison is still in the veins of society."

According to Plamen Tonchev, the anti-European attitude of Greece is also based on the cultural and even civilizational background of the people. Historically and geographically, the country is really at a crossroads and is located closer to the Arab world than to France and the Netherlands. "It also determines the attitudes of Greeks towards life in general, to Europe and I think that it is a factor that must also be considered."

Upcoming elections and their possible outcomes are troubling not only the parties but also a large part of society. Voters prefer many of the smaller parties that have sprung up recently and no one dares to forecast the outcome of the vote.

"The trends are approximate and all is based on assumptions. One of them is that it is hard for there to be a single-party government. Second, it is unclear whether the two major parties PASOK and New Democracy will manage to establish a stable government, even if they reach an agreement. I think, all that is certain, at least as it seems now, is that there will be a gap between political power and society. All polls show that society is against the stabilization programme, belt tightening, the painful measures. Even if there is a consensus at a parliamentary and governmental level that the recovery programme will have to continue, there will be strong public opposition. This has already aroused apprehension in the media. Lenders also share their fear of the day following the election. It is not a coincidence that they were against these elections, but they could not stop them. In the end, it really is a matter of national sovereignty. I guess after announcing the election results on 6 May, if they actually do take place then, meetings will be held to discuss the position of Europe and the Troika to Greece and the new government. I suppose there will be underhand pressure through all diplomatic channels to form a government that supports the implementation of the programme, at least in words. But all this is hypothetical. I think no one is able to state anything for certain. The fragmentation of the political spectrum is not helpful either. Right now, no one can say what the balance of power in parliament will be. Friends working in poll agencies say that for the first time in many years, no one is convinced of the truthfulness and accuracy of the data submitted."

One question that is drawing the interest of many observers is why some smaller parties of similar political platforms do not unite in electoral coalitions. Plamen Tonchev explained that the issue is particularly topical. "I do not see what the principle and ideological differences are between the emerging leftist formations such as Arma politon, Social Alliance and the Democratic Left. I do not understand what the basic difference between George Karatzaferis’ party LAOS and the Independent Greeks of Panos Kamenos is. A moment ago, I heard on the television Karatzaferis accusing Kamenos of plagiarism. With his ironic tone, he publicly "thanked" him for copying his programme. Similarly, I cannot find fundamental differences between Stefanos Manos’ Drasi and the Democratic Alliance of Dora Bakogiannis. The problem is on a personal basis. Often, leaders are not inclined to relinquish their positions. Although the parties of Karadzaferis and Kamenos are similar, I do not think it is possible for Karatzaferis to give way to Kamenos. The situation between Stephanos Manos and Dora Bakogiannis is similar, although in this particular case, there is an ideological confrontation between the supporters of pure liberalism, which are the people of Drasi and the supporters Dora Bakogiannis. They believe that somehow they have to combine their promises with light impurities of populism. Today, she says many accurate things, which she did not say two years ago. And this is a very strong argument against her by the supporters of Drasi. But actually, there are not very great differences between them and it is a matter of leadership."

How does the political analyst determine the role of the media? They blame politicians for not telling the truth to people, and do they represent an objective reality?

"I have had endless discussions with journalist-friends about whether to blame the chicken or the egg. Did the media vulgarize Greek society or does Greek society want vulgarized programmes? I do not know if I can give a definite answer, but the media is obviously at a very low level generally. Whatever the reason, I can focus on the result. And it is that Greek society, in addition to its low educational level, because of the weak and vulgarized media, is uninformed about what is happening in the world. The media should inform the public of the general process of European integration. Two years ago, I was in Utrecht, where I was amazed at how informed about Greece the people there were. We were talking about the benefits received by civil servants here. My counterparts were surprised not only by the fact that there were such benefits, but by their funny names too. They knew all this from the newspapers they read. In Greece, even today there is a belief that "Europe does not understand us and does not know what is happening here." I think Europeans, especially in recent years, because of the crisis in Greece, know amazing details that even the Greeks themselves may not know. Let us now ask the opposite: what do the Greeks know about Europe? If you ask a passer-by about Denmark, for example, he will probably know that its capital is Copenhagen, but nothing more. Greeks are quite uninformed and media are to blame for this. They present programmes of incredibly poor quality rather than the core of things, at least in regard to European affairs. The result of this irresponsible attitude is that the majority of people are convinced that the International Monetary Fund is a villain, whose mission is to come and destroy the country and to join it to the Third World. The media do not explain that the International Monetary Fund is an international organization like the United Nations, which involves about 180 countries. Their taxpayers bring cash in it and the International Monetary Fund grants loans at a low interest rate of around 3%. Because of misinformation again, many Greeks are convinced that their country is the second Argentina. Why is that? Because they have watched a documentary, read a couple of untrustworthy articles in a blog and have created their own opinion. Greek media do not give people the opportunity to compare the information obtained to form their opinion. They are so simple and shallow that instead of informing the citizens, they additionally contribute to their misinformation. But it must be considered in parallel with the low education of the Greeks. I have also studied here and have an opinion about the poor state of Greek education. There may be thousands of young people with university degrees, but generally, neither the school, nor the university trains the Greeks to draw information from various sources, to compare, to have their own opinion and to judge critically. That is why they are so dependent on every piece of nonsense television can feed to them. That is the negative role of the media in Greece."

At the same time, extremes are gaining more followers. Far left circles took the pensioner’s suicide in Syntagma Square a week ago as a political act, to which his suicide note had greatly contributed. "A few days after the suicide, I read an article, indicating something very interesting: That there are almost no suicides in the Gaza Strip despite the particularly harsh conditions. This may be due to the religion, because Islam does not allow suicide while there is a high suicide rate in Sweden, which is a developed country. This is true and applies to all Nordic countries. I read that the 77-year-old man was a supporter of the extreme Left. He was a pharmacist with a relatively good pension in today's conditions and without any financial obligations to banks. I suppose he was rather in an ideological gridlock than pressed by some very harsh circumstances. It has become clear that he was always very involved politically. Last year, he participated in the protests of discontented, in the "I do not pay" movement. In 1981, he was 46 years old, in his prime. I guess he was very committed to the spirit of the epoch, of the enthusiasm that brought PASOK to power. 31 years later, he felt that this model and its cycle are over. If everything that I say about him is true, then not only he but also all that generation is in this situation, I suppose. They find out that the things they have believed for so many years are no longer valid and are refuted in a particularly gruesome way. They realize they have to reconsider many things actually, but this is a painful process. I do not know whether we should seek a political sense in his suicide and his attempt to encourage young people to grab guns and go to a revolution and to identify him with Che Guevara. Rather, the case looks like a personal impasse to which he got and possibly, hundreds of thousands of people like him from this generation."

The analyst believes that this case shows how political processes should not be considered rationally. "I will repeat the idea that politics is mostly psychology. And a political process such as the one in Greece should be generally analyzed using the tools of psychology. Perhaps political analysts would be better professionals if they studied psychology too."

"If we would like to at least assume what is going on in Greek society, we should use the approaches of psychology. Of the few existing definitions of depression, I use just one. It defines depression as a phenomenon of four stages. The first stage is denial. Generally, you deny the existence of a problem. The second is anger. The third is pain and the fourth is resignation. I.e., you admit that the situation is what it is. I compare it to catharsis in its theatrical sense, as presented in ancient Greek drama."

Plamen Tonchev believes that the definition of depression can be applied to the processes running in Greek society. In his opinion, it has gone through the phase of denial with the violent protests in 2010 and 2011 and the slogans that everything that was happening was a conspiracy and aimed at destroying the country. "After that, Greece went through the stage of anger, the possible culmination being the protests of discontented. I am not convinced that it has emerged from this phase. I fear that in June, when the government will announce the new painful measures, there could be a new social explosion and I do not know what form it will take. I hope that the third stage is coming."

As for Bulgaria’s attitude towards the crisis in Greece, he believes that Bulgaria has the opportunity to draw a positive lesson from the negative example of Greece. "From former ignorance between the two countries, we went through the Bulgarian enthusiasm for Greece. Now it has gone. The Bulgarians have their own opinion of things thanks to the media and their own experiences when visiting the country. Recently, a tendency to the opposite extreme has been noticed. There are comments like "the Greeks deserve this" and the like. Recently, I read an article in one of the best Bulgarian newspapers, which wrote that it is of no use for Bulgaria if Greece is in a difficult position. Our economies are connected and do not benefit from this crisis. I think Bulgaria has the chance to learn from this bad example and avoid similar mistakes."