Galery

2

1

Anastasia Balezdrova 

In an interview with GRReporter the responsible for the programme of New Democracy and former Minister of Education and Transport Evripidis Stylianidis explained the reasons for the failure of the PASOK government as regards reforms and accused it of having deliberately put Greece under the supervision of the Troika.

Mr. Stylianidis, the public transport and taxi strike paralyzed Athens today. Civil servants have occupied ministries and government buildings for many days now and all professional groups will actually strike next week. Do you think the government is able to cope with the increased social pressure, given that the protesters have already invited it to resign?
 
I think that George Papandreou’s government has "sowed the wind and will reap the storm." It is faced with actions and behaviours that the PASOK party has cultivated over the past two decades, not only as a government, but also as the main opposition party. I would like to remind you that when the New Democracy government and Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis endeavoured to carry out serious reforms and privatizations, PASOK and its leader George Papandreou led large-scale protests. Typical are the pictures of the protests at the port of Piraeus, where our government signed the cooperation agreement with the Chinese company COSCO, and those of the trade unions protesting today outside Parliament against our attempt to unite the insurance funds and create a more sustainable social security system at a lower cost. Today, as governing party, PASOK is faced with itself. It is faced with the real problems and mistakes in the Greek economy and is paying the price for its own past behaviour. This, however, does not harm only PASOK, but the whole country.

The request for a change of government is very strong. It is not only the request of the opposition but of Greek society as a whole, because confidence in the government has already disintegrated. Nobody believes that today's government has the power to negotiate in a dynamic way to protect those with middle and low incomes in Greece and to achieve the results that our European partners and our lenders require in order to ensure an adequate flow of funds and to survive.
 
What do you think prevents PASOK from carrying out the privatization?

It has been two years since the government received a clear, strong message from the people, for it to take control. It promised that "there is money", but unfortunately, it merely struck a heavy blow at people with low and middle incomes. It failed to achieve a positive result in structural changes which would solve the problems in the Greek economy and administration and did not gain a single euro from privatizations. This indicates fear or government dependence on trade unions, which in my view, manipulate, control and guide about 70 per cent of PASOK voters. The government chose to sacrifice Greek society on the altar of some vested interests which it has "served" in recent decades. The fact that people who vote for PASOK are mostly members of closed trade unions scares the politicians from George Papandreou’s government towards decisive changes and reforms targeted mainly at privatization. This party has no faith in this ideology. In the past, it struggled against such changes and now, it has no power to carry them out. I think one of the main reasons for the sharp reduction in the government‘s efficiency is that it was elected to pursue a specific policy, but is now exercising a completely different one.

Prior to the elections, George Papandreou did not provide the public with information in the form of figures as regards the state of the Greek economy. The Prime Minister at that time, Costas Karamanlis, was speaking about freezing wages and pensions to prepare society for the fact that strict measures would be necessary to avoid subordination of the country to foreign centres of power. People voted for PASOK because the party had promised everything to everyone, but then it did the opposite. During the first seven months, it paralyzed the administration and the market; it did not implement measures that could lead to a flow of funds; it refused to take money from the markets. It is said that the government could borrow € 54.3 billion only from European banks, but there are publications in the press indicating other available sources too. However, the government has deliberately chosen to put the country under the control of the International Monetary Fund. The second big mistake of George Papandreou is that he has set excessive goals and proposed or adopted a wrong policy mix in order to convince our European partners and our lenders who have rushed to defend Greece in order to save the Euro zone. All this has been done without explaining the specifics, weaknesses and problems of the Greek economy and society. Thus, the government has preferred to attack people in the middle and low income bracket with a hurricane of unprecedented taxes in the absence of a specific plan to follow. It has left the market with no funds, closed thousands of small and medium firms, unemployment has risen from 8 to 18 and even more per cent while no increase in revenue has been achieved. I would say that what it achieved was just the opposite, i.e. stabilization and reduction in revenue, without cutting unnecessary costs in the public sector and establishing dynamic development. To the contrary – it brought about the highest rates of recession that have been attained in Greece in recent decades.

What is New Democracy’s position regarding the expected haircut on Greek debt? Do you think that it could have been avoided?

At European level, we reached the agreement of July 21, which gave some hope, but at that time we were talking about only a 21 per cent haircut. It seemed then that Greek banks were likely to survive at this rate. The current discussions are not held before the society and I am afraid to say that they do not take place even before the Greek government. Our leader Antonis Samaras has accused George Papandreou of being absent from the negotiating table at which the future of the Greek economy is decided. I do not think that the Greek Prime Minister has any influence over the plan, which is coordinated by Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel. This is very bad, because after its adoption, the Greek government will have to implement a policy that does not take into account its opinion and the resilience of the Greek society and the Greek market. I hope, and wish, that European decisions will be compatible with the Greek reality.

Lately, there have been talks within PASOK about holding a referendum. What is New Democracy’s opinion about such a possibility? 

To me this signifies that because they are unable to provide a solution, they are trying to divert public attention and through this trick, prevent it from expressing its will in an electoral race. I do not know how useful it could be to hold today a referendum prepared in advance.

Referendums are held to give rise to the development of societies in times of peace. Currently, the Greek society and even the PASOK parliamentary group are directly rejecting the government policy. Therefore, the solution could come from elections in which people would consider the policy programmes of both major parties and decide which of them could solve their everyday problems or, at least, give them hope again, the hope which at present we have lost.

I think that such an action could be dangerous to some extent, because an economic as well as a potential political crisis could turn into a crisis of institutions and it would be even more devastating for the country.

The results of recent surveys show that New Democracy is the first choice of voters. At the same time, however, it is evident that it would probably not be able to form a government alone because more parties will enter Parliament. In this case, are you considering options to form a coalition government? 

I think things are changing very rapidly and that the dynamics in favour of New Democracy have become insurmountable and there is no stopping it. It combines two features. The first is the vote of rejection of the hopeless policy the government of George Papandreou has deliberately chosen. The second is the hope in a party, which issued a warning on time and despite the mistakes, for which it was punished in the last elections, today presents a new face and a new determination to fight for the things that are now under threat. From this perspective, I believe that the formation of an independent government is just a matter of time. The percentage of New Democracy will grow each day until it reaches this independent government. I think it would not be necessary to encounter troubles whenever elections are held. I am saying troubles because the Greek experience of coalition governments in the past has not been positive. They led to no results, to indecision and a possible instability because no one dared to take immediate decisions and always transferred their burden to the other coalition partner. I believe in pure solutions and clear programmes that will be submitted to the Greek people before the election in a responsible and sincere manner. This applies also to unpleasant measures. Thus, every citizen will know what problems he or she will face until he or she achieves the goal. "Embellishment" of things does not help anyone, especially our country. We should tell the truth in a simple and direct way, explain how we would overcome the problems and how quickly we think we could reach our goal.

I think the voters themselves will make a reasonable decision and prefer the stability and security of New Democracy.

What is your position on the avalanche of extra taxes that the government is imposing?

This continuous imposition of taxes has already gone beyond the Constitution itself. The government has revoked the right of ownership. When a person, who has an average or low income, inherits something from their parents or other relatives, they actually buy it a few times in their lives. This is a direct violation of the core principles of the right of ownership. At the same time, most of the taxes imposed on individuals and companies act as a means of cancelling trade and business too. In practice, it ends the sustainability of companies and investments and leads to the destruction of family and small businesses. The way in which the taxes on consumer goods are imposed, by the sharp increase in VAT to 23 per cent, deprives the poor Greek of the ability to survive and creates a new class of impoverished citizens.

Our proposal for economic policy is different. Our leader Antonis Samaras presented it in a clear way in Zappeion Hall and I believe it could really revive the market. Our programme provides for a reduction in tax rates, creating a more attractive environment for investors, it would circle the money several times, thereby creating better conditions for development of the real economy.

How do you think the public sector could and should be cut?

First, let me say that the main axis of our ideology and programme is a smaller and more efficient public sector. Shrinking the public sector, of course, is associated with staff reduction, but this should not happen without warning and in violation of labour relations. People who were employed in the public sector under certain conditions and purposes should not be thrown out just like that. Therefore, we would suggest that the labour reserve programme counteract the dismissals. It stipulated that for a certain period of time, the people working mainly in the wider public sector who would be unable to be productive would be taken out of work, they would cost much less to the state and ultimately they would retire.

The government completely misrepresented this programme, which the Troika adopted and endowed with a completely different content. In practice, it used the labour reserve as a mask behind which it wanted to hide its desire to fire civil servants. We believe that the labour reserve, in the form in which we proposed it, provides more income to the state, does not adversely affect the market movement and ensures the rights of employees, as far as possible under the present conditions. At the same time, we believe that the strict application of the scheme, 1 recruitment for 10 exits, which the Troika proposed, could give impressive results in reducing the number of civil servants within two years. As far as they are concerned, I would note that the PASOK government appointed 73 per cent of the current civil servants from 1981 to today.

Other ways of cutting the public sector are: Firstly, by establishing new services in the ministries. Most of the existing services were established in the 1970s and 1980s to meet very different needs from today’s. New services mean fewer departments, fewer head offices and offices, i.e. reduced operating costs, because a general manager receives a higher salary, together with the allowances, than one head of department. Since I would like to be specific, I would like to say that when I was Minister of Education I did something similar in a department of the ministry. The decision reached the Supreme Court, but the next government did not continue it. Had it been implemented we would have saved about 600 million per year in operational costs, in the central office alone. It is clear how great the benefit would be if it were to be applied in the 18 ministries and regional administrations.

Secondly, by managing the ministerial property. There are ministries that could be housed in government buildings, even in the premises built for the Olympic Games in 2004, but for many years the preferred option was to rent private buildings, belonging to the party’s friends, against huge rents. This should stop immediately.

Thirdly, by simplifying the administrative processes, i.e. the operating costs of administration, which are huge due to the bureaucracy, which in turn gives rise to corruption and its value is measured in billions of euros. If we simplify the procedure, if we trust the civil servants, if we introduce the principle of personal responsibility of civil servants and establish a stricter criminal justice system for those who do not comply with the law, the financial benefit would be enormous. In parallel, we should finally apply digital control of the administration. I say this because I see that the country is losing EU funds due to the shallow course of action applied by the government and the administration. 17 centres were designed to utilize the funds. They should be united in one and all ministries and departments should use compatible software. This way of working could be useful in almost all areas. Furthermore, the disabled or people from the countryside could work from their homes, not having to move to large urban centres.

Digitization will help simplify bureaucracy. It is absurd to require dozens of documents and signatures to start a company. These things should be abolished, because in addition to the high costs and slow processes, they contribute to the flowering of corruption. These changes could happen very quickly through accurately measured actions and political will, but unfortunately, the government has done nothing in this direction over the past two years and had not even continued what we have started.

How would you comment on the government's decision to entrust waste collection to private companies if municipal officials continue their protests? 

New Democracy in practice is ahead of the events in this case. The law that was passed during our mandate provides the opportunity for mayors, if they so wish, to outsource this service to private companies instead of using municipal employees. Therefore, here we are talking about shared responsibility of government and municipal authorities. I am not against the employees and believe that we should not surprise them, nor change the conditions under which they have decided to fulfil their obligations to the state. Nevertheless, when such a need exists, we should choose more effective means to provide services to suffering society.

I do not like the extortive way in which the government wants to enforce the law. It should have implemented this type of modern policy much earlier, and not use it as a weapon against the staff. However, the logic behind exporting production is current and it should be applied not only in the wider public sector, but also in the backbone of the state. This is because it is proven that where there is cooperation between public and private sectors the results are better. While I was Minister, we managed to open over 770 contemporary bioclimatic schools within 18 months, precisely because they were the product of cooperation between the public and private sector, whereas in the past it took decades to do this.

What changes does New Democracy intend to make in the field of immigration policy?

One of the main priorities of our programmes is the fight against illegal immigration. We believe that the presence of Frontex which we secured on the border in Evros was very important. I believe it is necessary to sign intergovernmental agreements for the return of immigrants, not only with the countries through which they pass, but also with their home countries. In this respect, Turkey has not responded to the arrangements.

I think that as the government of tomorrow we are obliged to ask for European funds for the return of immigrants, even by plane, because this procedure would be of value not only to Greece. I guess that Bulgaria is facing the same problems. This is an issue across Europe, yet our countries, which are external borders, bear the burden of protecting the entire European Union.

It is unreasonable for the European Union not to give this its full attention. The funds allocated to Italy and Spain respectively are huge compared to those we utilized.

An interesting idea is the deployment of Frontex troops in the border area of ​​Turkey. In this way, we would not be obliged to cope with the wave of illegal immigrants; it would happen on Turkish territory before they enter Europe. I think another important political focus should be taking measures at European level to restrict immigration at its roots. I.e. Europe should protect immigrants, fleeing military conflicts or natural disasters and support them under the "umbrella" of the United Nations in their countries. This would be good for them and for us. Immigrants who come in are mostly well received and they would have to respect the ways of the host society. Greece is considered to be a particularly hospitable country, although it is the victim of Dublin 2, under which illegal immigrants should either be returned, or remain in the first European country they arrived in. Actually, this turns Greece into a "stock" of human souls and it is bad for humanity and for the country.

However, our country has proved to be particularly hospitable and I have examples. During his stay here, an illegal immigrant is treated for at least two years in public hospitals, free. This means that the Greek taxpayer pays for him while he himself pays to use health services. This is unfair and bad for the economy. In addition, every child of illegal immigrants who goes to kindergarten benefits from the Greek educational system free until secondary education. These costs are huge, we are talking about many millions of euros. However, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United Nations and the European Union neither recognize them as a development aid  nor consider them as parameters that have contributed to the collapse of our economy more than anything else. This is unfair. It is not right for the hospitality of a country and its society to be a reason for it becoming a scapegoat for the international economic crisis. Today, all say that Greece is guilty, but nobody asks how much money it has spent all these years for military equipment, because it was not protected against the threat from Turkey. Nobody asked how much it cost Greece to stop the immigration, which aimed to reach Central and Western Europe and no one supported it as was necessary in this direction. We are obliged to present these problems without any hostility or racism. I also believe that the children of immigrants who live in Greece and integrate smoothly into the Greek educational system should be able to integrate into society. However, this is something quite different from giving them the right to vote and Greek citizenship, which the government of George Papandreou tried to introduce. This is a call to all illegal immigrants to come to Europe through Greece. This policy is wrong. Even in ancient Greece, this right was given to people who became part of the culture of the host country, respected its laws, spoke its language and acknowledged its history. I think it should be true today too.

In their analysis of the long-term course of the Greek economy, large foreign banks do not exclude the possibility of serious social collapse hitting Greece. How far is New Democracy determined to go to prevent something like this from happening? 

Look, when technocrats decide the fate of a nation, using only their mind and ignoring their soul, they take that particular society to deadlock with mathematical precision. I believe that whatever accusations are made against the politicians, they hold the solution in their hands. The problem is primarily political rather than economical. Politicians are the ones who must find the balance between what should be done and what could be done.
 
We have to protect our social structure, to protect equality of opportunity, social mobility, not to widen the gap between rich and poor. The larger this gap becomes, the greater the risk of giving rise to injustice. It is precisely this that fuels the protests of people against power, and finally they themselves pay for it.

Therefore, I think it is the responsibility of New Democracy and all other parties to put an end to the brutal greed and computational logic of financial institutions, whether we are talking about banks, international management centres or economists - technocrats who do not understand what it means for a family to cope with a budget of 500, 600 or 1,000 euros.

I get annoyed and angry when I see that the whole media system is directed only against politicians. Could wealthy Greeks who got rich by taking advantage of state power and shamelessly took € 67 billion abroad in eight months have stronger patriotic feeling? Isn’t the ordinary pensioner, who does not oppose the reduction in his income and his consumer power and who bears anything to help the country emerge from the crisis, a patriot? All this annoys me and I think the position of New Democracy in this matter is very clear. It told the truth even when it had to be perceived as "bad" in Europe, and now its position is justified. Moreover, this truth was not only emotional but also realistic, because you cannot carry out any reforms if people are against you. You should convince at least a part of the people that what you do leads to a better future. If you fail to do that, then you have failed in your mission. The PASOK government failed to do so. Consciously or not, it completely swept the interests of the people aside and the way it exercises its policy puts the national interests at risk. We will need to be very careful how we change this policy. We will need to be very careful how we change this policy. I would not like us to be “isolated”, nor to spoil the relations with our partners, but they have to understand that the salvation of Greece cannot pass through the execution of the Greeks.