Galery

1

Golden Dawn and Kasidiaris who actually speaks most frequently on its behalf seem to be speaking in different languages. As a matter of fact they always used to. Michaloliakos would speak in one way, Kasidiaris – in another, Panagiotaros – in yet another. Golden Dawn is now in defence mode. Therefore I believe that Kasidiaris is now trying to respond to the charges which sent the leaders of the party to the arrest, while at the same time he is addressing the real and potential voters of the party. The same people also listen to the ‘system’ which tells them to that Golden Dawn is either part of a criminal organisation itself. And that some of the members of Golden Dawn are within the core of the criminal group.

Kasidiaris is trying to respond to that and therefore addresses issues of democracy.

This is not the only reason, though. Another reason is the accusations which Golden Dawn makes against the ‘pathetic and corrupted system’ as they put it. In my opinion, voters who support Golden Dawn receive those messages mainly from Kasidiaris’ programmes which are broadcast through the Internet. And I must tell you the number of people who watch his programmes is quite large, so this is a very good communication channel in which he uses a more direct and simple language to put the blame on the political system as well as the parties and the order in the country.

At the same time he uses a more sophisticated language to address high-brow voters. For, if we look at date provided by the exit polls we will see that people who vote in favour of Golden Dawn are not outsiders or outcasts. Most of them have graduated from secondary schools. As a matter of fact, that was the major of their election campaign, which unlike previous ones, did not focus on immigrants, or memoranda of economic assistance. The second element of their election campaign was to present Golden Dawn to the public. 

This is only one element of the jigsaw puzzle, though. Another one is their populist manner of speaking which often goes beyond the boundaries of cynicism.

What is the difference between Golden Dawn and the National Front of Marine Le Pen?

The first major difference is that the National Front does not apply forceful methods. This is probably the main difference between national-populist formations and right-wing extremist parties. Violence is applied by extremists.

Hence, their different approaches to democracy. Extremists argue the monopoly of the state over violence in the enforcement of order by government authorities. Nationalist populists do not challenge the power of the state. Even being on the border of the law, they operate within the institutional framework of the state. They take part in election procedures of representative democracies, they want to be involved in all representative bodies and even aim to be involved in the government of the country, as was the case with Marine Le Pen in France, who got to the second round of presidential elections. His next goal is the presidential elections in 2017.

Although they are not particularly fond of parliamentary principles, and often insist on holding referendums precisely in order to avoid parliamentary procedures, they still operate within the parliamentary framework.

Extremists challenge all this and their participation in elections is only an alibi for them. The way they operate and their organisation have nothing to do with parliamentary principles. To them, democracy exists only to be challenged by them as openly as they challenge the state on which democracy is built.

Extremists want to have full monopoly over the use of violence and therefore they apply violent methods.

At the same time, there are a number of features which nationalist populists and extremists share. These are xenophobia, ultra-nationalism, the idea about the ‘Europe of nations’. These are two neighbouring territories in political geography. They are certainly much more to the right than the right wing and share similar views on many challenges of the civilisation, such as the total denial of European Christian religious culture, gay marriages, and cultural differences, as well as strong anti-Islamism. I must point out though that every rule has its exceptions. Nationalist populists, especially those in Scandinavian countries, are more open-minded in terms of gay marriages and women’s rights.

What will be the role of the three MPs from Golden Dawn in the EU Parliament now that Marine Le Pen has declared they will not be accepted in the group of the far right?

They will certainly be in the group of the independent, as no one wants them, even the nationalist-populist group of Marine Le Pen which is now being established. They will be three figures that are out of place, especially if we have in mind that two of them are retired military men.

This is a very unpleasant fact. These people have retired recently and this makes us think about the support which the army and the police may give to Golden Dawn, especially after the indications we have had about it in recent years.