Galery

1

Anastasia Balezdrova

The Greek Parliament has taken away the immunity of Golden Dawn leader, Nicos Michaloliakos, and MP Christos Pappas and Yiannis Lagos. 244 MPs took part in the roll call vote, with 223 votes in favour of the proposal, and only one abstaining vote, that of independent former New Democracy member Nikos Nikolopoulos. MPs from Golden Dawn did not vote, and neither did their colleagues from the Group of Independent Greeks, who said that the three-month deadline for voting to withdraw parliamentary immunity had expired.

Michaloliakos, Pappas, and Lagos are in Korydallos Prison, after being arrested on alleged charges of being involved and managing a criminal group. The three of them were present at today’s vote in the Greek Parliament after obtaining permission from the prosecutor.

They were transported under extremely tight security measures, the cars entering the court of parliament through the side entrance. Upon entering the parliament building, Michaloliakos shouted at the escorting policeman ‘Leave me alone! Don’t touch me! I am a political leader’. Michaloliakos’ daughter, Urania, who was waiting for him in front of the plenary chamber gave him a hug and shouted “I am the happiest daughter in the world’.

When the three men entered the chamber, MPs and members of Golden Dawn, started shouting the slogan ‘Blood, honour, Golden Gate’. In the speech which followed, Michaloliakos repetated his attacks on the government for their political persecution against Golden Dawn.

Outside the parliament building, supporters of Golden Dawn started a political rally while waiting for the party’s leader. There were about 300 people who held flags and symbols of the organisation, sang Nazi marches with Greek verses and shouted ‘Scoundrels, political traitors’. Nevertheless, their attempt at provocation failed.

The vote which took away the parliamentary immunity of Golden Dawn leaders was held 10 days after the European Parliament elections, on which the party gained more than 10 per cent of Greek votes. As a result, the three members of the organisation were elected for members of the EU Parliament, while their party consolidated its position as the third political power in Greece.

We tried to find out why the support for the party seems not to decline despite the investigation held and the evidence of criminal activity, in our interview with Vasiliki Georgiadou, lecturer in Political Studies at the Pandio University of Athens, who has conducted serious research of the Golden Dawn phenomenon.

Mrs. Georgiadou, how would you explain the popularity of Golden Dawn which has been growing in all elections held so far?

To start with, Greece, especially in the years of prosperity, progress and successful renovation, was among the few European countries which did not have a significant far-right party. This started changing in the years of the crisis, yet, in my opinion, we need to approach the phenomenon as one which affects not only Greece but also most EU countries.

What fostered the phenomenon? It was not merely the crisis, despite the common claim that the progress of Golden Dawn overlaps the period of the economic collapse. Yet, if we look at other EU countries, where far-right parties have become more popular, too, although not as extreme as in our case, we will see that similar formations appeared there in times of prosperity.

Yet, what fostered the power of the European far right in its ideological and political varieties, at least in the period after the 1970s, was the crisis of politics and the political system, the deficit of  political confidence, and the absence of significant figures on the political arena. That was the major reason for the appearance of the far right.

This factor is quite significant in Greece especially if we bear in mind that here the lack of political confidence coincided with the economic crisis. The combined effect of a political and an economic crisis is indeed extremely dangerous and fosters the development of right –wing extremism and populist behaviour in politics in general.

Golden Dawn is not the only example of this phenomenon in Greece. There are also the Independent Greeks, although their potential in the EU Parliamentary elections was limited. Some of the votes they lost were given in support of Golden Dawn.

The answer to your question why the popularity of Golden Dawn is increasing is: because there are still depots of voters from other political spaces neighbouring the organisation, in terms of political geography rather than from the point of view of ideology. Golden Dawn gains its power both from the New Greeks and New Democracy. To sum up, I would say that it gains its strength from the ‘systematic’ part of the political arena in Greece, as it turns out that the party gains strength even from PASOK, and the left-wing space in general. I am referring to the systematic and the governing space, where we still observe ‘leaks of voters’ to Golden Dawn.

Golden Dawn acts as a space attracting people who want to allay their anger, as some observers put it. I would say that those are people who would like to have their revenge on the political system. They are furious with all those politicians who caused or failed to prevent the economic collapse as well as with those who failed to cope with the current situation.

Some of the Greeks are unable to rationally consider ongoing events, to understand the fact that the crisis has made the situation extremely difficult and that in order to overcome that difficulty we need to conduct a series of reforms and go through the painful process of restructuring. Those people tend to act emotionally and therefore their votes express their desire to punish those who are guilty about the situation.

Do you think the percentage of votes in favour of Golden Dawn will continue to increase?

No, I do not think so. In my opinion Golden Dawn has already exhausted all available depots of voters, and there were many of them. The party took votes not only from its immediate political space, but also from real depots of the far-right nationalist space which existed before and after 2010.

We should not forget that in Attica, where Golden Dawn won 11.5 per cent of the votes, four years ago 6.5 per cent of voters supported LAOS (and its leader Georgios Karatzaferis, author’s note). I do not share the opinion that there is potential for its growth. As we have already seen Golden Dawn was not able to appoint its candidates for mayors. There were only 9 of them for more than 300 municipalities in the country. There were candidates in 12 of the 13 regions, yet their results were not as satisfactory as the overall result of the party in the elections.

I believe that the expansion of Golden Dawn is now close to an end. Yet, this will also depend on political management, the sustainability of institutions, and the media. The experience of other countries indicates that in addition to the votes, there are other factors which determine how far a right-wing party will go. Nevertheless, my opinion is that Golden Dawn has lore or less reached the maximum of its potential.

Golden Dawn is currently the third political force in Greece. Do you think that it may become the major political factor in the country after the next elections?

I do not see this happening. The EU Parliamentary elections already indicated that the political system has gone through serious changes. The Elia Alliance and To Potami, which in my opinion stands close to it in the left wing of the political centre, have achieved very good results. This indicates that we are in the same situation as in 2010, with a highly polarized party system with a weak and nearly desolate centre and strong right-wing parties (New Democracy) and left-wing parties (SYRIZA). I believe we are now at the stage when the political centre has begun to refill.

I do not think that Golden Dawn will be a decisive factor. Should this happen, it would mean that all political parties had failed. Their first opportunity to show that they will prevent such a thing from happening is the Presidential elections. In my opinion it is crucial to hold the next parliamentary elections when they should be held, rather than due to the fact that there will not be 180 MPs, not counting the members of Golden Dawn, who would agree on who the next president will be.

What I am trying to say is that Golden Dawn might turn into a decisive factor only if all the other parties failed. The indications we have suggest no such possibility.

Why is it that the Constitution of Greece does not ban the establishment of Nazi parties, as is the case in other countries?

As a matter of fact, there is such a ban only in Germany. The constitutions of some EU countries have some more strict regulations, yet not explicit bans. And in the case of Germany, this ban was introduced as an obligation on behalf of other countries so that Germany could become a normal democratic country.

As a matter of fact, that did not prevent the country from harbouring the appearance of similar parties, There were, and still are, extreme political formations in the country, one of them, the German National Democratic Party even had its EU representative in the latest elections.

Over the last fifteen years there have been two attempts to centrally ban the extremist party. They failed though since the constitution provides specific and very strict requirements for applying the ban. Currently there are attempts in two German provinces to enforce the ban yet they are not very likely to succeed.

I do not consider similar bans to be a solution to the problem. In such cases, the solution is provided by the institutions when they function properly and democratically and thus win the confidence of the citizens. The latter could support or resist the activity of similar extremist formations through their vote.

As a matter of fact, this is both an advantage and a disadvantage of democracies – they give their enemies the right to exist. The sociologist Tzvetan Todorov has described this quite successfully in his book ‘Democracy’s Intimate Enemies’. Yet the power of democracy is demonstrated when it succeeds in marginalising those enemies.

Perhaps we believed that democracy in Greece was guaranteed or at least that there were no enemies who could pose a threat to it. As we now see, this is not really the case, since small parties winning just 0.2 per cent of the votes can grow into parties that win 7, or even 10 per cent of the votes. Therefore, it is our responsibility as citizens to judge wisely, to be actively involved and demand that institutions function properly and thus win our confidence. When things start happening in this way, extremism will only be pushed to the periphery of a democracy. Yet, when extremism begins to occupy a larger space, this is a signal that there is something wrong with such democracies.

In addition, there will always be suspicious citizen, who believe that bans are an instance of stigmatization and in such cases, a ban could favour extremist forces.

Democratic processes are complex in nature since democracies are systems whose qualities can only be confirmed through their day-to-day performance.

Do you reckon that the charges against Golden Dawn MPs will hold up in court?

I think so. In the beginning, I was not so positive about it, yet, if we take into account even only the charges which gained publicity, and which seem to be only a small part of their activity, I think there will be a process. Obviously, all these measures the institutions undertook were not in vain.

From my point of view as a citizen, what I understand is that these charges are totally reasonable. I have been doing research on Golden Dawn and I am aware of its forceful methods, yet many of the facts which became public were surprising even to me.

In my opinion, it is really an extremist mechanism, organised after a para-military model, and does not match the criteria to be defined as a political party. Therefore I believe that the actions of the judiciary authorities are right and the end of the investigation will reveal the whole truth about Golden Dawn. 

The coalition itself is a direct witness of the murder of Pavlos Fyssas. The organs of justice are now investigating to what extent the executives of the organisation have been involved in this as well as in other crimes. I think we were late in applying the law in the Golden Dawn case.

What do you think was the reason for that delay? There are opinions, that the activity of the organisation was in some ways in favour of the so-called system and therefore no measures were taken earlier.

I am quite careful with suggestions which are close to various conspiratorial theories.

What I can say for sure is that we underestimated the phenomenon Golden Dawn. The organisation has existed in this form and has been applying its methods for years, yet its small percentage in the elections and its barely noticeable organised presence were the reason why institutions underestimated it.

I realise this is not a comprehensive explanation, yet it is an important reason. Even when the leader of Golden Dawn, Nicos Michaloliakos, was elected member of the municipal council of Athens in 2010, nobody considered that to be a serious issue either in terms of politics, or from a scientific perspective.

Besides, the party was not easy to recognize everywhere. People from the northern suburbs of Athens or various cities in the country did not see that organisation. That must have been part of its strategy to establish its fortresses in specific regions where it would find supporters with its specific features. That is to say that it was not by accident that the party was especially active in the heart of Athens, where a large number of new immigrants were concentrated, people of different colour and origin who found it harder to integrate than it was for the first wave of immigrants. Those people did not see their future in Greece but viewed it rather as a transit country.

All this was a good opportunity for Golden Dawn whose ideology is based in xenophobia and racism. Golden Dawn found its supporters there and it also enabled part of the people who were in that fortress to express their attitudes by voting in favour of the party. Michaloliakos then won just over 10,000 votes in Athens. And the percentage which was not small accounted for only a third of the votes in favour of Kasidiaris in this year’s local elections.

In comparison, in the parliamentary elections in 2009, only a year before the local elections in 2010, Golden Dawn won 20,000 votes in Greece. Only a year later, it won more than 10,000 votes in the municipality of Athens alone, and 35,000 votes in the latest elections.

After the arrest of the leaders of Golden Dawn the party is represented by Ilias Kasidiaris. He is constantly talking about ‘violating the democratic order’, and uses the rhetoric of the ‘system’ he claims to be fighting. Why do you think he is doing this?

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.