Galery

2

1

Victoria Mindova

Radical left SYRIZA was the big surprise of the elections in May in Greece. From a small opposition party with communist orientation, it has become the leading political force that is now striving to govern the country with a main opponent New Democracy. The representative of the European department of SYRIZA Yiannis Bournous spoke to Victoria Mindova about the programme and views of the left that can be the governing force of Greece tomorrow.

The results of the elections held on 6 May 2012 were extremely successful for SYRIZA. Did you expect that voters would vote so much confidence in the abilities of your party?

It seemed before the elections that our proposals for strengthening the leftist forces, rejecting the Memorandum of financial assistance and denying the austerity measures would find the support of people. For the first time, many more people listened to our proposals and agreed with our position. To be honest, we could not know for sure that we would become the second parliamentary force and win 17% of the vote. As you know, making the poll results public two weeks before the elections is banned in Greece. The data poll agencies gave us informally indicated that the support for us was growing. There were people more optimistic about the outcome of the elections among us, but the result can definitely be called an unprecedented success. Note that the left in Greece has not been the first opposition party and the second party in parliament since 1958.

From a small opposition party you are now the second largest party and it seems that after a month, you could be the first political force and the government of Greece. Are you ready for this responsibility?

The great joy of the results of recent elections is followed by great responsibilities now. The primary goal of the left is no longer to fight for certain demands as opposition. Our role is changing. This is evident from the fire opened at SYRIZA by both New Democracy and PASOK and their question of what SYRIZA will do if it wins the elections. People want to know what we can do as a main political force, not as opposition. Our main opponent in the election campaign by 17 July will be New Democracy. We know this very well. Greece is in its fifth year of recession as a result of the austerity measures in the past two years – this is happening for the first time in a country of democratic governance and the forecasts for the future are even worse.

What we are trying to do now is to work out in detail our main proposals and turn them into specific strategies to reform the politics of the country. For example, we say that we want to tax millionaires or those who hide their money overseas or have offshore companies and now, we are developing models of how to achieve it and what kind of taxation to use. In other words, we are developing models that will be applied in practice in order to guarantee revenues for the country, but from those who have what to give, rather than from those who have nothing to give. In the past two years, a rule was applied that subjected to additional taxes people with low and average incomes.

Measures have already been taken for the taxation of high profitable enterprises. For example, in the last two years, banks were paying a 5% extra tax on their profits in addition to their usual obligations.  In your opinion how much could big business be burdened?

Let us start with the banks since you mentioned them. The Greek banking system has been speculating on the back of Greek citizens for many years now. Banks in the country borrow from the European Central Bank in Frankfurt at an interest rate of 1% and lend to the Greek State and citizens at an interest rate of 4%, 5% or even higher. This is a legal speculation. Beyond this, Greek banks have so far received over 200 billion euro in aid in various forms from the first Memorandum to be saved from bankruptcy.

Before we talk about the aid to banks, we should specify how you expect the banks to operate if they do not profit (the difference between the cost of borrowing from the European Central Bank and granting loans)?

We do not expect banks to operate with zero profit or at a loss. We are talking about social control of the financial system. So far, the bank policy has been to unilaterally determine the level of interest rates on consumer loans. We think it is quite possible to establish a state-controlled bank granting low-interest loans to people from lower social strata in order to boost the market. This will allow small companies and traders threatened with bankruptcy to access funds, create new jobs and things will improve. There is no other way out of recession than to secure money in the market.

So, you will not allow banks to operate at a loss.

No logic allows the banks to operate at a loss. Given that the state has so far allocated 200 billion euro to rescue banks, it should be now provided with ordinary shares with voting right. Thus, the state will have a crucial role in determining the level of interest in order to enable the market to revive. That is what the people want. We need to find a formula to revive the real economy.

Many European taxpayers are angry at Greece because they believe that the money allocated from the so-called rescue mechanisms was spent in the real economy, for salaries and pensions. You have to understand that not a single euro from these funds was spent for salaries and pensions. Especially now, when the special account for payment of debt obligations has been opened, all money goes to repay the interest and principal. Those who first benefit from the "rescue" of Greece are Greek banks, because their main shareholders will escape bankruptcy without giving a dime. Second are our lenders, who provide assistance with profit. Deutsche Bank, for example, profits from the aid to Greece due to the difference in the interest rates. This is a legal speculation.

We think things should change at European level, because the problem of Greece is a European problem. All countries with huge debt in the Union have the same problems. Our purpose in the event that we win the elections is to make the European Central Bank directly grant low-interest loans to the countries in the Union, rather than giving money to private banks, which are credited at 1% interest and lend to the country at interest rates of 4%-5% and higher.

So, do you mean that the European Central Bank should finance the budgets of the member states?

We want it to directly fund the state, public projects and public investments.

This is quite a change in the role of the European Central Bank. Do you think there are grounds for requiring something like this from Europe?

If you had asked me this question a month or two ago, I would answer you "no". Today, the political picture of many countries in Europe is quite different. It is not just that SYRIZA in Greece received 17% of the vote and is striving to govern. In Romania, the centre-right government fell and the new prime minister, who is a social democrat, is now renegotiating the terms of the loan agreement with the International Monetary Fund. After pressure from the people, François Hollande was elected president of France, who was forced to promise that he would tax the largest capital in the country with 75%. In Ireland, the financial recovery programme was subject to a referendum ...

Let us go back to Greece. SYRIZA is "for" the euro as a currency and "against" the Memorandum for financial aid and the measures, it brings. Signals from Brussels are indicating that the two go together. How do you plan to keep Greece in the cheap currency without the Memorandum?

I would like to correct you and say that only some circles in Brussels are sending similar signals. Romano Prodi, a former European Commission president and the head of the board of eurozone finance ministers Jean-Claude Juncker said clearly, "1. Let the Greek citizens make their choice 2. Greece’s exit from the euro area would be disastrous and 3. Let us see what can be done with the austerity measures." Furthermore, Charles Dallara, who heads the International Institute of Finance (IIF) and is the leader of one of the largest financial lobbies in the world, said that it would be a disaster if Greece exits the euro. Other voices saying, "Europe can do without Greece" are already a minority. Therefore, I say that the political atmosphere of Europe has changed. Furthermore, the existing legal framework of Europe does not provide for a member state to forcibly leave the eurozone. The only way for a country to leave the eurozone is if it itself wishes to.

Assuming that the eurozone is a football team, how do you imagine allowing one player (Greece) to run in a direction opposite to that of the remaining ten teammates? In other words, do you not think the euro zone will find a way to make Greece leave the union, although there is no established procedure for such an action?

If Greece were a football team, we would try to change the coach on 17 June because it did not work out with the current government. Furthermore, not all the players in the team are seeking the same goal. Some players in the euro area team are playing to speculate and profit. There are other players, who are the majority and are struggling at present. In Greece, 1.2 million people have no work, 25% of the citizens live below the poverty line and the number of homeless and suicides are dramatically increasing. We are with these players, not with Mr. Latsis (Eurobank), Samas (Piraeus) and with other bankers.

So, the euro is not the best solution for Greece.

No, the solution for Greece is in the euro area, because we know very well that returning to the drachma at this time will mean a continuing need for currency devaluation. In this case, two groups of people will benefit – the wealthy Greeks who have exported their money abroad and some big exporters. The wealthy will await the return of the drachma to buy public property for a piece of bread, and big exporters will gain from lower competitive prices that the new currency will impose. Ordinary people, however, will sink in irreversible poverty because wages and pensions will never be able to rise to offset the constant devaluation of the currency. That is why we do not want to exit the eurozone.

You said the market needs liquidity to revive but this largely relates to the old consumption model in which the Greek economy developed. What is the plan of SYRIZA for the development of production and private initiative?

First, I would like to say that our goal is not to make everything public, but to allow public control over the decision-making by the government. In the philosophical sense of the state, we do not support the so-called solid state. The state in a broader sense can participate anywhere, but if controlled only by one government, it will end as Greece today, where 30 years of governing built a consumer, not a welfare state with good health and social services.

We want to drive social organizations to participate in building a new production model. To inspire a sense of control over the activities of the government .

Trade unions, chambers of commerce and similar institutions are public organizations and they already have an established role. Do you think that they will not be able to protect the rights of citizens, as they should?

Left trade unions have always played an active role. However, we criticized the trade unions when it was necessary. We believe that trade unions are necessary, but in recent years, they have failed to protect the interests of different groups of workers.

Do you agree with the opinion that trade unions are just as corrupt as the government mechanisms in Greece?

No, I cannot agree with this opinion. The political direction the trade unions took with the responsibility of both parties that governed until yesterday is wrong.

As the polls show, SYRIZA could form a government tomorrow. Are you not afraid that trade unions will stand against you?

That is why within SYRIZA’s mandate to form a government last week, Alexis Tsipras met with representatives of 25 major trade unions and social organizations. He discussed the programme of our party with them and explained what should be the priorities of a left government. I think trade unions will not counteract, if we take the power and try to restore collective labour agreements, which is the demand of labour organizations and is a part of our programme. They will not only be against the government but will stand right next to us.

I would like to get back to your question about the private initiative. We are not against it in any case, but there are several sectors of basic public services, over which we believe the state should have full control. They can be profitable, but their primary objective cannot be an increase in profits. The sectors I mean are healthcare, education, energy, telecommunications, transport and water management. We believe that the public sector should play a major role in these sectors using the methods of social control. The spread of the state is not a fetish - we do not want to nationalize news-stands, but there are sectors of services, which undoubtedly should be public.

The way the public health sector was managed, for example, was so vicious that it has got so far as to require disabled people to pay for a large part of the cost of drugs prescribed to them, these same life-saving drugs. We want transparency and this is one of the basic things in our programme.

Transparency is absolutely necessary, but good social policy costs money, right?

You see, in the last 30 years, the state could have spent state money and received contracts for goods and services detrimental to the Greek taxpayer. Moreover, nobody will be sued because Venizelos passed the law on responsibility of ministers, which helps to cancel the economic crimes of the political elite. You asked me where we would find money from - another example of waste spending is the cost of military equipment in Greece. It is impossible for such a small country to have such high costs for military equipment. It is impossible for Akis Tsohatsopoulos to be in jail for the illegal contracts with Ferrostaal, while they are still effective and have not yet been cancelled.