Photo: crashonline.gr
There is a probability of certain populist leaders in the borrowing countries sparking discontent among people, which cannot always be controlled and be subject to any social and just causes. The thing is not to destroy Europe, but to work for a stronger European Union.
How do you think these negotiations should have begun and more importantly, in what direction should the Greek government have led them? The bad thing is that the government of SYRIZA came when it was urgent to start negotiations, at that time when it was not good for it. If it had a little more time, since some payments are due in August, for example if it had six months in which to deal with domestic issues, fulfil some of the promises, no matter how painful and difficult the reforms and changes in the privatisation packages would be, perhaps it would have been much easier for it to negotiate later. Now, the government is between two blades: on the one hand, we have the expectations of Greek voters who stood behind this platform on a mass scale, expecting a firm position to Brussels and on the other, the persistence on the part of lenders, which is reasonable because there is no free lunch. There is no existence without this international community and it cannot just forgive certain obligations. On the one hand, the government risks not receiving the financial help and support that it needs, because it has nothing else to do, and on the other, it risks sinking in its own electorate’s estimation, which is very difficult.
What should they have done, according to you, so that it would be painless for Greece?
There is no painless option for Greece. The reforms and positives in recent years were apparent for the International Monetary Fund, including on paper at a macro level. But citizens and ordinary people who have lost their jobs and who continue to go through difficult times cannot feel these positives. They should have been told that the austerity would last for another two years at least but nobody wanted to say it during the pre-election campaign. Those people who are not active in politics and do not follow things in detail want to feel the difference and it is a matter of honour and normal policy to tell the truth. But you are not always popular then.
How do you evaluate the behaviour of the European partners and what will they do in the end in your opinion?
I think that, ultimately, they will become a little more flexible if they succeed, in cooperation with the Commission and the IMF, to soften the restrictions that are required for the implementation of the programme for Greece so that it becomes a little more acceptable and can be presented in internal political terms, so that the newly elected government does not lose face. They will not yield.
Alexis Tsipras does not want to destroy Europe or Greece and I think he is aware that Greece cannot do without Europe. He will also make certain concessions and provide for steps, but they have to be traded so that he neither loses face in domestic politics, nor very quickly disappoints the people, so as not to cause political instability again, as now this will be the worst thing for Greece.
Bulgaria had to implement many of the reforms that Greece must now carry out to be accepted as a member of the European Union. Why was Greece adopted in the euro zone without fulfilling the required conditions?
This is a difficult question; at that time, it was a political decision for the moment. Perhaps it was due to the excessive liberalism in the union, as the majority of governments at the time were liberal-democratic. Precisely at that time there was the rise of the liberal idea, in the 1990s - the free market, the absence of any regulations. It turned out that this was not the idea that would lead the EU to move forward and the common market to function properly, including the euro zone. This was not the idea that we thought could make Europe even with the United States or the Asian countries where traditions are much stronger.
Along with these hard liberal ideas, Europe is bearing another heavy burden, namely the social package that we want to maintain, because it relates to the standard of living to which Europeans are accustomed and which they want to keep.
Bulgaria went through a very difficult period before accessing the European Union and starting the negotiations, as we were also almost bankrupt at some point. We went through a period of economic crisis, when 18 banks went bankrupt and closed down - about 70% of the banking sector at the time. There was a policy of dictation on the part of the IMF to complete the entire privatisation at a fast pace to obtain the relevant funds. There was a negative attitude here too and negative views of this period are still being expressed. The democratic government of this period was very bold to carry out these reforms within two years or so in order for Bulgaria to catch up with the other 8 post-communist countries that negotiated the fifth expansion and not to fall out like Serbia and Macedonia, awaiting another expansion that was not expected soon. This government and its politicians never returned to power, this is the political skill. Being a good leader on the one hand, who knows what will be good for his country, so that he will remain in history, but not always in politics. I think this is a very serious challenge to the young Greek prime minister.