- There are rumours spread out concerning scenarios of rearrangement of the political system. Do you detect such scenarios?
When we say scenarios we do not mean conspiracy. They form part of the political life. When the two big parties lose part of their influence, actually not occasionally, and there is an electoral result that has shown such a tendency, isn’t logical the existence of such scenarios? Do you believe that the bourgeois class, the «foreign factor» will remain neutral?
I read a lot of articles by the Federation of Greek Industries (SEB) and other representatives of the capital or by analysts associated with think tanks, who are deeply troubled. What seems to concern them is to achieve popular consent to antipopular measures. The antagonism between PASOK and ND, which sharpens –in spite of the fact that they have the same strategy–, blocks people’s consent. They try to find a way to ensure the approach of the two parties. It’s not easy. These parties have to make a few changes, to distance some people, because the persons are also important. They are interested in a government with a preservative policy that won’t get confused or easily impeded, nor pressed by the popular forces. It’s difficult for a government that gets involved in scandals, big or small, to adopt prompt measures. To achieve that, there have to be done certain changes and for these changes they have to exert pressure. Therefore, it’s not easy to do so, especially in Greece, where KKE has such a great influence on the popular movement and has been revealing these scenarios for years. It’s not easy for the parties to approach the people. The other scenario concerns PASOK-SYRIZA.
The political line of SYRIZA is occasional
- Apart from the fact that both candidates for the presidency of SYRIZA say «no», do they actually exclude the possibility of collaboration?
It would have been silly to say «yes» when they want to detach a part of the PASOK electorate –although I don’t say they will manage to do so– in order to demand their participation in a government with strong terms. While PASOK goes through a decline stage they will have no gain if they admit something like this. They only want to detach forces from PASOK. The way SYRIZA handles the issue is related to the elections, and when it speaks with social or movement terms it actually aims at gaining votes with the easiest and most intelligible manner.
- So you say it’s an occasional policy?
SYRIZA will always be like that. It’s just that this policy is more obvious now because of the coincidence that workers begin to distance from the two big parties. However, we cannot handle the issue that way. We cannot say that focusing on KKE there could be a rearrangement of the political scene and that the people should support us in order to take part in a coalition government. We don’t say that because we don’t believe it.
We actually focus on people and on the popular movement. When only 10% of the workers are enrolled in trade unions how can we refer to a catalyst for positive changes in favour of the people? We fight and we look upon the changes with greater optimism than before. But the precondition, the indicator for the developments is the activation of the people, the organization and detachment from both parties, PASOK and ND, not just because of the scandals but mainly for political reasons. They also have to disengage from the ideological constructions promoted by these parties and decide that they will follow the path of confrontation and rupture not towards certain parties but towards the employers. When somebody demands increases on the private sector or to stop the dismissals, doesn’t he demand that from the employers? For example, if SYRIZA takes part in a government and has four or five ministers, what is going to happen? Why don’t they say that they won’t accept any privatisations and that, furthermore, will call off those already done? Because they just can’t do it.
- Is there any possibility of cooperation between KKE and SYRIZA?
No.
- What is that divides the two parties?
The same reasons that divided the parties back on 1991.
The radicalism is shown in the economy field
- Isn’t there any change? SYN in my opinion has positions that lean more to the left compared to those during the presidency of Konstantopoulos. Do you believe that with the new leadership their positions are going to lean more to the left?
You are saying that the leaders define the left or right political line of a party? It’s different decide through elections on a leading organ that in each development may express better one’s interests, or let the leader make these decisions. SYN reacts according to the developments. When it realizes that the people begin to understand it takes some action and speaks in a more radical way. But its program, which I have already read, is not a program of the left. It’s social-democratic. How is the radicalism of a party defined? Is it defined by words? No. Is it defined by issues that have to do with the form of a political system? No. It’s defined on the field of economy.
They say that they will follow a political line of lowering the prices. How are they going to lower the prices since the great business union monopolizes the commerce and the production? How are they going to lower the prices, the price of milk?
We, actually, do have a suggestion. Of course, it needs a determined popular majority that will be express with movement terms, not just with a vote. We have a binding proposition that needs a different correlation, a proposition that is a matter of popular choice.
They deceive people. A government has to deal with salary increase. People can’t wait any longer. How is SYRIZA going to persuade the capitalists to follow this political line? How is SYRIZA going to recover what it has already been voted concerning the labour relations etc.? Something like that would be concerned as a decrease of the antagonism. Such arguments will not stand up only if the basic fields get a social character. So how will they do it? I would like to know the way.
- So they don’t make it clear intentionally?
The market has its own laws, the economic laws. The profit rate also has laws. How are we going to confront these laws? With radical, political measures specifically in the economy field, not in the frame of institutions. These committees are defining the relations between unions, not between unions and people. Our proposal is realistic as long as there is a different correlation of political forces. What about the field of telecommunications? Some people say that they should stop selling OTE. There is a Greek market with a large number of companies. What are they going to do with them? Because what we actually need is one company of telecommunications, national, public.
- However, what is done cannot be undone. What do you propose?
If I am left and radical why would I choose a party that coming to power would say «what is done cannot be undone»? They should say clearly right now «look, we cannot change reality as developed, but we can provide social assistance benefits to the poor». We believe that the issue of property should be dealt in basic fields in terms of rupture and confrontation. And we say that although we know that the people might get scared.
We can’t tell them that if we come to power all problems will be solved without changing anything, just like D’Alema and the Communist Refoundation Party did. Pronti has rallied round him Christian Democrats, Communists as well as a great part of the people. Why did he send them back to Berlusconi? There can’t be opposition only in matters with less importance. Berlusconi should leave and he did. So what? SYN is not telling people the truth. Does SYN want to take part in the government? He may do as he pleases. But he must say things the way they truly are, without tricks. People soon or later will judge it.
Rizospastis, Ferbuary 2008
