Elections in France and Greece: The Euro Crisis, The Left and the Genie


34 Flares Twitter 10 Facebook 24 34 Flares ×
Print pagePDF pageEmail page

The Eight of May was the Fête de la Victoire in France. It was also the day of François Hollande’s first public appearance as president-elect. The right-wing Le Figaro featured photographs of ‘deux presidents sous l’Arc de Triomphe’, in which Sarkozy managed to look even more disgruntled than usual and Hollande looked as if he had just grasped a double-edge sword by the blade.

The public holiday commemorates the surrender of Germany at the end of WWII and the defeat of fascism in most of the states of Europe – Spain and Portugal being the exceptions. It was an interesting day as left-wing newspapers like Libération, L’Humanité and Le Monde expressed concern about the rise of the neo-nazi Golden Dawn in Greece and a near 20% support for Marine le Pen in France while at the same time noting left-wing advances. Without drawing any parallels, it is also worth remarking that the consensus is that no matter what François Hollande thinks about austerity, Germany rules.

Everyone is agreed that Hollande is not a revolutionary and that he may well continue the neo-liberal policies of Sarkozy, though without the venomous racist rhetoric. The old saw about ‘campaigning on the left and ruling on the right’ is tailor-made for the Europe’s centre-left parties. When Angela Merkel said she would welcome him with open arms, she probably had this in mind. But as yet it is not at all certain that this is what Hollande will do. There are a number of reasons why he might not, including the general collapse of neoliberalism as an economic theory, whatever about the structures of wealth and power it is intended to support. In any case, Alexis Tsipras of the SYRIZA party in Greece, is not toeing any old left/right centre line. He has terrified the markets apparently, and august bodies such as the EU Commission and the IMF are trembling and re-orientating themselves to the bizarre fact that a nation is not prepared to immiserate itself to save foreign banks.

In many ways this is the usual newspaper guff. Nevertheless something new is afoot in Europe and it might be timely to appraise it.

It is a startling fact that ten governments have fallen as a direct consequence of the crisis: Finland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, Romania and The Netherlands. Iceland – outside the Eurozone – makes eleven. Six of these, including Ireland, resulted in the election of right wing governments. Many commentators have interpreted this as a swing to the right. However, it must be observed that in the Tweedledum/Tweedledee contest that counts as politics nowadays, the only way to reject the views of Tweedledum is to vote for Tweedledee even though he will prosecute exactly the same policies. Therefore, these votes are better read as a rejection of, and punishment of, the governments believed to be responsible for the crisis. The people expressed their thoughts in the only way possible so far. In other words, these elections represent the first stirrings of democracy, the people testing their power. It must also be remembered that considerable manoeuvring has taken place in some countries to prevent just such an expression of democracy – Italy’s ‘expert’ government being a case in point. It now looks as though Greece will go for a second General Election, a possibility relished by people like Tsipras.

This, in fact is what has made the markets jittery. What if people use elections to express their opinions rather than putting Tweedledum back in as usual? Is it possible that elections could become unpredictable? What kind of instability would occur if elections actually worked? And what would rich people (aka The Market) think? Would politicians be expected to act on their promises? That way madness lies.

The rise of the far-right is another aspect of the elections that is exercising a lot of word-processors at the moment, and undoubtedly Greece’s Golden Dawn is a terrifying organisation, a kind of BNP on crack. They remind me of those people who thought the Da Vinci Code was actual history – except in this case the set text is Mein Kampf. In France, Marine Le Pen has moderated her language in the usual way, but she still represents the good old mix of xenophobia, racism and corporate-statism. France often tries to forget that Marshall Petain not only collaborated with Hitler, but instituted his own brand of fascism in Vichy. And Greece has had the Colonels. There is a fascist rump in every state in the world. It hides in the Republican Party in the USA, for example, in the Tory party in the UK, in Fine Gael in Ireland. I would suggest that it’s better to see it expressed in far-right parties like the EDL, BNP, FN or Golden Dawn than have it lurking in centre-right coalitions, driving the nationalist, anti-immigrant, anti-worker, anti-gay rights agenda. At least we’d know where they were.

For me, the most startling development of all is the re-emergence of the left/right discourse after thirty years of right-wing hegemony. As little as four years ago it was fashionable to use the term ‘left-wing’ as a synonym for ‘crank’. Nobody was described as right-wing. Neoliberalism was regarded as neutral, a fact of life rather than an ideology, to which there was no alternative because history was over. It was sufficient to say that the markets would not wear a policy for it to be regarded as impractical. Ideological conflict, certainly in the sense of left-wing politics, was over and class warfare was a thing of the past.

None of it went away, of course, it was just that the mainstream media ignored it. It still does to a large extent. But suddenly the name of Marx crops up in casual conversation. Politicians are routinely described as left or right. Class is back. This is an earthquake in public discourse. It involves the return of the repressed, to coin a phrase, the dark under-consciousness of the capitalist consensus. Vast swathes of the population always knew there was a class conflict and they were losing it – people in precarious labour, unemployed people, people who couldn’t afford health insurance, disabled people – but they didn’t have a name for it. If nothing else the crisis has been a naming of names. The most significant challenge for the left in the coming years is not power or revolution, but to re-establish the left-wing analysis as central to debate. In the meantime, increasing the left vote at elections has a useful disciplinary purpose.

The Irish election of 2011 is instructive in this regard. In the previous election the combined total of left-wing seats was approximately 15%. In 2011, the left vote increased to 38.5%. Yet the government that resulted from that election is a right-wing/centre-left coalition, with the Irish Labour Party as junior partner prosecuting all the brutal austerity measures they had campaigned against under the fatal slogan ‘Frankfurt’s Way or Labour’s Way’. What this means is that the critical mass of left-wing and left leaning voters was not sufficient to push the ILP into a more radical stance. In Greece, on the other hand, the critical mass, combined with massive street protests and general strikes, may well be enough to force PASOK, the socialist party, to come to terms with SYRIZA in due course, if not in this election, then in the next or the next. What is happening is the radicalisation of public discourse, a possibility that terrifies those who benefit most from the status quo.

In all of this the figure of Alexis Tsipras is one of the most interesting. As of today he has declared the Greek Bailout terms null and void and threatened to nationalise the banks. He cannot form a government but is said to relish the thought of fighting another election in a month or two. The markets are worried and therefore the politicians are worried. What they are worried about is, I think, that Alexis Tsipras’ middle name is Hugo. A European Chavez might just be enough to ignite the powder-keg that they’re sitting on. If Greece went left, a la the Bolivarian Revolution, the other little PIGGIES might think the same way. After all, many of us have already nationalised our banks anyway, and Ireland has nationalised a vast housing stock. It’s the flip of an ideological switch between holding these institutions in trust for the people who ruined them in the first place, and holding them in trust for the people. It’s what happened in South America, so maybe that continent is the one to lead us out of our despairing subservience to the market.

What has Berlin shaking cudgels, share prices falling, bond spreads increasing, Eurozone finance ministers ‘engaged in heated debate’ and Wolfgang Schaüble flatly declaring that ‘the Greek nation knows what it has to do’ is the sound of a cork popping. It’s definitely not champagne this time round. In fact it’s very like the sound of a genie escaping.

Photo of doorway in Genoa: Dimentichiamo tutto ció che ci hanno insegnato. Ricominciamo dai nostri sogni. Let us forget everything they have taught us. Let us recommence from our dreams.

The following two tabs change content below.
William Wall is the author four novels, the most recent of which, This Is The Country (2005), has been described as a 'broad attack on the Celtic Tiger'. He has also published poetry and short stories.

11 Responses

  1. bevin

    May 10, 2012 5:05 pm

    There’s an excellent article, We’re All Greeks Now, at the Counterpunch website.
    Here’s an excerpt:
    “The line that austerity was the economic prescription needed to get Greece back on its feet was cynical apologia put forward by the dullard class of EU propaganda hacks. That American economists (Paul Krugman) debated the issue like it was a serious analytical dispute begs the question of where they have been for the last fifty years?

    “With only six decades of IMF history to draw from, the template being used in Europe (and in America) is (1) install or corrupt a political elite who will support extractive economic policies for the benefit of bankers, (2) indebt, or cause to become indebted, a naïve, oblivious or otherwise captive population who will accept, grudgingly or otherwise, the institutional convention that the debt is legitimate and must be repaid, (3) under a patina of intellectual legitimacy, implement openly extractive economic policies against entire populations for the benefit of said banks, (4) while the culpable elites retire to large houses behind high walls with their portions of the loot….”

    I point this out because I feel that your article is far too kind on neo-liberalism. Its an economic policy which has been discredited since the 1830s. In its current form it is pure ideology and needs to be treated as such.

    What the left needs to do now is to stop obsessing about minuscule advances by the “extreme right” (I note that the most recent candidate for this scary label in Greece LAOS was wiped off the map in the election) and grasp the nationalist nettle: it may worry “leftists” but the reality is that the beginning of any fight back against the Troika et al lies in reasserting national sovereignty.

  2. vincent wood

    May 11, 2012 9:24 am

    Fair play William. There is a great need to see this as an international fight against what had become neoliberal hegemony. We may win the odd battle on our own (nationally), but it’s going to take international cooperation, including the sharing of information and ideas, to win the longer war.

    If we can get a no vote in the referendum and illustrate it as our contribution to that wider battle, then progress is being made.

  3. bevin

    May 11, 2012 1:25 pm

    This is too kind William:
    “There are a number of reasons why he might not, including the general collapse of neoliberalism as an economic theory, whatever about the structures of wealth and power it is intended to support.”
    It is a very small point but neo-liberalism, as an economic theory, collapsed long ago. In particular it was clearly revealed to be nothing but a cover story for thieves, in South America, Africa and the Asian crises.
    But that is a quibble.
    I am well aware of your outstanding contributions in this area, but thanks for the link anyway.
    Vincent, internationalism must rest on strong national movements prepared to make revolutions in their own countries, or make changes, at any rate, on their own account. Too often the “left” has taken refuge in a faux internationalism of the sort fostered by the EU and exemplified in the impotent Parliament.

  4. William Wall

    May 11, 2012 7:55 pm

    Bevin, I’m no economist, just an ordinary person attempting to come to terms with the world around me on a daily basis, but I take neoliberalism to be merely a modern iteration of bog-standard capitalism. What I mean by the collapse of neoliberalism as an economic theory, and perhaps I should have made this plainer, is to say that ‘the free market’ (never free anyway, of course) can no longer be used as a mantra by economists without sounding utterly fatuous even to themselves. Of course I agree completely with what you say about the ‘cover story’.

  5. LeftAtTheCross

    May 12, 2012 8:53 am

    I’d like to compliment the author for this article. A few years ago a brother-in-law asked my, in relation to the evident collapse of the financial system, how come nobody was talking about socialism as an alternative. Of course it’s not true, there were people talking about it, but that talk simply didn’t enter mainstream discourse. Some years later, it is happening. Progress is slow, ideas don’t lose or gain dominance or appear overnight, but their relevance can be accelerated by events on the ground. I’m reminded of a comment I saw in Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine where she quotes Milton Friedman on the importance of doctrine as an ideoligical toolkit which lies around, waiting for the right moment to be picked up and put to use. Perhaps at the other end of the political spectrum we are approaching a moment like that.

  6. Anne B Ryan

    May 14, 2012 9:56 am

    Philippe van Parijs, a long-time proponent of a Universal Basic Income, has made the same sort of comment as the Milton Friedman one — that when the seismic or unexpected events, arise, we need to have plans well worked out, which can be put in place. A universal basic income is one such plan. It is part of a socialist project for the development of responsible economic development and the fostering of a social economy.

    van Parijs has an article in Le Monde, on how the euro cannot survive without a UBI. Its introduction could demonstrate and put in place a real element of social solidarity. The article is at

    A UBI would have many positive effects, not least taking the wind out of the sails of the far right, who are preying on the fears of the most vulnerable at this time. By giving basic financial security to those who are in very precarious sitations now, and by supporting all those doing valuable unpaid work, including political activism, a UBI is an important element in moving into a positive future. situations.

  7. LeftAtTheCross

    May 14, 2012 11:30 am

    Anne, from what I’ve read around the question of universal basic income I tend to agree with the arguments made in its favour. However, at the moment it’s simply not on the radar. There are no political or civil society forces promoting it. When you look at the resistance of powerful elites to a measure such as the Financial Transaction Tax, a measure which has a substantial level of relatively mainstream political support and one which has a resonance and immediate relevance which fits into the narrative of regulating and to some extent punishing financial capitalism for its perceived abandon, then it becomes clear that just because novel ideas are lying around doesn’t mean they will in fact be picked up and used. What makes a difference is the shift in power associated with the social forces which favour one ideology over another. The IMF and anti-democratic governments in the case of Friedman’s doctrine, the Cold War and fear of the spread of socialism in the case of the post-WWII social democratic compromise between capital and labour in western Europe. Whether we’re at such a moment now in Greece remains to be seem. But talk of UBI without recognition of the social forces and power relations is sort of utopian. There are many “good ideas” that we (and there are many different “we”s) might want to adopt as a result of this moment of crisis, but that’s not really the point. It’s not about the content of the ideology as such, it’s about winning popular support for it amongst many contending ideologies during times of crisis.

  8. Anne B Ryan

    May 15, 2012 4:37 pm

    I agree completely. There is an active network in Ireland working towards increasing awareness of the possibility of UBI, its benefits and its financial viability. We have been working on developing our own understanding for the past year, and are now preparing to take the idea to a wider range of ‘ordinary’ members of society, using our combined contacts / networks. We believe that a demand for UBI needs to come from citizens across the political spectrum, so that all political parties may be inclined to support it. We are affiliated to the international organisation for UBI, more info at http://www.basicincome.org.

    Naive? maybe, but one has to start somewhere. The benefits of a UBI are very many; it’s not a panacea, but basic financial security for all, which it would provide, is a necessary element of any positive social economy in the future.

    if you’re interested in joining the Irish network, or finding out more, or if any of your contacts are, email basic.income@nuim.ie

  9. William Wall

    May 16, 2012 6:29 am

    By the way, Bevin, in my haste to distance myself from any apologia for neoliberalism I forgot to say thanks for the link to the Counterpunch article. It’s excellent, and like much of Counterpunch, punchy in the extreme! I particularly like the ‘dullard class of EU propaganda hacks’.