OCT. 26, 2015
Nikos
Konstandaras
New York
Times
On “Ochi
Day,” military parades and patriotic speeches hail a small nation’s resilience
against insurmountable odds. After initially pushing Italian invaders deep back
into Albania ,
the Greeks were overwhelmed by a German blitz that led to four years of brutal
occupation and determined resistance. After the war, the old divisions roared
back, with a civil war between Communist forces and a government that was backed
first by Britain and then by the United States leaving a lasting legacy of pain
and suspicion between left and right.
Despite
divisions and strife, the “No” of 1940 has stood as a unifying memory of a
nation that will tolerate no foreign master. Recently, though, in the throes of
a devastating economic crisis, the Greeks were divided once again, and the
talismanic “No” was commandeered by one side.
Those who
opposed the bailout agreement between Greece and its partners and creditors, in
which Greece received huge loans but committed itself to harsh austerity and
deep reforms, drew on history to repeat their “No” to foreign intervention and
the supposed loss of Greek sovereignty. Those in favor of the bailout, signed
in May 2010, were described as Quislings, as lackeys of the troika of creditors
— the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International
Monetary Fund.
Passions
boiled over on Oct. 28, 2011, when a crowd of protesters carrying banners with
the word “Ochi” disrupted a military parade in Thessaloniki . Prime Minister George
Papandreou was shaken. After his call for a referendum on the bailout was shot
down by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and the French president, Nicolas
Sarkozy — who summoned the Greek leader to a summit in Cannes to humiliate him
— Mr. Papandreou resigned in favor of a technocrat prime minister.
The success
of that Oct. 28 protest, and the clumsy intervention of Germany and France , reinforced the “No” camp’s
narrative that the bailout was imposed by foreign powers, and that dynamic
demonstrations could derail it. Syriza, a grouping of radical-left parties that
had won less than 5 percent of the vote in 2009, led the protests. Its
supporters multiplied and it came close to winning the next elections, in 2012,
before coming to power last January in a coalition with a hard-right
nationalist party. Syriza’s junior partner, the Independent Greeks, was founded
to oppose the bailout and “foreign intervention.”
Syriza’s
leader, Alexis Tsipras, vowed to scrap the bailout without losing the loans
that came with it, and without leading Greece out of the euro. This was
impossible: He would be forced either to drop his opposition to the bailout or
see an end to loans, leading to Greece ’s
economy collapsing and expulsion from the eurozone. From his election in
January until July, Mr. Tsipras’s negotiating tactic as prime minister was to
demand changes to the bailout agreement while warning Greece ’s
partners that his country’s exit from the eurozone would destroy the common
currency.
Before
Syriza, the Greek governments that signed on to the bailout were just as keen
on getting loans and halfhearted in their efforts to implement austerity and
reforms — knowing that these would sink their chances of re-election. Opposition
parties, meanwhile, claimed relentlessly that anyone in favor of agreeing with Greece ’s
partners was serving foreign interests. With Syriza’s election, the bailout’s
opponents were in charge, and “No” was their guiding principle, right down to a
parliamentary committee advocating that Greece refuse to pay its debts.
Confronted
by creditors’ proposals for a new bailout, when the previous one expired and Greece could
not meet its obligations, Mr. Tsipras called a referendum. “I call on you to
say a big ‘No’ to ultimatums, ‘No’ to blackmail,” he urged at a rally. “Turn
your back on those who would terrorize you.” A vast majority obliged. The “No”
vote got 61 percent.
Mr.
Tsipras’s triumph, however, was a dead end. The “No” could go no further. Greece was now
in default to the I.M.F., its banks closed and its people allowed to draw only
60 euros a day from their accounts. Resistance had restored national pride, but
the lack of an alternative program to keep Greece ’s economy running revealed
that the campaign was little more than political brinkmanship and, in the eyes
of partners and creditors, a petulant refusal to acknowledge debt and our
commitments.
The empire
struck back. The European Union called an emergency summit meeting, and leading
officials hinted strongly that this could lead to Greece ’s expulsion from the
eurozone, perhaps even the union itself. Mr. Tsipras conceded defeat and
accepted a new bailout with stricter terms than earlier proposals.
An unbroken
chain of defiant “No”s had resulted in a reluctant “Yes.”
So once
again, we have a government that has halfheartedly committed itself to
austerity and reform in exchange for lifesaving loans. Syriza won snap
elections on Sept. 20, as voters appeared to reward it both for its resistance
to creditors and for the turnaround that averted further damage. A die-hard
“No” faction that split from Syriza failed to get into Parliament. Syriza, in
other words, does not face the uncompromising opposition that it showed
previous governments. But it has to make the third bailout succeed where the
previous ones did not.
This year’s
Oct. 28 commemoration will probably be a somber affair. Some small groups may
organize protests to exploit the occasion, but most of us Greeks are coming to
terms with the fact that uniting to fight off invaders may be less difficult
than uniting to reform our country.
Nikos
Konstandaras is the managing editor and a columnist at the newspaper
Kathimerini and a contributing opinion writer.
No comments:
Post a Comment