The "political consensus" as an appeasment

 

The following post was originally published in Greek, some three weeks ago. It has been -badly- translated and reposted here in English for the sake of some stubborn readers who keep asking for news from Greece. Given that the problematic developed in this note -whether or not a coalition government is beneficial for Greece- was finalized only a few minutes ago, I thought it timely to go on and post it again.

Only yesterday (20/10/2011) , with the events already in place to overtake us, the Prime Minister met with the leader of the opposition and asked him to join him to Brussels for the EU Summit. The call resulted in a fiasco. Shortly afterwards, the known communication jackals rushed to portray it as a failure on behalf Mr. Samaras. Both were expected and do not deserve special mention.
What is a little more important is the whole conversation is about this vaunted "consensus" and especially the commitment to it by both members of the government and a large part of the media. The arguments are pretty much as follows:
1. These are difficult moments and political forces need to show unity. The unity will find its reflection in society, which in great relief will experience the historic reconciliation.
2. Our lenders and the accompanying voracious "markets" will judge this consistency between government and opposition as a sign of political maturity. Their satisfaction will be expressed in addressing our country's lending deals with milder economic conditions.
3. Our democracy will finally pass from the "cavemen stage" of the traditional, monolithic debate of ideologies, to that of modern European parliamentary cooperations.

The strongest evidence of the importance and urgency of consensus is the urgent desire of our European partners, a desire that ultimately did not even bother to disguise itself as an "appeal", instead it was manifested as a "demand". This "demand" alone would suffice to make the above executives and their supporters to think twice before advocating the consensus and a coalition government. For one simple reason: That it is extremely doubtful how a consensus between government and opposition would serve the interests of the country under negotiations with exactly those who are urgently asking for it! Under continuing cruel and relentless-as we are being told-consultation with our lenders, the "much-desired" consensus would not work beneficially but only appeasingly. With all the negative implications. Therefore it should be clear that the above arguments in favor of a consensus are perforated. For the following reasons:

1. This so-called "consensus" will not find its reflection in society, for the simple reason that society as a whole is opposed to the imposed policy regardless of wherefrom it originates. Consensus between the two big -at least until recently- parties will simply increase the public feeling that "they're all the same" and will further undermine the faith of the people in the parliamentary system.
2. Our lenders will find an unprecedented opportunity to harden their attitude in terms of their requirements from the current government, which among others will lose yet another bargaining chip. The moment there will be no alternative policy to counter the terms being debated, these should be already considered as accepted. It's surprising how something so obvious has escaped our government officials who to the contrary keep reminding us of the pressure conditions under which the negotiations with our lenders are being conducted.
3. Whether such a development will be for our parliamentary democracy a sign of maturation or regression is evident. Democracy is based on difference of opinion. To openly say that 80% of our MPs being COERCED to agree on a major issue constitutes a progress of democracy is not only amusing. It is dangerous. It suffices to see which political elements within and outside the parliament (far-right, ultra-neoliberals, major mass media groups) are fearlessly backing the latest idea for a national unity government to understand the stakes we are facing.

To wrap it all up, the "consensus" is neither a solution nor a sign of maturity or a springboard to reconcile the divided nation. Instead it is the tombstone for any confidence in the parliamentary republican system  for a large portion of society. It will be a dangerous diversion from our democracy and the easiest way forward for those who negotiate the conditions of lending our heavily indebted country.

The rush and fervor with which some advertise it makes one wonder. Or maybe not?

Originally published in Greek here