whip and carrot

On February 21 the Greek Prime Minister, George A. Papandreou, gave a speech at Humboldt University in Berlin. He talked about democracy and Europe. We Europeans, he said, should lead the way to democracy, which of course means that democracy really exists in Europe – an example which the rest of the world should follow. And we Greeks in particular, have the experience of democratising the state. He referred to the Colonels' dictatorship during '67-74. The Colonels based their power on a false dilemma: it is either us, or the reds. Because Greeks 'are not ready for democracy'. And as the argument goes (in all its absurdity): it is either dictatorship with a prospect of democratic return or communism. Democratic deficits were justified, according to the colonels' argument, since they were doing it in the name of democracy; the state ended up in plaster for the next seven years, during which a whole generation matured politically, the one that is now in power. The leaders of the Arab world now in uprising, suggests Papandreou, are using the same argument; only this time the absolute threat is different: the other is not communism, but Islamic fundamentalism. Nevertheless, the discourse is the same, Papandreou tells us (and he is probably right): again the dictator is the saviour of the state and democracy, from the people and their political immaturity.

So far so good. But not really, the assumption that Europe can be the leader in democratising the global markets, as the Greek PM seems to suggest, presupposes too much. In other words, this argument raises all sorts of questions: first, Papandreou seems to suggest a supremacy of the European model, and second he does not question European democracy. In both aspects of his speech the discussion is endless – and renegotiates our definitions of democracy and our relations to the others (any and all others). A member of the audience, a student, picked the most relevant question of all:

“So government proceedings in Greece are becoming less and less democratic. You were elected one and a half years ago with a programme completely different to what you apply. Your Members of the Parliament are not free to vote at will. Parliament itself does not need to approve ministers’ decisions. Justice cannot touch members of political parties in Greece. So my question: Is this your own vision for Europe, for the kids of Europe?”

Papandreou urged to reply: the Greek government is making fast changes and will go even further, down a path that confronts us with a

“challenge, because in the world we are living in, the types of pressures, the types of changes will pressure the democratic processes. And that is also what we have to look at. If we want to have democracy vibrant, we have to create a more stable world”.

So, a more stable world first, and democracy will come. Promise. Otherwise, “we will have very little time to discuss”. Threat. And so on: the whip and the carrot. And the much hated authoritarian discourse seems to emerge: it is necessary to cut back on democracy in order to have a stable democracy in the future.

During the talk groups of protesters stood up and interrupted Papandreou. They were taken out of the room by other members of the audience and security personnel. The question really was answered before it was uttered. The deficits in democracy were demonstrated right there in the presence of the Prime Minister, the media representatives, the academic community and other audience members. On top of it, the Prime Minister was inviting them to have a discussion, while they were being thrown out. When and where? Probably in a parallel universe where Papandreou's vision for Europe and the world is called democracy.

DE & PH