SYRIZA GOVERNMENT

Η πρόσφατη δυναμική επανεμφάνιση των λαϊκιστικών κομμάτων διεθνώς αναζωπύρωσε τη συζήτηση γύρω από τον λαϊκισμό και τη σχέση που αναπτύσσει με τη (φιλελεύθερη) δημοκρατία. Πολλές από τις «κυρίαρχες» επιστημονικές αναλύσεις άσκησαν ισχυρή κριτική στον λαϊκισμό μέσα από μια στερεοτυπική οπτική, εντοπίζοντας συγκεκριμένα παθολογικά χαρακτηριστικά στο φαινόμενο, ενώ υπήρξε ένας αριθμός μελετών που κράτησε τις αποστάσεις του από τις στρεβλές θεωρητικές αναγνώσεις. Ένα από τα πολιτικά κόμματα που απασχόλησαν τους ακαδημαϊκούς στην Ελλάδα ήταν η περίπτωση του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ, τόσο στην αντιπολίτευση όσο και στην εξουσία. Δεν ήταν λίγοι οι ερευνητές που επιχείρησαν να ιχνηλατήσουν και να κατανοήσουν τη μετάβαση της ριζοσπαστικής αριστεράς από ένα κινηματικό κόμμα της νεολαίας σε κόμμα εξουσίας μέσα από την ανάλυση Λόγου. Στο συγκεκριμένο άρθρο μελετάμε την έννοια του λαϊκισμού και την περίπτωση του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ μετά το ξέσπασμα της οικονομικής κρίσης. Αρχικά, εννοιολογούμε τον λαϊκισμό, ακολουθώντας τις θεωρητικές και μεθοδολογικές κατευθύνσεις τριών σημαντικών προσεγγίσεων [των Ερνέστο Λακλάου και της Σχολής του Έσσεξ (λογοθεωρητική), Πιερ Οστιγκί (κοινωνικοπολιτισμική) και Μπέντζαμιν Μόφιτ (επιτελεστική)], οι οποίες παρά τις διαφορές που παρουσιάζουν διαθέτουν ιδιαίτερα σημεία σύνδεσης, ενώ υπογραμμίζουμε και τη στερεοτυπική ανάγνωση των αντι-λαϊκιστικών αναλύσεων. Στη συνέχεια, αναδεικνύουμε τα χαρακτηριστικά που έλαβαν στο πέρασμα των ετών διάφορες λαϊκιστικές εμπειρίες, ενώ στο τέλος επικεντρωνόμαστε στην περίπτωση της ελληνικής ριζοσπαστικής αριστεράς (ΣΥΡΙΖΑ), με στόχο να εξετάσουμε τα χαρακτηριστικά του πολιτικού της λόγου στην αντιπολίτευση και την εξουσία (2009-2019). Εξέφρασε έναν λαϊκιστικό λόγο; Ποιες ήταν οι επιπτώσεις του αριστερού λαϊκισμού στην δημοκρατία, την κοινωνία και τη πολιτική;

The recent forceful re-emergence of populist parties around the world has rekindled the debate over populism and its impact on (liberal) democracy. Many mainstream research analyses utilized a strong criticism on populism through a stereotypical perspective, identifying specific pathological features on the phenomenon, while a number of studies kept its distance from distorted theoretical readings. In Greece, the case of SYRIZA turned the academic interest again on populism. There have been many researchers who have tried to study and understand radical left’s transition from a party of movements and youth to a party of power through discourse analysis. In this paper, we attempt to study the concept of populism and the case of SYRIZA after the eruption of the economic crisis. Firstly, we use three important theoretical approaches [Ernesto Laclau and Essex School (discursive), Pierre Ostiguy (socio-cultural), and Benjamin Moffitt (performative)] to define the notion of populism, while we emphasize some of the stereotypical anti-populist approaches. Subsequently, we highlight the special characteristics of various populist experiences over the years. Finally, we focus on the case of the Greek radical left (SYRIZA), with the aim of examining the features of its political discourse in opposition and power (2009-2019). Did Alexis Tsipras express a populist discourse? What were the effects of left-wing populism on democracy, society and politics?

Με την "Υπονόμευση της Δημοκρατίας, 2015-2019" ολοκληρώνεται, ευτυχώς, η τετραλογία της κρίσης του Πέτρου Παπασαραντόπουλου, που διανύει, θεματικά και χρονικά, όλη την περίοδο από το 2010 ώς το 2020. Όπως τα προηγούμενα τρία και αυτό εδώ αποτελείται από κείμενα που στην εποχή τους ήσαν πολεμικά αλλά σήμερα είναι πρωτίστως κείμενα θεωρητικής-πολιτικής ανάλυσης και τεκμηρίωσης: ο Πέτρος Παπασαραντόπουλος, με εκατοντάδες παραπομπές στις πηγές, έχει επεξεργαστεί και αναδείξει όλα τα παράδοξα και επικίνδυνα εκείνης της εποχής, μέρα την ημέρα, εβδομάδα την εβδομάδα.

In recent years, and especially after the outbreak of the global financial crisis, right-wing and left-wing populist parties and movements have enjoyed significant political success in Europe. One of these parties is SYRIZA in Greece. In this paper, we explore some of the particular characteristics of the political discourse articulated by SYRIZA in power. The core argument of the paper is that the Greek radical left party continues to express an inclusionary populist discourse after its rise to power. We examine this issue by utilising the methodology of the Essex School of Discourse Analysis. Moreover, we attempt to substantiate the view that populism does not always have a negative connotation and is not deterministically associated with nationalism or racism. Furthermore, we try to establish whether the concept of "crypto-colonialism” is an important key to understanding the rise of inclusionary populism to power in Greece. Finally, we analyse various manifestations of Greek anti-populism in order to highlight the danger that derives from this kind of stereotypical discourse.

The global economic crisis, the popular discontent against traditional parties and post-democratic forms of governance, as well as the sharp increase in migrant and refugee arrivals have led to the resurgence of populist parties around the world. Left-wing parties usually express an inclusionary populist discourse with patriotic features, while right-wing parties utilize an exclusionary populism with strong nationalist and xenophobic characteristics. In Greece in recent years, the radical left party of SYRIZA rose to power through a left-wing populist and anti-imperialist discourse. Alexis Tsipras formed a paradox coalition government with the radical right party of ANEL to reach an agreement that would lessen the effects of austerity policies. However, once in office, SYRIZA transformed some features of its political style and began to follow a type of “pragmatic populism”. This paper examines the relationship between populism and anti-imperialism, while analyzing SYRIZA’s discourse in opposition and in power. The questions that it attempts to answer are: does Tsipras express an anti-imperialist discourse both in opposition and in power? What forces are considered imperialist by SYRIZA? Can the notion of “crypto-colonialism” explain the rise of left-wing populism in Greece?

The article gives an outline of the failed strategy followed by the Greek government under Alexis Tsipras during the six-month negotiations with Greece’s creditors (January-July 2015). It is argued that Mr. Tsipras’ government had no concrete plan during these negotiations and that its moves were largely based on a combination of ignorance, misconceptions, and wishful thinking. The prolongation of negotiations was made at the expense of creating huge problems for the Greek economy and making the Greek position worsen with each passing day. The final blow was the proclamation of the Greek referendum which was held on 5 July 2015. Because of this failed strategy, Greece was found at the edge of default and exit from the Eurozone, a development which was avoided literally at the last moment.

…Ο Σάκης Μουμτζής από το καλοκαίρι του 2014 προειδοποιούσε, μέσα από την αρθρογραφία του, γι’ αυτό που ερχόταν.
Επί πέντε χρόνια σχεδόν, έδινε –και δίνει ακόμα– τη δική του μάχη, για να τελειώσει αυτός ο εφιάλτης που ζούμε.
Ο λόγος του είναι αιχμηρός, απερίφραστος, με «γωνίες», χωρίς ιδεολογικές και πολιτικές εκπτώσεις. Δηλαδή αληθινός, όχι «ξύλινος».
Είχε πάθος, αλλά ποτέ δεν καταδέχθηκε την εμπάθεια…
Έχει στέρεα επιχειρήματα, αλλά ποτέ ύβρεις.
Ασυγκράτητος όταν υπερασπίζεται την αλήθεια του, αλλά πάντα πολύ προσεκτικός, να μη θίξει προσωπικά κανέναν…
Aντώνης Σαμαράς

…Σε αυτό το χρονικό διάστημα που γράφηκαν τα συγκεκριμένα άρθρα αυτού του βιβλίου, αποκαλύφθηκε πλήρως η αντίληψη που είχε η ριζοσπαστική Αριστερά για την άσκηση της εξουσίας και τη σχέση της με τους θεσμούς, για την κατεύθυνση που επεδίωκε να δώσει στην εθνική μας οικονομία, για το πώς αντιλαμβανόταν, στην πράξη, τις έννοιες της Δημόσιας Τάξης και της ασφάλειας των πολιτών.
Η έπαρση και ο αυταρχισμός, η περιφρόνηση των θεσμών και η εμφάνιση σκανδάλων, η υπερφορόλογηση και η φτωχοποίηση της μεσαίας τάξης, αποτέλεσμα συνειδητής πολιτικής επιλογής, όλα αυτά και πολλά άλλα, οδήγησαν τον ΣΥΡΙΖΑ στη συντριπτική ήττα των ευρωεκλογών και τους ΑΝΕΛ στην πολιτική εξαφάνιση…
Σάκης Μουμτζής

In diesem Essay aus dem Jahr 2018 wurde untersucht, ob und inwiefern es sich bei der ehemaligen griechischen Regierungspartei Syriza um eine populistische Partei handelt. Hierfür wurde die Rhetorik der Partei seit ihrer Gründung im Jahr 2004 auf die beiden Hauptmerkmale populistischer Parteien überprüft: die Konstruktion des Feindbildes Elite und den verbalisierten Alleinvertretungsanspruch für den dēmos.

This article problematizes how non-spatial factors facilitate the formation of extraordinary ideologically mismatched government coalitions. An intensive case study analysis of the SYRIZA-ANEL governments in Greece (2015-2019) suggests that a shared symbolic discourse directed against mainstream contenders allowed elite actors with widely disparate programmatic commitments to circumvent rigid constraints imposed by minimal range theory. Under conditions of acute polarization and socioeconomic upheaval owing to the Greek sovereign debt crisis, a strategic use of populist anti-bailout discourse upset the usual order of party competition along spatial dimensions, fostering cross-ideological cohabitation at the executive level between the radical-left SYRIZA and the radical-right ANEL for a total of four years. However, an office-seeking approach based on a populist symbolic framework to represent salient grievances cannot fully eliminate policy dissension. Once core ideological commitments become explicitly challenged, inelastic policy-oriented factions and voting blocs may ultimately precipitate the expiration of the populist coalition.

This paper explores the question of what have been SYRIZA’s foreign policy positions with regards to the Western Balkan region — before and after it came to power — and to what extent it has influenced the Greek Balkan policy in general. Also, it looks into expectations of the SYRIZA-led government among the Western Balkan public and political elites, especially after SYRIZA’s landmark victory in the January 2015 parliamentary elections. The paper argues that the new government coalition in Greece has not demonstrated any major policy shifts in comparison to the previous Greek governments, trying, instead, to continue foreign policy that was inherited from its predecessors.

While the last years the discussion on urban commons is becoming increasingly popular among activists and radical scholars there have been few attempts to think it together with the notion of crisis. Following autonomous Marxists analysis (de Angelis 2010; Caffentzis 2010; Hardt and Negri 2009), conceptualizing the commons involves three things at the same time: common pool resource, community and commoning. Commons don’t exist per se but they are making in times of social struggles and they are constituted through the social process of commoning. In this theoretical framework, I connect the spatial analysis of Lefebvre (1974): Perceived-Conceived-Lived Space, with the autonomous Marxists analysis, and I propose the concept of the Common Space. From this point of view, motions and reactions of capitalism can be understood as a response to the power of social commoning of commoners’ communities that produce the common space. Capitalism seeks to distort (de Angelis 2009) commons and enclose the common space in order to maintain the permanence of the so-called primitive accumulation and the (re)production of commodity and surplusvalue. Following this approach crisis can be understood as the critical time of circulation of capital vis-à-vis the circulation of social struggles for the control over the commons. To approve this thesis I examine and problematize the paradigm of urban commons and enclosures in Greece in the era of crisis.
During the last years we are witnessing in Greece an unprecedented wave of new urban enclosures and at the same time there are emerging fruitful urban social struggles and a new common space. On the one hand in the era of crisis there are emerged several local neighborhoods assemblies, social centers, squats, communal gardens, social health centers, social kindergartens, cooperatives, social groceries, collective kitchens, and barter structures that constitute a common space in the perceived-conceived-lived urban space. On the other hand, austerity measures have as a result crucial implementations of material, immaterial and ideological urban enclosures. Nowadays a new left government promises to take steps against neoliberal austerity urban enclosures and promote democratic urban planning. The challenge is great; hence this paper monitors the contentious commons space from the neoliberal austerity to the SYRIZA left government.
Closing, I argue that in the era of crisis commons are in the focal point of political, social and urban conflicts.

Populism has been the interest of study to a lot of scholars lately and is a concern in many countries when it comes to democratic consolidation and international cooperation. The rise of Populism in the West led to the concerns of many scholars about the future of Liberal Democracy. Nevertheless, it has led to different outcomes around Europe. Where in a case like that of Hungary, the rise of populism led to the infringement of rights. On the other hand, in other countries like Greece, in which populist rule came in similar circumstances, it did not affect Public Policy outcomes and converged into the mainstream. In this paper, we studied the cases of Hungary and Greece to test the reasons behind the different outcomes when it comes to policy making. From these cases, we understood that the main factors behind the ability of populism in power to affect policy making are policy capacity measures and the experience of the policy makers.

SYRIZA is the first radical left party in Europe which managed to seize power through a strong inclusionary populist and anti-austerity discourse. In this paper, we examine the political discourse articulated by SYRIZA in power (2015-17) through Laclau’s theory and “Populismus” approach and we utilize the lexicometric tool of “Populismus Observatory” to search the frequently appeared words in Alexis Tsipra’s discourse. “Populismus” is a research project and an open access web-based Observatory at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (School of Political Science) that analyzes populism through a discursive methodological framework. The simple lexicometric analysis can help us to sketch a statistical outline of the discourse, followed by theoretical scrutiny. Our aim is to find if SYRIZA transforms its rhetoric after the conquest of power (January 2015) and which central signifiers tends to use and avoid. Furthermore, we argue that the concept of “crypto-colonialism” can explain the dominance of egalitarian populism in the Greek politics but we question the use of the term for any inclusionary populist case. Moreover, we underline the failure of SYRIZA to fulfill the popular demands and we seek out the reasons of this fiasco. Finally, we try to answer to the following question: Does the case of SYRIZA prove that populism fails wherever it comes from (right or left)?

In July 2015, after intense negotiations with its creditors, Greece received a bailout in exchange for fiscal restraint. The coalition government at that time, led by the left-wing SYRIZA party, elected on the basis of an anti-austerity platform, eventually accepted the prevalent austerity frames of the creditors. Through the aid of Q-method, an analysis of Greek opinion leaders’ views of the negotiation highlights that this outcome can be explained in two different ways. The first posits that the ideological overtones that ruling SYRIZA injected in its negotiation strategy exhibited a lack of socialisation and undermined Greece’s already weak bargaining position. The second focuses on the institutional status quo bias in the Eurogroup in Germany’s favour, which discourages any change in the Eurozone. These two views may have partly been influenced by questions of political accountability.

Syriza is the only radical Left party to be elected a national governing party since the worldwide economic crisis began in 2008. In this interview with political theorist Michalis Spourdalakis, a founding member of Syriza, we discuss the unique strategic relationships between social movements and the new radical Left parties such as Syriza, the struggle to maintain the party’s independence amid co-optation into the Greek state and broader European Institutions, and what the Syriza experience can teach us about attempts to transform capitalist states.

In July 2015, after intense negotiations with its creditors, Greece received a bailout in exchange for fiscal restraint. The coalition government at that time, led by the left-wing SYRIZA party, elected on the basis of an anti-austerity platform, eventually accepted the prevalent austerity frames of the creditors. Through the aid of Q-method, an analysis of Greek opinion leaders’ views of the negotiation highlights that this outcome can be explained in two different ways. The first posits that the ideological overtones that ruling SYRIZA injected in its negotiation strategy exhibited a lack of socialisation and undermined Greece’s already weak bargaining position. The second focuses on the institutional status quo bias in the Eurogroup in Germany’s favour, which discourages any change in the Eurozone. These two views may have partly been influenced by questions of political accountability.

Το κείμενο της αποχώρησής μου από τα  "Ενθέματα" της Αυγής, 6.5.2016 (μαζί και το αντίστοιχο κείμενο της Συντακτικής Ομάδας).
"Δεκάξι χρόνια στα «Ενθέματα» (τα πρώτα οχτώ βοηθός του Άγγελου Ελεφάντη, τα υπόλοιπα οχτώ μαζί με μια ομάδα συνεργατών) έμαθα  πολλά: έντυπα, ανθρώπους, ιδέες. Μα αν κάτι ξεχωρίζω είναι μια  αντίληψη που σιγά σιγά διαμορφώσαμε και κατόπιν θελήσαμε πεισματικά να κάνουμε πράξη: ότι τα κείμενα δεν είναι μόνο (άψυχες) λέξεις, σελίδες στο χαρτί και την οθόνη. Είναι οι άνθρωποι που τα γράφουν και τα διαβάζουν· είναι οι σχέσεις, τα συναισθήματα οι ιδέες, οι σκέψεις  που  τα παράγουν και τις οποία παράγουν, με τη σειρά τους. Δεσμοί, σχέσεις, διαδρομές ανθρώπων.  «Πάρε τη λέξη μου, δώσε μου το χέρι σου». Αυτό  είναι, για μένα, το μάθημα των δεκάξι χρόνων".

One year after the victory and six months after the coup, we shouldn't fool ourselves: This was a defeat, of the Greek government. But it's not only Syriza that has failed (for now). The whole left has failed in Greece – and in the rest of Europe, indeed. Europe is no longer what it was. It's impossible to defend this project of European unification from the left without falling into pure illusions.
Ever since the last European Parliament elections, the minimal demand is: ‘No further transfer of powers from the national to this EU.’ This is certainly right, but then what?
Some hope that now they can score points with alternatives to the current EU. But already before the crisis there was the question: What's the concrete strategy we could use to carry out these alternatives? The social union was our model for 20 years and it's turned into an illusion. The greater the defeat – the submission of the Greek government – the more radical the left's defiance becomes, whether this means that we support a ‘LExit’ (left exit), a radical democratization of the EU or for instance an unemployment insurance for all. None of this is realistic if it is disconnected from a strategy of how to get there. It's all a politics that amounts to nothing more than proclamations and intellectual games far from the seats of power. There's no subject for carrying it out. As a world view for organizing and a political orientation, these desperate attempts at self-assertion are good for nothing. I, for one, am uncertain about how we can go forward with a view to social transformation.

La situación está empantanada. Hay un empate entre las clases. La burguesía, por ahora, no puede liderar una salida y se dedica solamente a ganar tiempo prometiendo reformismos inviables o intentando consensuar ajustes imposibles e ineficaces. La clase obrera apenas esboza una salida a su conciencia reformista, pero no ha logrado crear una fuerza dispuesta a desarrollar una alternativa revolucionaria.
Hace un tiempo, anunciábamos que el keynesianismo de Syriza no ofrecería ninguna solución a la crisis griega. El programa, que rechazaba el ajuste y buscaba expandir el gasto público, encontró su límite en la falta de caja estatal. La ayuda europea no va a solucionar demasiado ni va a llegar sin un fuerte ajuste, por ahora imposible dadas las condiciones políticas. La renuncia de Tsipras y su convocatoria a elecciones expresa no solo un aspecto más del desbarranque general, sino un desesperado intento por darle algún cauce dentro de los marcos institucionales. A continuación, ofrecemos un análisis más detallado del desarrollo de los conflictos.

The collapse of the financial system, the crisis of the bipartisanship and the post-democratic political landscape in Greece led to the rise of radical left and radical right parties and movements, which criticized neoliberalism, austerity policies and the anti-popular structure of the EU. In the Greek legislative elections of 2015 (January and September), SYRIZA, a party consisting of socialist, social-democratic and communist organizations, managed to gain most of the votes. However, it took the decision to form a coalition government with the newborn radical right party of Anexartitoi Ellines (Independent Greeks) due to the lack of some parliamentary seats. ANEL is a nationalist and conservative party without significant electoral performances. What is the reason behind this 'unholy' and paradoxical alliance between two traditional political opponents? How they succeed to maintain their 'peculiar' coalition despite their disagreements and ideological disputes? In this paper we underline the political discourse of SYRIZA and ANEL before and after the elections of 2015, trying to explain that populism is the strong connective link between these two parties and differentiating the nature of their populism. Furthermore, we underline the problematic theoretical formalities of the concept of 'national populism' that equates radical left and radical right parties. Finally, this paper examines the process of normalization of the radical right and the responsibilities of SYRIZA on this issue.

The eruption of the financial crisis, the lack of trust in liberal institutions and post-democratic political system and the failure of neoliberal project provided the opportunity to radical left and right parties to emerge dynamically in the Greek political scene. In the elections of 2015 (January and September), SYRIZA (a political party consisting of socialist, social-democratic and communist organizations) managed to gain most of the votes through an inclusionary populist discourse. However, SYRIZA, due to the lack of some parliamentary seats, formed a coalition government with the newborn radical right party of Anexartitoi Ellines (ANEL/Independent Greeks). What is the reason behind this 'unholy' alliance between two traditional political opponents? How they succeed to maintain their 'radical' coalition despite their ideological differences? In this paper we underline the political discourse of SYRIZA and ANEL (before and after the elections of 2015), explaining the different nature of their populism. At the same time, we try to find how these two anti-establishment parties managed to create a stable government, despite the crucial tensions between them. Is populism a strong connective link to these political parties? Moreover, we underline the problematic theoretical formalities of the concept of 'national populism' that equates every form of populism. Finally, this paper discusses the process of normalization of the radical right and the responsibilities of the Greek radical left on this issue.

Despite the intensification of the crisis, the prolonged period of uncertainty, and the number of key politicians leaving the party, Greece's SYRIZA government is still in place, with an untarnished majority. We spoke with political scientist Giorgos Katsambekis about the radical left’s year in power... their mistakes, victories and opportunities.

Appare sempre più evidente che la vicenda greca si sia giocata più nelle stanze delle cancellerie europee che in quelle del governo di Atene. I continui colpi di scena che ci riserva la tragedia greca hanno oscurato lo scontro internazionale che si è svolto dietro le quinte. L'epilogo della vicenda mostra le responsabilità e i limiti di ideologici di Syriza e della Sinistra Europea, tanto nell'analisi dell'Unione Europea che in quella del mondo attuale.

Se existisse um único dispositivo o qual poderia simbolizar nosso estado como sujeito histórico durante esses tempos de crise, este seria um pêndulo. A sensação é de que aparentemente há um eterno sentido de movimento entre um momento histórico e outro, sempre oscilando à beira da catástrofe, de uma revolta, logo que começamos a sair do estado anterior.

Even if SYRIZA is defeated at the end, forced to comply with Europe’s inflexible neoliberal doxa, it has already achieved a first small victory: political disagreement, that is the very heart of democratic dialogue, has re-entered Europe’s protected and remote rooms of power.