Macron came to Greece’s aid during our crisis. The French left should back him
In 2002, Jacques Chirac, the French right’s leader, faced Jean-Marie Le Pen, the leader of the racist Front National, in the second round of France’s presidential election. The French left rallied behind the Gaullist, conservative Chirac to oppose the xenophobic heir of Vichy collaborationism. Fifteen years later, however, large sections of the French left are refusing to back Emmanuel Macron against Marine Le Pen, Jean-Marie’s daughter.
Read the entire article at The Guardian
Yanis Varoufakis: Why we support Macron in the second round
In today’s Le Monde I call upon French progressives to vote for Macron in the second round of France’s Presidential election. The article explains my recommendation to French voters and finishes off with the following promise to Emmanuel:
“I shall mobilise fully to help you beat Le Pen with the same strength that I shall be joining the next Nuit Debout to oppose your government when, and if, you, as President, attempt to continue with your dead-end, already-failed neoliberalism.”
For the full article, in the original English, can be read below. (See also DiEM25 France’s collective position published earlier in Mediapart.)
A year ago, at an event at the New York Public Library, Noam Chomsky and I were asked by a member of the audience where we stood regarding the impending electoral duel between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Both Noam and I answered that, in swing states, progressive Americans should hold their nose with one hand and vote for Clinton with the other.
Similar advice to voters had been issued years before, in April 2002, by all leading figures of the French left when Jacques Chirac and Jean Marie Le Pen squared off in the second round of that Presidential election: “Hold your nose and vote for Chirac!” was the left’s unanimous line.
Is Marine Le Pen genuinely a less unpalatable proposition than her father was? Is Emmanuel Macron somehow worse, from a leftwing perspective, than Jacques Chirac was in 2002? If not, why are some leaders of the left today unwilling to support Macron against Le Pen? This is a genuine puzzle to me.
Progressive French voters have every reason to be angry with Emmanuel Macron.
- His pursuit of labour market deregulation in the midst of a deflationary crisis was neoliberalism gone mad.
- His current proposals for a reconfiguration of the Eurozone that would turn it into a Federation-light plays straight into the hands of Wolfgang Schäuble’s grand plan for a permanent austerity union in which France will lose whatever control it has retained over her national budget (“I want the troika in Paris”, I have heard Schäuble say once) in exchange for a macro-economically insignificant Eurozone common budget.
- His more recent proposals for reducing wealth taxes and removing support from local government are on history’s wrong side.
Nevertheless, it is nothing less than scandalous for any progressive to keep an equal distance from Le Pen and Macron. Of course we all wish, at least those of us on the left, that the French electoral system were not binary. But it is. And given that it is, I refuse to be part of a generation of European progressives who could have stopped Marine Le Pen from winning France’s Presidency but didn’t. This is why I am writing this article: To support unequivocally Macron’s candidacy in the second round. The National Front cannot be allowed to stumble into the Elysee due to our misguided tactical indifference.
While that would have been my position whoever run against Le Pen on a non-racist ticket, there is something more in my endorsement of Macron:[1] During my tenure as Greece’s finance minister in early 2015 Emmanuel revealed to me a side of him that few progressives have seen. While the troika of Greece’s lenders and the Berlin government were strangling our freshly elected left-wing government’s attempts to liberate Greece from its debt-bondage, Macron was the only minister of state in Europe that went out of his way to lend a helping hand. And he did so at a personal political cost.
I remember vividly the afternoon of 28th June 2015, that awful Sunday when the Eurogroup had decided to close down our banks to punish our government for resisting yet another predatory loan and more anti-social, recessionary austerity attacks on the weakest of Greeks. It was at around 6pm when I received a text message from Emmanuel with which he informed me that he was struggling to convince President Hollande and Sigmar Gabriel, Germany’s Vice Chancellor, to find a solution: “I do not want my generation to be the one responsible for Greece exiting Europe,” he said.
Less than a minute later I replied: “But of course. Just know that we need an agreement that offers respite for the long run and a prospect that this situation will not be repeated in a few months.” Emmanuel agreed. He would talk to his President and get back to me: “Sustainable solution is key, I agree with you,” he wrote, proposing that he travel to Athens the next day, incognito, to have dinner with me and Alexis and to hammer out a deal between Athens, Berlin and Paris.
After midnight, while we were in the thick of our preparations for the bank closures, Emmanuel wrote again to inform me that President Hollande was planning to issue a statement in the morning to re-open the negotiations. I thanked him and waited. “Ok,” Emmanuel said a little later, “I am ready and I am sure that Alexis, you and me could find a deal… I will convince the President tomorrow. We have to succeed!”
Next morning, Monday 29 June, the day he was meant to come to Athens, Emmanuel called asking for a favour: Could Alexis contact President Hollande to confirm that he was ready and willing to receive Emmanuel in Athens as the French President’s emissary? I called Alexis, explained the opportunity that was being presented to us, and he agreed. An hour later, however, Alexis called me back, understandably angry. “What is going on?” he asked. “Hollande’s office replied that they have no idea about a possible mission by Macron to Athens. They referred us to Michel Sapin. Is he pulling your leg?”
When I relayed this exchange to Emmanuel, he sounded upset. His explanation shocked me: “The people around Hollande do not want me to come to Athens. They are close to the Berlin Chancellery. They clearly blocked Alexis’ approach. But let me have his [Alexis’s] personal mobile phone number. I shall go to the Élysée personally in an hour to speak with him [Hollande] and ask him to call Alexis directly.”
Some hours passed but Hollande never called Alexis. So I texted Emmanuel: “Do I take it there has been no progress? And that your trip has been cancelled?” A dejected Macron confirmed that he had been blocked – by his President and his President’s entourage. “I will push again to help you, Yanis, believe me,” he promised. I believed him.
Three months after my resignation, in October, I met Emmanuel again in Paris. He told me that in a summit meeting before his failed attempt to mediate with Alexis, he had used my line that the troika’s deal for Greece was a modern-day version of the Versailles Treaty. Merkel had heard him and, according to Emmanuel, ordered Hollande to keep Macron out of the Greek negotiations.
*****
By crushing the Greek Spring the troika did not only deal a blow to Greece but also to Europe’s integrity and soul. Emmanuel Macron was the only member of the establishment that tried to stop it. I feel it is my obligation to ensure that French progressives, as they are about to enter (or not to enter) the polling station in the second round of France’s Presidential election, make their choice fully aware for this.
For my part, my promise to Emmanuel is this: I shall mobilise fully to help you beat Le Pen with the same strength that I shall be joining the next Nuit Debout to oppose your government when, and if, you, as President, attempt to continue with your dead-end, already-failed neoliberalism.
[1] The following is an extract from my book Adults in the Room: My battle against Europe’s Deep Establishment, published in London by Boadly Head on 4th May and later in French by Les Liens qui Libèrent.
“Votez pour #Macron avec la même énergie et le même enthousiasme que lorsque vous vous opposerez à lui” – @yanisvaroufakis pic.twitter.com/E5u5w3oMDH
— openDemocracy (@openDemocracy) May 3, 2017
Why French progressives should vote for Macron
For French progressives, next Sunday’s ballot has a clear two-fold purpose: vote against evil and come together.
It is perhaps the single-most important failure of progressives across Europe since the outbreak of the 2008 financial crisis and Brussels’ blundering crush of the Athens Spring in 2015 – an utter inability to come together and present a solid front, and a sensible, non-sectarian agenda, against the xenophobic and toxic nationalistic forces tearing apart the European Union.
While the urgency to once and for all overcome such a failure to unite should have become painfully obvious after the Brexit and Trump experiences of 2016, the latest wakeup call to European progressives after the first round of the French presidential election may also go ignored along with another missed opportunity for progressives to come together.
Regardless, we must try.
When Emmanuel Macron made it to the second round of the French presidential election last month, banning Marine Le Pen from occupying the Élysée Palace for the present time, the EU breathed a sigh of relief with our European representatives and various heads of state echoing their euphoria. The threat to the Union had, once more, been averted. But sadly this is as myopic as Brussels can be.
Macron may very well prevent the Front National’s rise to power next Sunday, but by what margin and for how long? The epic demise of Macron’s former Socialist Party has left its electorate fractured among him, Benoît Hamon and Jean-Luc Mélenchon, so the young former Minister of Economy and maverick investment banker is doomed to endure an extremely weak presidency after the legislative race in June. This is particularly dangerous if there is no clear alternative in sight.
Despite his fourth-place finish, Mélenchon was the clear winner on the left political spectrum, and yet he lost a golden opportunity to galvanise his supporters, particularly the disenfranchised youth, and help defeat Le Pen’s hopes for victory. It is incomprehensible how the France Insoumise candidate failed to send a strong message to the same demographics he shares with the fascist leader regarding the side of history on which young French voters should position themselves.
Equally incomprehensible is the attitude of Podemos, Mélenchon’s ‘comrades’ south of the Pyrenees, with some of its leadership going so far as to make calls for abstaining from next Sunday’s vote. Petty party-politics, dogmatism and tactical manoeuvring is not something European democrats can afford at this moment in time.
Looking the other way is not an option. Washing our hands, promoting an empty ballot and delivering ambivalent rhetoric against a clear enemy of fundamental human rights is tantamount to becoming an accomplice to the return to the post-modern 1930s DiEM25 has been warning about since its launch a little over a year ago.
There is still time to see off this evil in our midst, and then a second step immediately becomes equally imperative: organising and campaigning in favour of a broad alliance of progressive internationalists in the June legislative elections.
The day after the election is when we must all regroup and, once and for all, come together to combat those policies which are eroding our Union and turning our young over to the likes of Le Pen, Orbán and Wilders. Thus, on May 8, we must assume our responsibility to unite in the broadest possible alliance and form a sensible political opposition to such policies not only at the Assemblée Nationale, but also in parliaments and municipalities across the EU. It is our time to step up, so that a progressive agenda for Europe can be turned into policy and the EU into a true common space for humanism, prosperity and solidarity.
If Europe continues to disintegrate and those who want to destroy it manage to dictate our politics, and even the discourse of the emerging progressive forces, history will judge us all again. Severely.
French progressives do not have to choose between the lesser of two evils on May 7. For French democrats and progressives, next Sunday’s rendezvous at the ballot has a clear two-fold purpose: to vote against evil itself and to come together.
Article first published in openDemocracy.
DiEM25 co-founder Yanis Varoufakis meets with Ecuador's President-elect Lenín Moreno in official visit
PRESS RELEASE
Yanis Varoufakis’ visit to Quito followed an official invitation by Ecuador’s President, Rafael Correa.
Sunday, Arpil 23
On Sunday, April 23, DiEM25 co-founder, Yanis Varoufakis had a 2-hour meeting with top economic officials of the government (including the Minister of Economic Coordination Mr. Rodrigo Martinez, the Minister of the New Economy and Human Capital Mr. Andres Arauz, and secretaries-general of the various economic ministries).
The conversation focused on the question of how can a government that does not practice unilateral monetary policy (Ecuador because of being bound to the US dollar as its national currency, Greece as a member of the Eurozone) maintain a degree of sovereignty regarding the provision of liquidity (in the private, public, and banking sectors) and the management of the trade balance. Following the presentation of innovative solutions by the economic cabinet which have helped Ecuador absorb strong economic shocks (e.g. the financial crisis of 2008, the drop in oil prices of 2014, as well as a catastrophic earthquake last year), Mr. Varoufakis discussed the difference and similarities between the innovations of the Ecuadorian government, and those that he developed with the Greek economic cabinet in the period between January and June 2015. There was agreement on the importance and usefulness of digital systems for the preservation of economic stability of countries which do not have their own currency, as well as for their sustainability within the dollar (for Ecuador) or euro (Greece) zones.
Monday, April, 24
On the morning of Monday 24 April, Yanis Varoufakis gave a lecture to a large financial conference (with delegates primarily from the insurance and banking services) which took place at the Hilton Hotel of Quito, on the topic of international imbalances in capital flows, trade, and debt.
Afterwards, he appeared at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs where he had a 3-hour meeting with the Foreign Minister, Mr Guillaume Long. In their discussion, they covered the geopolitical implications of the international and European crisis, the pan-European activity of DiEM25, and the possibility of the Ecuadorian government spearheading an international movement aimed at promoting democracy in Latin America, based on the example of DiEM25. Finally, Mr. Long accepted Mr. Varoufakis’ invitation to DiEM25’s major event in Berlin on 25 May, with the theme: How will DiEM25 give electoral expression and political power to the European New Deal – the movement’s economic and social agenda, which was presented in Rome on 25 March.
The same night, at the Institute of High National Studies (IAEN), Mr Varoufakis, in the presence of ministers, the institute’s Chancellor, the Governor of the Central Bank, journalists, academics, and university students, gave a lecture on the topic of “Geopolitical and Monetary Flexibility: Central Banks, cutting-edge technology, and the global division of labour” (see here and here).
Tuesday, April 25
Yanis Varoufakis and Ecuador’s President-elect, Lenín Moreno.
Following this, Mr. Varoufakis made an official visit to the Presidential Palace where he met with the outgoing President, Mr. Rafael Correa. After the end of the official part of the visit, Mr. Correa and Mr. Varoufakis, in the presence of the Foreign Minister Mr. Guillaume Long, the Minister of the New Economy Mr. Andres Arauz, and the Secretary-General of the ruling party, discussed the future partnership between Mr. Correa and his associates with DiEM25.
During his exit from the Presidential Palace, Mr. Varoufakis made statements to the media, and answered questions posed by journalists, stressing, among others, the importance of Ecuador’s experience in macroeconomic management for the countries of the Eurozone’s periphery.
We’re going back to Greece!
Starting point Thessaloniki, April 28-29
In the summer of 2015 Mr. Schäuble’s most hardcore follower in the Eurogroup, the Slovakian Minister of Finance Mr Kazimir, justified the brutal treatment towards Greece’s efforts to unblock the country from Memorandum absurdity by saying:
“We had to be strict with Athens, because of the Greek spring.”
Without hesitation he referred to the will of a nation to escape a situation of serfdom as something to be stifled. Greece’s Spring had to be suppressed – just like what happened in Prague.
Many people ask me why have we been going around Europe for almost a year and a half now with DiEM25, trying to create to first genuinely internationalist Pan-European movement that will oppose to the Europe’s Deep Establishment (the notions of which are being spread with great effort by its “stable boys” like Kazimir) as well as the Nationalist forces (both right and left) whose seek a return to a political environment of nation state. “It’s all very nice in Berlin, in Rome, in Vienna and in Dublin. But what about Greece?” they ask. The answer is simple:
Our goal was to save (in spite of the different “Kazimirs” of the world inside and outside the country) the spirit of Greece’s Spring to spread it around Europe (where the ground was already set by a seven-year period of crisis), to set the fundamentals of a new, unprecedented Pan-European progressive movement (that will confront the deepest causes of a crisis that smother countries like Greece in a crumbling Europe) and only then, return to Greece reinforced to bring back hope to the country that gave birth to it.
Now, in spring 2017, we feel it’s about time DiEM25 should return to Greece, thereby returning the spirit of the Greek Spring to its birthplace, in spite of the different “Kazimirs” of Greece and other countries. And so this is what we’re doing, starting in Thessaloniki on Friday, April 28 and Saturday, April 29.
Why Thessaloniki? Because Greece’s Spring wasn’t just about Athens. Because Thessaloniki is the city where the first working class assembly took place even before its incorporation to the Greek nation, the city that lead the fight for democracy in the spring of ‘36 against the dynasty of Metaxas, the city that organized against the defamation of our Jewish compatriots and lived through the slaughter of Chortiatis and the blocking of Kalamaria in the German occupation, the city that became the final resting place of Grigoris Labrakis in 1963 and of Yiannis Chalkidis a few months later after the “Ethnosotirios”.
Why now? A month ago on March 25, and while European leaders were “celebrating” in Rome the 60th anniversary of the EU, we in DiEM25 were announcing in a press conference and later that night in Teatro Italia, our complete proposal concerning both financial and political matters for every corner of Europe (countries both in and out of the EU)- the “European New Deal”. At the same time, we announced that DiEM25 will work systematically to enable every European citizen to vote for the “European New Deal” in the next European elections of 2019.
Having established ourselves almost all over Europe, and after publishing an exciting, realistic and groundbreaking financial and political proposal (the “European New Deal”), DiEM25 is now ready to return to its roots, in Greece and particularly in Thessaloniki.
So on Friday, April 28, in a press conference taking place in “Vellideio” (auditorium “Kassandros”, 11:00 am), a new financial and political proposal will be announced with the title “Greek New Deal. It is the first time that an agenda instantly applicable to our country will be presented, which is simultaneously directly linked and interconnected to a complete agenda of financial and social politics for Europe (our “European New Deal”).
Two questions will be answered at the press conference:
The first question is also the obvious one “What needs to happen in this country tomorrow morning?” The answer lies in two national goals and six necessary reforms. The two national goals are: (1) Debt restructuring for both private and public debts and (2) The stable reduction of all tax rates and of the fixed cost in financial activities.
The six necessary reforms that these two goals demand are: tax rates, medium-term budgetary objective (and the corresponding restructuring of public debts), the creation of a Public Payment System (whose goal among other uses will be the fight against poverty), the management of red loans, the creation of an investment bank and finally the respect and relief of employment and entrepreneurship.
The next important question is: “Considering the Troika and the Eurogroup will veto any rational financial and political proposal that goes against its destructive prototype (i.e. the Memorandum and the “review”) how will the six reforms that the “Greek New Deal” demands be applied?” How will mistakes such as the ones in 2015 be avoided? How will we escape the so-called “negotiations” and reviews” whose “closing” guarantees the desertification of the country?
These two questions will be answered, and the answers will be discussed with journalists in the press conference on Friday, April 28. The next night, Saturday, April 29, DiEM25 will open its doors once again, in an open event in order to get to know one another and discuss the “Greek New Deal”, to organize and “breathe” together. After 7:30 pm, the doors of the “Thessaloniki” auditorium in “Vellideio” will open. The play of George Maniotis called “The Tree”, starring Nikos Magdalinos, will take place before the event. Around 9:15pm the main event will begin where the voices of members of the movement from Greece and the rest of Europe will address our answer to the challenges of our time. Later, following DiEM25’s pattern in the rest of Europe, people participating will be given the opportunity to self-organise according to municipality and area. The night conclued with a live performance from Cosmicray.
Unlike those who call upon Europe to support the constant suffocation of Greece and other countries like ours, under the weight of political practices that destroy Europe and the European perspective of all its countries, we don’t LIVE in Europe – we ARE Europe! The tens of thousands members of DiEM25 in countries like Germany, Netherlands and Belgium are the Europe that instead of trying by any means to suppress the spirit of Greece’s Spring, fights to keep it alive and set it in service of their own country in the concept of a Europe that saves itself, because it deserves to do so in a way that serves best the majority of its citizens.
Translation by Vasilis Rokos.
The dark side of the Turkish referendum
How we got here
The situation in Turkey during the time before the referendum could well be described as a Chronicle of a Death Foretold . Erdogan used July’s failed coup attempt as an excuse to unleash a fierce manhunt against anyone standing in his way. Students, scholars, journalists and citizens who opposed his regime were targeted , suspended, beaten up, tortured. Newspapers and businesses belonging to the opposition were forced to close and the general atmosphere was poisoned with fear and suspicion. For years now Kurds and leftists have been intimidated by the government. Now the same was true for democrats and liberals who dared to criticize the regime.
Fear and loathing in the voting center
In the actual referendum day, things got from bad to worse. In the regions where ‘’No’’ was predicted to prevail ,soldiers were sent to patrol inside the voting centers obviously to intimidate voters. AKP representatives were caught cheating . At times forcing Syrian refugees to cast a vote that was handed to them by AKP members, at times casting Yes votes by the dozens themselves, governing party members made an absolute mockery of a democratic procedure. Premade ballots full of fraud Yes votes were counted , military vehicles patrolled Kurdish neighborhoods ,and even internet connections were cut off to stop all this mess from getting known to the rest of the world.
But resilient Turkish democrats found ways to resist. Mobile videos showing clearly all the fraud tactics used by Erdogan’s representatives have already gone viral. With most of its leaders in jail, HDP openly called out the fraud. Even conservative politicians like Meral Axener resisted to the transformation of the Turkish republic into Erdogan’s one man rule. The most active resistance though came from the feminist movement. Women in Turkey protested against AKP, painted the word ‘’No’’ on their bodies and hanged purple pieces of cloth out of the windows as a sign of opposition to the government. They know very well that women are the first victims when societal regression and authoritarianism prevail, and showed they are having none of it.
European leaders in bed with the Sultan
EU officials now speak out against the authoritarian tactics but it really sounds like crying over spilt milk. For a long time now the Turkish regime saw that salaries in Turkey were kept low, and as this is the only investment criteria of many big European firms operating in Turkey, he was the man for the job and EU officials looked the other way when they were told about the oppression in Turkey. Also during the refugee crisis, Erdogan played his cards with Merkel because he knew they needed him. They needed him because they feared to fight the anti-immigrant rhetoric inside the EU, therefore they wanted to pass the problem to somebody else. Conveniently enough, Turkey became a safe place to send (actually throw) immigrants back to. Now that everybody sees Erdogan as who he really is, the EU bureaucrats act surprised. But they are responsible for ignoring human rights violations just to serve petty politics.
Consequences
Major human rights organisations warn that situation can get harder. Turkish intellectuals call out the international community to stay alert in front of a drama being unfolded before our own eyes: the transformation of Turkish parliamental democracy into despotism. Erdogan’s monopoly of powers in combination with the re-introduction of the death penalty, will have as a result more terror for anyone opposing the regime.
What about Greece?
In contrast with nationalists who always say ‘’beware the turks’’ we see a deeper danger. We say ‘’beware despotism’’. Although we know that authoritarian governments usually tend to imperialism as well, we don’t see an arms race as something that will act against such potential tendencies of Erdogan’s regime.
We see Turkish people’s fight for democracy and freedom as our own common fight. We can relate to the Turkish people not only because of our cultural understanding and neighboring relations. We can relate because we have also been victims of disrespect towards people’s will. Not only in the past with the military junda but also recently after our own referendum. Here, fraud wasn’t in the ballot and soldiers stayed in their camps but in essence, the result of the referendum was not respected by the EU leadership and unfortunately the greek leadership succumbed to this injustice. That lead to pessimism and despair for the greek people and there is the danger: when people feel their voice can not be heard by the government, the road to authoritarianism has opened.
So we have a double duty: First to stand firmly by our Turkish brothers and sisters who fight for democracy and help their voice be heard throughout the world. In the meantime, we also have to fight against apathy and despair here and start a democratic and peaceful movement that will force the elit to respect the people’s will.
Fighting for democracy is the only way towards peace and prosperity and that is a fight we are willing to have side by side with European and Turkish citizens together. Let a European movement of solidarity and unity be our weapon against authoritarianism.
DiEM25 in Thessaloniki on April 28/29
SALONICA
29th APRIL 2017
Vellideio Convention Center
REASON, HOPE & DIGNITY CALL TO CONTRIBUTE
TO THE EUROPEAN MOVEMENT THAT WAS INSPIRED BY THE GREEK RISING
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TODAY IN THIS COUNTRY?
WHO IS GOING TO DO IT?
Greece is being suffocated and Europe is being torn apart.
Greece cannot breathe and neither can most of Europeans.
Europe will either be democratised or it will disintegrate.
In any case, Greece should be able to breathe again!
What needs to be done today so that Greece can breathe again?
Who is going to do it?
What needs to be done today so that Europe stops being torn apart?
Who is going to act?
DiEM25 calls out
- Those who believe that neither the establishment nor populism is the solution
- Those who believe that the solution is political but will not come from politicians
- Those who believe that the solution is equally patriotic, regional and European
- Those who refuse to despair
- Those who refused to lose in 2015
In Vellideio Convention Center, Saturday 29 Αpril 2017, at 19.30.
DiEM25 SALONICA EVENT PROGRAM
Friday 28th Αpril 2017 – Press Conference
Yanis Varoufakis and a member of Salonica DSC will present the principles and the basic social and political aspects of the movement’s platform for Greece and Europe (the New Deal for Greece and Europe), and afterwards respond to journalists.
“Kassandros” Room
Friday 28 Αpril, at 11:00 a.m.
Saturday 29th Αpril 2017 – Εvent *in Greek only*
Opening event
19.30-20.00 Opening to the public
20.00-21.15 Theatric play: THE TREE by Giorgos Maniotis. Starring Nikos Magdalinos
Main event
21.30-22.30 Who we are, what we want: 2-minute speeches by DiEM25 members from Europe and of course, Central and Northern Greece
22.30-22.45 Speech by Yanis Varoufakis , member of DiEM25 Coordinating Collective
22.45-23.30 Self-organisation of new members per region
Concert
23.30- … Cosmicray
“Thessaloniki” Hall
Saturday 29 Αpril, at 19:30 p.m.
DSC Berlin launches first DiEM-Lab Event: „How to build a Rebel City“
It took a while…but now the DSC Berlin is ready to launch its very first DiEM-Lab!
DiEM25 Berlin opens a new space to foster grassroots politics and democracy! On the 30th of April several activists, political organisations and local initiatives will gather at Technische Universität Berlin to discuss „How to build a Rebel City“.
Speakers from e.g. ‘Stadt von Unten’ and ‘Give something back to Berlin’ will share their views and experience. With the fishbowl-discussion format everyone can contribute something. Yes, it’s truly grassroots. And, even better: since we expect an intense debate, it only lasts for four (4!) hours. Join us from 2 – 6pm.
Well, this sounds like an event worth going to!
DiEM25: an example of internal democracy in action
In keeping with the principle of DiEM as a pan-European movement, all members of all nationalities were allowed to vote. After all, like the German election, the French election will affect the rest of Europe as much as it will affect France.
And remarkably, members chose not to rally behind one candidate but to support an alliance of forces against fascism and/or neoliberalism.
By Alex Sakalis (originally published in openDemocracy)
We all know that democracy is in a bad state in the EU. Since the Greek tragedy of 2015, when the veil was lifted from the internal engine of the European Union, it is clear that democracy is no longer being preached let alone practiced. But at the same time, new democratic processes are being invented. One example of this is DiEM25 – a pan-European and democratic movement, as it debates the upcoming French elections.
French DiEM members began the debate among themselves, at their local DSCs (democratic spontaneous collectives) and on the DiEM forum. So that non-Francophones could follow and participate in the debate, there was also an English language thread, where French members summarised what was being discussed and engaged with other members across Europe.
The result was a briefing written by the members of DiEM25 France and endorsed by DiEM’s Coordinating Collective, summarising each of the main candidates’ policies vis-à-vis the economy, the environment and European solidarity.
The document gives a brief assessment of each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses viewed from the perspective of DiEM25’s New Deal For Europe. It is a background breifing and a discussion opener designed to act as the basis of internal deliberation on DiEM25’s official stance with respect to Round 1 of the French presidential elections. The briefing also poses some interesting questions. Who has the better policies on the environment? Who can best heal a tense society still labouring under a ‘state of emergency’? And what happened to the early promise of Benoit Hamon?
Here is the briefing:
DiEM25’s stance in the 2017 French Presidential and Legislative Elections
This text, written by members of DiEM25 France and endorsed by the Coordinating Collective, is intended as a background briefing to act as the basis of DiEM25’s internal deliberation on DiEM25’s official stance vis-à-vis the French Presidential Election (Round 1 in particular)
The French political system (the Fifth Republic) concentrates a great deal of power in the hands of one person (the President), thus subordinating Parliament to executive power. This conflicts with the democratic principles advocated by DIEM25. The fact that the legislative elections follow the presidential ones by one month only tends to favour the candidates supporting the President elect.
Additionally, the electoral system (two-rounds, first-past-the-post, no proportional representation) favours the established large parties to the detriment of smaller or younger parties. Indeed, in response to this situation, two candidates – Benoît Hamon and Jean-Luc Mélenchon – include in their programs the establishment of a Sixth Republic, that is to say a complete and radical reform of the French political system.
Presidential elections
The first round of the 2017 presidential election will see 11 candidates amongst which 5 have or could have a possible claim to victory:
François Fillon (Les Républicains – LR, conservative right)
Marine Le Pen (Front National – FN, extreme-right)
Emmanuel Macron (En Marche – EM, centre-right and centre-left)
Benoît Hamon (Parti Socialiste – PS, left, allied with the green party, Europe-Ecologie Les Verts – EELV)
Jean-Luc Mélenchon (France Insoumise – FI, radical left).
There is no need to detail here the position of Marine Le Pen, who believes France should leave the European Union and the Euro (Frexit), nor the position of François Fillon who is aligned with Angela Merkel on European issues, and who, on economic and social matters, proposes devastating austerity policies.
It is nonetheless important to note that Marine Le Pen is almost assured a place in the second round of the election. The same polls show that she would lose to any candidate opposing her in the second round, giving her opponent the practical guarantee of becoming the French Republic’s new President.
DiEM25, therefore, is confined to assessing the relative merits of three candidates: Benoît Hamon, Emmanuel Macron, and Jean-Luc Melenchon.
Benoît Hamon
On European economic recovery, Benoît Hamon is proposing a program based on green investments and an ecological transition, mutualisation of public debt and its purchase by the European Central Bank, social cohesion and a European minimum wage, welcoming policies for refugees, fiscal harmonisation and a European budget, as well as the suspension of CETA.
Comment: While these policies resemble DiEM25’s they, unfortunately, lack the sophistication of their counterparts in DiEM25’s European New Deal.
For instance, there is no direct link between the ECB’s quantitative easing project and an EIB-led and managed pan-European investment program – no limited debt conversion plan that can be applied to all Eurozone public debt without Treaty change or changing the ECB’s charter – a reaffirmation of the 3% Maastricht deficit limit that contradicts Hamon’s pronouncement for a Universal Basic Income (which, by the way, differs substantially from DiEM25’s Universal Basic Dividend proposal – see below). The result is a policy agend characterised by naiveté and that is, therefore, open to legitimate criticism by Hamon’s opponents.
On democratisation at a pan-European level, Benoît Hamon has adopted the Piketty Group’s proposal for the creation of a Euro Chamber, comprising parliamentarians from national parliaments. This contradicts DiEM25’s proposal to embark on a Constitutional Assembly process rather than creating a fig leaf of parliamentarianism by which to cover up the lack of democratic legitimacy.
Comment: The Euro Chamber proposal is a ‘deal-breaker’ for DiEM25 because it demonstrates Hamon’s tendency toward a faux federalism that, in the end, does not differ substantially to the Macron-Schäuble basic plan.
On social issues, Hamon plans to suppress the El Khomri law and to progressively put in place a Universal Basic Income, conditions of which have evolved throughout the campaign. He is also favourable to a common European Defence plan and to a European energy policy. The method he proposes to attain his goals is one of gradual renegotiations of treaties, without specifying exactly how.
Comment: The Universal Basic Income proposal has given Hamon much ‘air’ space. But it is fundamentally flawed. DiEM25 has explained (as part of our European New Deal) that, while a rolling out a universal basic payment is crucial, it cannot and should not be funded by taxes.
If it is (as Hamon’s program implies), it will either lead to a blowout of government expenditure or it will cannibilise the existing welfare state. It is for this reason that our European New Deal has put a great deal of thought in ways of funding a Universal Basic Dividend not from taxation but from creating a European Equity Depository that will own property rights to returns from capital and IP rights. Hamon’s proposal is, in this sense, primitive and damages a good idea’s long-term prospects.
Summary: Benoît Hamon’s program comes closest to DiEM25’s European New Deal. Alas, it does not come close enough. The Hamon program’s policies that are similar to DiEM25’s are far cruder than those in the European New Deal and, therefore, open to legitimate attacks from the Right. As for the rest, that pertain to Europe’s democratic future, they are too close to Macron’s and impossible to defend from the Left. For this reason DiEM25 would have difficulty supporting Benoît Hamon’s in the first round.
Emmanuel Macron
On Europe, Emmanuel Macron holds a pro-European position that, on some points, seems to concur with some of DIEM25’s positions, for example: pan-European democratic conventions, refugees and a policy of favouring federal solutions But, his readiness to acquiesce to generalised austerity in exchange for a macro- economically insignificant Eurozone-wide budget constitutes an effective capitulation to Wolfgang Schäuble’s Plan for Europe.
More worryingly, Macron is clearly aligned with the CDU’s fixation with neoliberal labour market reforms in the spirit of the German Hartz-Schröeder’s reforms as well as cuts in state aid for local authorities.
The Macron and El-Khomri laws from the present government, that he inspired, give an idea of his future policies, as do his recent pronouncements in favour of reducing the current wealth taxes without committing to an increase in inheritance taxes. We also note that Macron is favourable to CETA.
Summary: Given Macron’s insupportable position on Europe and neoliberal domestic program, DiEM25 cannot support his candidacy in the first round of the Presidential elections.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon
Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s program includes many measures close to Benoit Hamon’s, particularly regarding the European Central Bank, public debt purchase, economic revival, energy and ecological transition, and social convergence.
Mélenchon opposes Hamon on the Maastricht deficit rule, on defence and on the universal basic income. He stands for strict political supervision of the ECB, control of finance, ending privatisation of public services and a “united and ecological protectionism”.
Regarding European matters Jean-Luc Mélenchon has a two-pronged strategy:
⁃ Plan A starts with the unilateral cessation of application of fiscal treaties and of regressive social directives, and capital control. He then proposes to renegotiate those treaties and directives leveraging the threat of exiting them.
⁃ Plan B, in case of a failure of Plan A negotiations, states an exit from the single currency after referendum, a new common currency for “willing countries” and the setting up of a “cooperation with other peoples of Europe”.
Summary: Melenchon’s proposals would have had DiEM25’s complete support in… 1983. His vision of the fiscal and monetary ‘rules’ would have been far preferable to those that prevailed in the end, beginning with Maastricht.
However, DiEM25 believes strongly that, in 2017, Plans A&B above are inappropriate. Any attempt to implement them will lead to the creation of a deep fault line separating the surplus from the deficit countries, along the river Rhine and across the Alps, with the result of a massively accelerated crisis of extreme deflation in the North East and stagflation everywhere else.
Perhaps this is unavoidable and will happen even without Jean-Luc Melenchon’s election (as a result of the terrible effects of the Establishment’s current policies). But to make these terrible developments the Left’s own plan is a major miscalculation that, in the end, only benefits Marine Le Pen. This is why DiEM25 cannot support Jean-Luc Melenchon’s candidacy.
Legislative elections
Given that it is likely – in the absence of a coalition between Benoît Hamon and Jean-Luc Mélenchon – that the elected candidate will not come from one of the main parties (PS, LR), there will be a question of whether the next president will have a majority in the National Assembly (Parliament). In the – likely – event of the election of Emmanuel Macron, he will have to govern with either a right wing majority, or with no stable majority at all, but with strong LR and PS groups, and a substantial FN group.
Besides, there is a likeliness that the Socialist Party (PS) would implode after the presidential election, especially if Emmanuel Macron is elected. This could allow the establishment of political coalitions during the legislative elections: Hamon’s left, together with Mélenchon’s left could seize the opportunity to reinforce the weight of a progressive and social left in the National Assembly.
DiEM25 France’s position
DiEM25 would like to support a single candidate before the first round. As a political movement we feel the need and the duty to offer clear guidance to French voters seeking our advice. Some of us worry that if DIEM25 does not adopt a clear position at such a significant political moment, it runs the risk of becoming irrelevant in the French political context. However, the political situation in France today raises serious questions about the defensibility of supporting one of the above three candidates.
The centre left has clearly imploded, following five years of President Hollande’s government. Benoît Hamon has valiantly tried to salvage the Socialist Party from the Hollande wreck age but has adopted policies that, even if well intended, lack credibility. In addition, many DiEM25ers in France do not trust the Socialist Party and are afraid that Benoît Hamon may ‘Hollandise’ himself after the election or, more likely, fail to transform the culture of the PS.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s Left Party has also failed to rise up to the occasion. His program cannot be implemented on the day after the election in a manner that stabilizes the French and European economic crisis so as to allow for a new progressive, internationalism against the forces both of the establishment and the Nationalist International. Moreover, his pronouncements diverge from those of his close entourage: for some his plan B is solely a leverage to negotiate plan A seriously. Others however see Plan B as their Plan A, rendering them allies (even if unwillingly) of Le Pen.
As for Macron, he ruled himself out by his decision to seek the anointment of both Angela Merkel and of the parts of the French bourgeoisie that demand lower taxes for themselves.
Ideally, DiEM25 would want to see a single candidate represent progressive internationalism in France’s Presidential Election – it would be the only way to ensure the crushing defeat of both Le Pen and the neoliberal establishment, perhaps from the 1st Round. The failure to build such an alliance is an opportunity for DIEM25 France to think, unite and act politically on the European question.
CONCLUSION: DiEM25’s POSITION – a proposal
DiEM25 will, as always, decide on its stance collectively and democratically by means of an internal ballot that will involve four options:
Option A – DiEM25 calls upon French progressives to: (1) Vote in the 1stRound of the Presidential Election for any candidate other than Le Pen or Fillon, (2) Campaign for a single progressive internationalist list of parliamentary candidates in the legislative elections.
Option B – Vote for Benoît Hamon in the 1st Round of the Presidential Election
Option C – Vote for Emmanuel Macron in the 1st Round of the Presidential Election
Option D – Vote for Jean-Luc Mélenchon in the 1st Round of the Presidential Election
PLEASE NOTE: Two discussion threads are available on the Forum to discuss what DIEM25’s position should be regarding the French presidential and legislative elections: One is in French. The other in English.
And here were the results:
A (59.48%)
B (13.62%)
C (8.08%)
D (18.83%)
In keeping with the principle of DiEM as a pan-European movement, all members of all nationalities were allowed to vote. After all, like the German election, the French election will affect the rest of Europe as much as it will affect France.
And remarkably, members chose not to rally behind one candidate but to support an alliance of forces against fascism and/or neoliberalism.
As well as French Presidential debates, DiEM25 members had previously engaged in democratic discussions to arrive at their positions for the Brexit referendum (and its aftermath), as well as the Italian constitutional referendum.