My partner and I are reaching the end of our sojourn in Greece and will be back in SE Asia by the end of the week. Her data collection and interview schedule have provided the follow-up material needed to finish the Greek chapter of her book (which includes Ireland and Portugal as the other case studies, a comparative project she started five years ago and long before anyone else noted some ofÂ the bases for comparison that now occupy so much attention). For my part, IÂ have managed to glean some preliminary observations about civil-military relations in this fragile democracy, and in doing so have developed an idea about undertaking a comparison of post-authoritarian Greece and Argentina (although the specific focus of the project is still unclear and it will have to waitÂ in any event until I manage to finish the current, long delayed book project as well as some articles inÂ preparation or revision).
At this pointÂ I would like to reflect on an issue that I have previously written about in this forum (Sept 2009): the notions of Entitlements and Rights, in this case as they apply to contemporary Greek democracy.
If one thing comes across to this foreign observer, the Greeks have a tremendously developed sense of entitlements and rights. In fact they see them as one and the same. But they also have little sense of social responsibility. The prevailing attitude appears to be they everyone is entitled to express their opinions however they see fit regardless ofÂ whether it infringes on other’s security or dissent. Â Everyone is also entitled to extract as much as they can from the state without having to help pay the costs of public goods (say, by paying taxes in full). The expressed view is not only that people are entitled to these attitudes (seen as a combination of opinion and behaviour), but that they have the Right to them.
Of course, this is an over-generalisation. Many Greeks do not impose their views on others and retreat into parasitic survivalism outside of their involvement in theÂ public sphere. Yet at leastÂ when it comes to the intersection of political and civil societies, the tone is often “me/us first, the rest of you can get stuffed.”
What is interesting about this phenomena is 3 things: 1) that this notion of collective and individual entitlement is construed as a Right of all Greeks. Although nowhere is it written in the Greek constitution that peopleÂ have a right to storm parliament, attack the police, property and standers-bye,Â or thrown molotovs into banks during demonstrations, it is generally accepted that such is inherent in the Greek way of expressing dissent or dissatisfaction with the status quo.Â These types of direct action are not seen as insurrection or low-level guerrilla warfare, but as something disgruntled Greeks simply do.
This attitude–that Greeks not only are entitled to get agro when they protest but have a right to, and that it is their right to not be held to criminal account for their violent public actions–is a product of the days in 1973-74 when the university student movement was instrumental, via violent clashes with the security forces, in bringing down the so-called colonel’s dictatorship that had usurped Greek democracy in 1967. Many of the leaders of that movement are now senior figures in politics, unions, the civil service and higher education. For them it was the resortÂ to direct action, at considerable physical risk to themselves, that was THE decisive factor that restored Greek democracy.Â As a result, the role of direct action, including violence, has been mythologised in modern Greek political folklore, and even if stylised and ritualisedÂ in many instances, it remains central to the formation andÂ reproduction of Greek political identities. In other words, to be staunch in the streets is to be Greek, and nothing can infringe on this inalienable right of allÂ Greeks (immigrants are another matter). In a country that reifies its warring history regardless of win or loss, this is a powerful glue.
That brings up the second interesting aspect of this entitlements-as-rights phenomena:Â the government, including security forces, agreement withÂ that logic. It is remarkable how the government accepted, for example, that the attempted storming of the Greek parliament on May 5 was a “right” of the protesters. Although itÂ denounced the murders of three bank workers caught up in the demonstration violence, it did not specifically condemn theÂ burning of the bank in which they were trapped.Â Instead,Â Â the governmentÂ ordered that the parliament building be defended so that the debt rescue package could be voted on, but it clearly instructedÂ the riot police to dealÂ Â lightly with the protesters and to not enforce basic criminal statutes outside of the immediate confrontation zone around parliamentÂ itself (and as I mentioned in a previous post about the general strike, may have negotiated with the communist-led unions to ensure that this occurred).
Nor was there a massive police cordon erected around the city centre, or police roadblocks and checkpoints erected at major road and rail access nodes toÂ the downtown area even though it was a foregone conclusion that armed fringe groups were headed to the scene (and I must say that some of the Greek militant factions have truly marvelous names, such as the “Conspiracy of the Cells of Fire” held responsible for two bombings this weekend in Athens and Thessaloniki). In other words, with full knowledge of what would happen, the government confirmed the perception of entitlements-as-rights by ordering that security be limited and light.Â Hence, for the moment, the military has played no role in internal security, which is left to two layers of riot police (one to prevent, the other to respond to violence), regular cops and plain clothes detectives and intelligence agents. However, if the pace of agitation continues, that attitude of military non-involvement in domestic security could well change (and it does not have to be overt, just decisive).
In effect, all political actors accept this particular interpretation of the GreekÂ “me/us first, the rest be stuffed” broad entitlements-as-rights argument. Perhaps that is because there is also a fundamental Greek belief in the powers of collective and individual self-control. But nothing I have seen in the Greek streets suggests that self-limitation is a widely accepted national trait. To the contrary, the general attitude on the streets, both in the daily routine as well as during demonstrations, is that one gets away with what they can absent countervailing or superior power.Â For those who have had the experience with them, Athenian street market vendors and taxi drivers are cases in point (and yet the market for both persists).
To put that in a comparative perspective, imagine any group in NZ claiming the right to throw molotovs, wreak storefronts Â and storm parliament, and have that “right” not only accepted by any government of the day but also have that government order the police to refrain from using undue force on said protesters in the event they turn violent (to include limiting the number of arrests). Would that ever be feasible?Â For those so inclined, spurious comparisons with “wreakers and haters,” spitters, bum flashers, flag shooters and burnersÂ or street theater anarchists simplyÂ do not cut it.
That brings up the third, and most troubling aspect of the broad Greek interpretation of entitlements-as-rights (which if readers may rememberÂ my post on the subject last September are clearly not the same thing, nor should they be). Nowhere in this logic is there any notion of social responsibility, be it collective or individual. The entire argument is framed simply in terms of expected treatment and permissible behaviour, not in terms of social costs or collective mitigation of harm in pursuit of the common good. The absolutism of the claim of entitlements-as-rightsÂ and the absolute lack of relativity or regard for consequence are quite astounding. It is remarkable to watch and listen to people proclaim zero responsibility for societal ills, collective dysfunction or personal injury while demanding that their expanded notions of public and private rights be held sacrosanct. For this observer, theÂ gap between what is demanded and what is offered in return is canyonesque.
And that is where my personal disconnect lays. As someone who recognises the legitimacy of violent direct action in the face of oppressive regimes, I fully understand the public need to physically confront the powers that be. But I also understand that there are costs involved in that form of expression. When one contravenes establishedÂ criminal law–often on purpose because it is a symbol of tyranny or class rule–one accepts that s/he has placed themselves outside of the law-as-given. One is thus a self-recognisedÂ “outlaw,” defined in old American Western parlance as “outside of the law.”Â Being outside of the law of course means that one is liable to extra-judicial retribution, or at least criminal charge. GuerrillasÂ and counter-hegemonic activists of of all stripes understand this as they enter the fray and they fully understand the downside consequences of their decision to act (the Waihopai 3 notwithstanding). Having said this, it strikes me that the Greek state is more obese and arthritic than malignant and oppressive, so the resort to violent direct action on a near daily basis seems symptomatic ofÂ aÂ malaise not solely attributable to the Greek state.
And yet in contemporary Greece most everyone has a state-centred grievance and no one has a a claim on blame (or at least accepts even partialÂ responsibility for social costs involved in the claim to entitlements-as-rights). For Greeks, collectiveÂ costsÂ are acceptable so long as immediate personal injury is avoided (this applies to bank managers as it does to unemployed youth). Rights of voice and expression are believed to beÂ unfettered and encumbered only by individual preference, the consequences of which are to be borne by others.Â Â Outside of exceptional cases involving ongoing public interest, public or private contravention of the law-as-given is generally held to be non-liable. A petrol bomb here, a bribe there–everyoneÂ is entitled to express their self-proclaimed rights inÂ their own way and others should beware and steer clear. There is collective toleranceÂ of that view. Governments come and go indulgingÂ such attitudes as the miminal cost of rule. Greeks that understand democracy as a substantive and procedural compromise can only ponder this, shrug their shoulders,Â and silently weep.
All of that may change now that the crisis is upon the Hellenic Republic. What may have been permissible in better economic times may no longer be so as the burden of sacrifice begins to wear on the fabric of Greek society. As austerity bites into the great mass of Greek workers the resort to survivalist alienation in the private sphere may give way to a defensiveÂ overlap between collective and private notions of entitlements-as-rights, drawn along lines reminiscent of 1974.Â Should that occur (and there have already been calls from ultra-nationalist groups for the military to act), the logicÂ of entitlements-as-rights spawned by the events in 1974 could well be replaced by a military counter-version in which it is entitled, and has the right, to intervene in government in order to “save” the nation from itself, even if on a temporary basis.
Improbable as that may seem (and it is), such could well be the future price Greeks might pay for confusing a broad conception of entitlements with civil rights devoid of civic responsibility. Let’s hope not.
Epilogue: This concludes my posts about Greece. I may have more to comment on this fascinating country down the road but for the time being I must contemplate a return to the authoritarian (yet efficient and clean!) tropics.Â Which brings up the question: is it better to liveÂ peacefully and comfortably without real voiceÂ under authoritarian aegis, or is it better to suffer disorder and inefficiency in a democracy in which voice matters more than anything else? That is the perennial question of transitional political societies.
PS: My partner says that the syndrome is much more individual than collective, and that participation in collective action is a convenient cover for individualist self-projection using the ideological justification of rights to unfettered voice (rather than a genuine concern with collective gains). I disagree to some extent because I think that repeated involvement in direct action modifies the very notion of self (for better or worse), but that subject is for another discussion. In the meantime IÂ defer to her superior knowledge of all things Greek.