Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Alex Gourevitch — Why Torture a Victim Whose Will Is Already Broken?


Another must-read. I've quoted the essential, but the details are also shockingly important. It's written by a political scientist rather than an economist. His point is that the EZ is a mainly a political institution rather than chiefly an economic one. It involves a transfer of power from democratic governance to technocratic.
The draft of the agreement between the Greeks and the Eurogroup is out and, as everyone has noticed, it is not just an act of revenge, it is a piece of legislative torture. It contains old demands, like pension reductions and higher taxes to fund primary surpluses, as well as new demands, like reduction in the power of unions and a massive privatization of state assets using a separate fund controlled by Greece but monitored by the EU’s institutions. In fact the document asks for a massive legislative program touching on every aspect of Greek economic life – tax policy, product regulation, labor markets, state-owned assets, financial sector, shipping, budget surpluses, pensions, and so on. This legislation is demanded within the next few weeks. Such a package is the kind of thing one sees during or just after wartime, not as the product of democratically negotiated decisions. Let’s remember that the programme on which Tsipras and the Eurogroup agreed is something asked of a country that has already experienced a very severe depression, already implemented a number of constraints requested by creditors, has 25% unemployment and a banking crisis. What is the point of torturing a victim whose will is already broken? To destroy all opposition.…
Why would anyone want to belong to a union whose leadership practices economic torture?

Becaiuse neoliberalism.
I think this should not be read as a proposal for restoring growth to Greece or even as the reflection of an economic blindness in Europe but as the reflux of the EU political project, of which the euro is the purest expression: the preference for technocratic domination over popular sovereignty.…
The Euro is a political project. It is unification without sovereignty. It is the delegation of national sovereignty to groups of finance ministers and supranational bodies whose main task is to suppress the re-appearance of the very source of their power. The political institutions and practices that have grown up around the euro and the EU are based on the belief that exercises of sovereignty are dangerous, irresponsible, and unaccountable. Although these institutions are in one sense nothing more than the product of agreements between nations, their raison d’etre is to prevent any further, outright expression of that sovereign power.  
This is a document of unconditional surrender. It should be roundly rejected by the Greek people.

 The free world needs to rise up with the same indignation it shows toward  dictatorial regimes that violate basic the  basic principles of democracy. Not to do so would be hypocritical and undermine the moral authority to criticize others.

the current moment
Why Torture a Victim Whose Will Is Already Broken?
Alex Gourevitch | Assistant Professor of Political Science, Brown University

4 comments:

Matt Franko said...

"the preference for technocratic domination over popular sovereignty.…"

This is a slander against technocrats... technocrats are required to get them out of this... competent and qualified technocrats...

The problem continues to be that there are no competent technocrats in the scene...

You could have the best of intents but if you dont bring in competent/qualified people for implementation, all you end up is handwaving like this... you never get anywhere...

rsp,

Tom Hickey said...

The "technocrats" are either bankers or shills for the bankers. They know exactly what they are doing. Read the surrender document. Everything is going exactly as planned for them. They end up owning and governing Greece in perpetuity.

Random said...

How come Correa is never referred to as a "technocrat"? He seems to have done a good job. Or Yanis?

Tom Hickey said...

The difference between technocracy and democracy is that technocrats are unelected.

Quite obvious highly qualified people should be elected to office in a democracy and they should appoint highly qualified people.

Correa was elected democratically. Yanis was appointed by Tsipras, who was democratically elected and responsible to Tsipras, who eventually relieved him. No problem.

No problem with Schaeuble as German finance minister either. The problem is with Merkel assuming German hegemony in the EZ. This is not acceptable to France, so eventually the French will either change that or leave the EZ. Hollande forced Merkel to take Schaeuble's temporary Grexit off the table, for example. That's democracy in action in a sense, since the voters of respective countries get to choose who represents them. It's not democratic in the EZ as whole because there is no federation.

The choke point of the EZ is the ECB, which controls the currency, and the ECB, like all central banks is run and effectively controlled by bankers. The second most influential bank in the EZ is the Bundesbank and its' a given that the ECB is not going to up against the Bundesbank.

Technocrats are the unelected and independent leaders of institutions that are not accountable to the public — typically the people running central banks and international institutions.

As Gourevich points out, they may be appointed by democratically elected leaders and but then they are independent and in a position to govern by command.

If the surrender document is adopted, then technocrats appointed by the institutions and representing the institutions will effectively govern Greece. That is technocracy rathe than democracy in that the democratic process in Greece will be subject to a command system imposed on Greece.