Posted by: Dirk | October 26, 2015

Portugal: the euro zone strikes back

While the German press does not seem eager to report this (for instance, there is no article on SPON), one can turn to British (non-euro zone) news to get the story (from The Telegraph):

Eurozone crosses Rubicon as Portugal’s anti-euro Left banned from power

Constitutional crisis looms after anti-austerity Left is denied parliamentary prerogative to form a majority government

Portugal has entered dangerous political waters. For the first time since the creation of Europe’s monetary union, a member state has taken the explicit step of forbidding eurosceptic parties from taking office on the grounds of national interest.

Anibal Cavaco Silva, Portugal’s constitutional president, has refused to appoint a Left-wing coalition government even though it secured an absolute majority in the Portuguese parliament and won a mandate to smash the austerity regime bequeathed by the EU-IMF Troika.

He deemed it too risky to let the Left Bloc or the Communists come close to power, insisting that conservatives should soldier on as a minority in order to satisfy Brussels and appease foreign financial markets.

That is what the euro has done to Europe, intentionally or not. Before, the Portuguese did not have the problem of foreigners holding their debts and if so, they held them in escudos. If the exchange rate dropped, it was the problem of the investor, not the Portuguese government. In the context of what was done to the Greeks this should not surprise anyone.

As it stands, Europe is sacrificing, or better, has sacrificed democracy for the euro. Most political parties are absolutely ok with that. It is up to voters now to express their opinion. However, it seems that their voice will be ignored if the popular demands do not coincide with those of “Brussels and [..] foreign financial markets”. (I assume that The Telegraph uses financial markets as a polite phrase instead of rich people.) Francis Coppola at Forbes compares Europe to the Soviet Union, by the way. I think that there is a difference – the Soviet Union never claimed to be democratic – but from the actual results in Greece and Portugal one might expect things to deteriorate. There is still time to revive the ideals of European Enlightenment. Nevertheless, it is getting shorter and shorter…


Responses

  1. The Soviet Union did claim to be democratic.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Democracy_(Marxism)

    • You are correct, thanks for pointing that out. The German communist state was officially named German Democratic Republic (GDR), which also points towards “democracy by name”. Let’s not get into the discussion of how democracy is defined. This should be discussed in full somewhere else, not in the comments section of a blog.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: