DEMOCRACY AND PARTICIPATION IN SYNASPISMOS Haris Golemis, Director of NPI

(Draft paper presented at the Transform Seminar “Transformative Left Parties in Europe. The question of Democracy and Participation”)

Not to be quoted without previous permission

1. Taking into consideration some of the criteria for party democracy and participation mentioned in the bibliography (the equal right of women and men party members to express freely their views, not only in the party press but also in the mainstream media, to establish and participate in tendencies and currents, to have a determinative role in policy decisions etc.), one could not but agree, after reading Synaspismos’ constitution, that it is a model participative party of the European Radical Left. But then, one could reasonably come to the conclusion that democracy does not really pay, since the centralized Greek Communist Party (KKE), a Marxist-Leninist and recently Stalinist party, is considerably stronger in terms of votes, trade-union, party and youth members than Synaspismos. It would need much time and space to discuss the reasons why this happens and the only thing I would like to suggest in this respect is that this situation is not historically neutral.

2. The question of internal democracy has been of primary importance to Synaspismos, since its establishment as a unitary party in 1991. In fact, democracy both within the party and in a future socialist society which, according to the dictum of our late comrade Nicos Poulantzas, “will either be democratic or not be at all”, was one of the issues which has divided, since the split of the CPG in 1968, the two main sections of the Greek, non social- democratic, Left: a) the pro-soviet KKE and b) the various political formations of the Renovating (Communist and Non-Communist) Left. In this historical process, Synaspismos is part of the second group.

3. According to its constitution, “Synaspismos is a party of its members” and “[its[ organization, functioning and actions are based on democracy, transparency, pluralism, functional and power decentralization, renewal of party’s bodies, which should be representative of views, gender and age [of the party members]”. Furthermore, although Synaspismos is “a unitary party and not the sum of separate political groups”, its members can form “tendencies and ideological currents”.

4. Delegates to the party Congress (held initially every 2 and later until now every 3 years) are elected directly by the party members (approximately 15000 before last year’s split) of around 200 basis organizations, mainly according to their tendency affiliation or sympathy. Members of the Central Political Committee (presently 124) are elected at the Congress from more than one list, which correspond to different tendency or tendencies’ alliances. CPC elects the 21 members of the Secretariat also from different tendency lists on a proportional basis.

5. Tendencies have been a key factor affecting internal democracy in Synaspismos and their existence has a historic explanation. Synaspismos (first name: Coalition of the Left and Progress, changed to Coalition of the Left of Movements and of Ecology in 2003) was initially founded in 1988 (during the Gorbatchev era) as a real coalition mainly of the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) and the GREEK LEFT (the reformed part of the ex Communist Party of Greece-Interior, after the split of this euro- communist party in 1987), some smaller social-democratic groups and a number of distinguished personalities of the Socialst Left.

6. Three years after the establishment of the Synaspismos, KKE decided to withdraw. The result was a serious party split, with those of its members remaining in Synaspismos turning the coalition, together with the members of the DEMOCRATIC LEFT, into a unitary party under the same name.

7. This crucial and ambiguous decision, taken at a high level of both partners of the coalition, created a new situation which was not easy at all. Members coming from the two conflicting sides of the Greek communist movement suddenly had to co-exist as comrades in the same party, without any previous discussion among themselves about the ideological, political, historical and cultural issues which had divided them in the not so far past. The introduction of tendencies (at the time, a big novelty of the non-communist Left) was actually a way for the survival of the new party, with (actual) segmentation substituting an (impossible) homogenization.

8. Since that time and until recently, Synaspismos has been divided in two main factions, the “Left Current” (consisting mainly of the ex-KKE members) and one or more “Renovating” tendencies, which at the end were united in the “Renovating Wing”. During the last party Congress (June 2010), the big majority of delegates elected from the list of the “Renovating Wing” walked out, after their appeal for the withdrawal of Synaspismos from SYRIZA (Coalition of the Radical Left), an Alliance of Synaspismos with several small political groups of left-eurocommunist, trotskyist, post maoist, populist socialist etc orientation, formed in 2004 with the consent of all Synaspismos tendencies, was turned down by the leadership. A little bit later, the “Renovators” established the Democratic Left (DIMAR), accusing Synaspismos and SYRIZA for left extremism. Soon after the Congress, the “Left Current” was also split, with its bigger part merging with the movementist and left Eurocommunist “Red-Left Network” and “independent” members to form the tendency of “Left Unity” (AREN). AREN and “Platform 2010” of those Renovators who remained in Synaspismos form the new party majority, which also supports the leadership of Alexis Tsipras.

9. Today, for a foreigner ignorant of Greek politics it would be a big surprise to learn that those for the policies of DIMAR and of the Synaspismos’ tendency “Left Current" were at the same party some months ago and for the last twenty years. The Democratic Left is praised by PASOK for its “responsibility” as opposed to SYRIZA, claims that Synaspismos is a party of protest and not of proposals (a strange claim since its members participated in all past party Committees that always produced bulky programmes) and don’t miss the opportunity to declare its opposition to actions of civil and political disobedience. On the other hand, the “Left Current” declares openly in the mass media and the website “Iskra”, created after the last Synaspismos’ Congress, its full disagreement with the party line on the issue of the crisis, being friendly to the idea of a Greece’s withdrawal from the euro-area and the EU, as well as for the need for a “new bolshevism”.

10. Having rejected democratic centralism, Synaspismos has been constituted as a party of “political” and not “ideological” unity. Although not all party members, belong to tendencies/ factions, nobody denies that these and the President are the real pillars of Synaspismos. The President is elected on a competitive basis (in Synaspismos’ history, with two exceptions, candidates for this position ranged from two to four) directly by the Congress delegates and not by the Central (Political) Committee as used to be the rule with General Secretaries in the Communist Parties.

11. Some people believe that direct election of the party leader epitomizes party’s internal democracy and inclusiveness and mediates the power of the factions’ leaders. Although this is true to a certain extent (despite the actual election of the President from one or more factions), its benefit could be countered by the fact that in this way the party leader is not “primus inter pares”, as demanded by the participative and not-presidential ethos of the Renovating and Radical Left (according to our view), but a person who potentially could act even without the previous consent or even consultation of the party bodies.

12. Has the tendency-based organizational structure of Synaspismos contributed to the promotion of internal democracy, mainly in terms of inclusiveness, and furthermore has it increased its efficiency as an actor for the transformation of the Greek society? This is not an easy question. With a certain degree of exaggeration, one could claim that in some periods of the party life tendencies/ factions were actually “parties within the party”, with their own leaders, internal discipline based on the concept of democratic centralism (the same democratic centralism, which has been abandoned by the party itself), websites, friendly journalists, political alliances and members of the Greek and the European Parliament. This situation cannot be described as an apotheosis of democracy. Party members have been free to express their views in basis organizations or in the CPC, but the factions’ rule have effectively prevented them from any real participation in the production of Synaspismos’ policies, especially if they did not belong to any tendency or disagreed with its leadership.

13. The sharing of power between the main factions has also increased the usual distance between MPs, MEPs or elected officials in institutions of local authorities and the party. During the party history and until recently, in crucial matters, some of them tended to be more loyal to their faction than to the party itself and its majority line. Another side-effect of the existence of tendencies/ factions has been the almost “tenure” of some MPs and MEPs, which could not easily be interrupted, since this would disturb the factional equilibrium. To change this situation, the existing party constitution provides for limits in the terms of office for MPs (max. 6 years, then a pause and then another 6 years), but everybody believes that this can be applied only on voluntary basis. Few would doubt that the situation described above does not disseminate a message of internal party democracy to the Greek society.

14. The truth is also that the way the SYRIZA alliance functions reduces, in fact, internal party democracy and inclusiveness. Decisions in the alliance are taken on the basis of unanimity and are the product of negotiations between Synaspismos’ representatives and their counterparts of much smaller groups, without any participation of Synaspismos’ members and sometimes also of the CPC of the party, which votes only for policy frameworks. The same holds true with the Parliamentary Group of SYRIZA, although Synaspismos President is also the Head of the Parliamentary Group of the Alliance.

15. Despite the not so good side-effects of tendencies/ factions in Synaspismos, one cannot easily reject the claim that the ideological (and political) segmentation of Synaspismos and its electorate, which resulted from their existence, actually helped the survival of a left radical party squeezed between the initially populist and then centre-leftist PASOK and the relative powerful KKE. On the other hand, the fact that its vote has generally been low or very low (usually 3%-4%) could be attributed, among other reasons, to a blurred image it used to have due to its different “voices” which create confusion to the people.

16. Against all its problems, Synaspismos can be considered as a useful transformative actor not only in Greece but also in Europe, having a protagonistic role in the establishment of the Party of the European Left. Since its “left turn” in 2000, initially supported by all tendencies, with more or less enthusiasm, party members have been present in all movements and struggles (local authority, environmental, anti-racist, support of immigrants, while some of them were also among the first participants of the non-global movement and of the World and European Social Forum, while Synaspismos itself played also a protagonistic role in the creation of the EL.

17. The Youth of Synaspismos, whose political profile was shaped mainly at the demonstrations in Prague and in Genoa against the IMF and the G8, in which it had an active presence together with party members, has always been more radical and much more homogenous than the party. However, although its constitution does not provide for the existence of tendencies, its members have not managed to be neutral in the factional “cold war”, being closely aligned in the past and until its split to the “Left Current”.

18. Today, Synaspismos is at crossroads, mainly because of the economic crisis, which demands clear proposals and actions from all political actors. Based on the lessons from its history, Synaspismos’ members and leadership should rethink their strategies, alliances and organization in order to be a more effective transformative actor in the future. Concerning internal democracy, the fight should continue, but on a new basis.

This paper is based on a lengthy discussion with Aristides Baltas, Michalis Spourdalakis, Cristophoros Vernardakis, Andreas Karitzis , Vagia Lysikatou and Stavros Panayotidis. However, its content reflects only the author’s personal views.