Financial Times
February 19, 2012
When Wolfgang Schäuble proposed that Greece should postpone its elections as a condition for further help, I knew that the game would soon be up. We are at the point where success is no longer compatible with democracy. The German finance minister wants to prevent a “wrong” democratic choice. Similar to this is the suggestion to let the elections go ahead, but to have a grand coalition irrespective of the outcome. The eurozone wants to impose its choice of government on Greece – the eurozone’s first colony.
I understand Mr Schäuble’s dilemma. He has a fiduciary duty to his parliament and is being asked to sign off on a programme that he doubts will work. Releasing the funds before an election is risky. What is to stop a new Greek government and a new parliament from unilaterally changing the agreement?
Greece has a poor record of implementing policies it has agreed to. The mistrust is understandable. But to overcome this, the eurozone is seeking assurances that are unbelievably extreme.
The provocation of Greece has been escalating for some time. The first was the incendiary proposal, contained in a policy paper, to impose a fiscal Kommissar on Athens, with the power to veto economic policy decisions. After that was rejected, officials proposed using an escrow account, which would ensure that the eurozone can withhold funds to Greece at any time without triggering a default. But clearly the most extreme proposal is to suspend the elections and keep the technical government of Lucas Papademos in place for much longer.
It is one thing for creditors to interfere in the management of a recipient country’s policies. It is another to tell them to suspend elections or to put in policies that insulate the government from the outcome of democratic processes.
More
No comments:
Post a Comment