An interview published in Epohi 26/9/26
What impression did you form of the programs of New Democracy, ELAS (Hellenic Left Alliance), and PASOK as they unfolded at the Thessaloniki International Fair (TIF)?
I think what makes an impression is that New Democracy manages, despite the difficulties it faces, to set the agenda. It presents economic data that, in its view, shape the available fiscal space. And PASOK, as well as ELAS of Alexis Tsipras, more or less accept this. Except that this specific fiscal space is the result of all the government’s interventions since 2019—tax increases and decreases, expenditure increases and decreases. Accepting the government’s interpretation of the available fiscal space is like accepting the framework of the economic policy it has shaped! I see no reason for any opposition to accept this—that is, to accept politics as mere accounting!
Can the fiscal space be expanded? And if so, through which policies?
I believe the Left must put two main issues up for discussion.
The first has to do with defense spending. To put it simply: the programs presented at TIF by PASOK and ELAS are not compatible with the target of 5% of GDP for these expenditures. On the contrary, a target in the region of 2% gives some breathing room. This, of course, implies a different foreign policy – for example regarding Turkey – and a different alliance strategy ending the “strategically significant” alliance with Israel, the most opportunistic, dangerous, and unreliable force in our region.
The second has to do with taxation. It strikes me how poor the discussion within the left political hemisphere is on this issue, and I am not just referring to PASOK and ELAS. We need to revisit the tax on capital, on dividends, the various tax exemptions, and how income tax declarations can bear some relation to the reality that all of us observe around us. We also need to look at wealth taxes, and here I would say the wealthiest 10% of the population, not just the 1% (which is Tsipras’ proposal).
With these two as prerequisites, we can then set priorities and a roadmap for relieving the bottom third of society.
Do you agree with the early repayments of part of the public debt?
Ceteris paribus, debt repayment is a good practice for an economy like Greece. New Democracy is wrong to target super-surpluses (above the target set) so that it can retroactively provide partial compensation for the inflation and high cost of living people are facing. But ex-post, the buffer that emerges—partly from the super-surpluses—can be used for repayment since it cannot be spent for social or developmental reasons; there, the dominant priority is expanding the fiscal space we discussed above.
The polling landscape seems unchanging and static. Mitsotakis and New Democracy remain first after 7 years in government. How do you explain this?
Despite the rhetoric about oligarchy, ten families that make the running, etc., New Democracy relies on a strong bloc of forces. Aside from traditional conservative votes, it relies on large and small businesses—that is, capital—on those who profit from the rally in rents and real estate, on rentier groups, on scientific personnel working in large or their own IT companies, advertising, public relations, financial services companies, etc. Of course, it also relies on working-class segments that have low expectations and feel that the government is handing something out to them as well.
Is this bloc hegemonic? I don’t think so, and it has lost ground since 2023. The only issue is that it is fighting without an opposing political and social bloc that could potentially be both dominant and hegemonic.
Where does the Radical Left stand in this landscape? Can it recover and achieve a good result in the upcoming elections?
The short answer is that it has not contributed to forming this counter-hegemonic political and social bloc. On the left side of the political hemisphere there seem to be three available strategies.
The first, as we saw above, entails a shift toward the centre, which will face difficulties in overcoming the agenda as set by New Democracy. The problem here is twofold. On the one hand, this approach does not seem effective (cf. Starmer, Scholz, and Biden)—people quickly become disillusioned when they see few results in their lives. On the other hand, this experience may mean that the strategy might not even provide a winning formula – the voters may not find it credible.
The second is populism in the bad sense of the term—promising so much, so fast, that people do not believe it.
The third, which New Left (Nea Aristera) supports, is both radical and realistic. We must create a political and social bloc that will challenge the art of the possible. We cannot overcome all the limitations and all the obstacles that an alternative policy would face. Instead of the art of the possible, we prefer “picking your battles.” That is why we began our discussion by challenging the fiscal space as understood by New Democracy. Beyond that we need a strategy with priorities, a road map in other words.
However, the issue is not just proposing credible and realistic policies but having the power to set the agenda. This entails stronger social movements, but it also means disparate movements understanding that their problems stem from common causes – for example, the labour movement, the anti-mining movement, the social housing movement are all facing the consequences of financialization—and therefore they can potentially support common alternative policies.
The country’s economic model remains unchanged. Why does the government insist on it, and how could it change?
To the second part, the answer is easy: New Democracy builds its social and political bloc on the existing productive model and and the winners of this model naturally give their support to the government. The first part is more complex. I think at the European level, this summer the climate crisis became a reality, not just a future threat. It is striking how this issue has been pushed off the agenda; for example, it is very low on the agenda in the discussions taking place at the UN General Assembly in a few days.
I do not believe we will return to eras of high growth rates. We must work within this new reality. This means learning from discussions on degrowth, the social economy, the care economy, how technology can work to enhance the knowledge and capabilities of workers rather than surveil them, how various forms of public and common ownership can help promote green technology, and alternative agriculture. Needless to say, all of this presupposes a shift in power where various players challenge the empire of private profit.
Regarding New Left’s alliances and the relevant strategy: It seems most within the organization prefer cooperation with MeRA25. What is your perspective on this?
New Left’s strategy aims at the reconstruction of the Left upon a radical and realistic agenda as we outlined it. We are addressing all those forces that share these concerns and approaches. It is a difficult endeavor, but without such a project, the threat of the far right will remain.
