Greece’s parliament
voted on Tuesday by a majority of 235 out of 300 to strip the far-right Golden
Dawn party of further state funding. “It is absurd for Greek taxpayers to be
supporting a party the justice system tells us is engaging in criminal acts,”
says Dimitris Papadimoulis, spokesman for the radical left Syriza party. Golden
Dawn’s MPs left the debating chamber before the vote.
Syriza, which
is in the opposition, came to a compromise resolution with the government,
which is conservative-led but includes socialists, to sideline the far right. The
resolution suspends state funding to parties “when there is sufficient evidence
that under the mantle of a political party, serious crimes are being committed
by its leadership,” or by a tenth of its members of parliament.
The only party
that currently fits that description is Golden Dawn. On September 28, its
leader, Nikos Mihaloliakos, along with two other parliamentary deputies, was
arrested and placed in pre-trial detention on charges of heading a criminal
organisation. Three more MPs were charged and released.
The law against
terrorism and organised crime that Golden Dawn is being prosecuted under was
passed in 2001, specifically to enable authorities to more effectively
prosecute Greece’s most notorious terrorist organisation, 17 November. It was
controversial at the time for the way in which it allowed a secretive
three-judge panel, rather than a public prosecutor, to authorise police to
eavesdrop and gather evidence. The law helped authorities put 17 November
behind bars ahead of the 2004 Athens Olympics, but it has never been used
against political figures before.
The charges
stem from the killing ten days earlier of Pavlos Fyssas, a left-wing musician, at
the hands of a self-confessed Golden Dawn supporter. The government believes
that this was the latest in a series of crimes ordered by Golden Dawn’s leadership.
Public order
minister Nikos Dendias further instructed the Supreme Court to pursue dozens of
indictments over a two-year period as part of a larger case against Golden
Dawn. Deputy prosecutor Haralambos Vourliotis issued an opinion describing the
crimes, which include two murders, an attempted murder and two manslaughters,
as “crossing the boundaries of isolated events”.
The parliamentary
ruling will deprive Golden Dawn of roughly 550,000 dollars this year and four
times as much next year, yet the party is bullish: “Golden
Dawn's political activity will continue normally. Nothing will change,” says
Ilias Kasidiaris, an indicted MP and party spokesman. “We will have a problem
in our social and solidarity work - we won't be able to do the soup kitchens
for the poor and homeless.”
Kasidiaris says the party can carry on because it
hasn’t spent the $1.6mn it has received so far this year, and because its 18
MPs tithe 20 percent of their salary to the party. An MP’s base salary after
tax is $6,392 (4,676 euros) a month, and there are usually additions for
attending committees, so the least the party should continue to receive from
its MPs is $276,000 a year. There are also undisclosed donations, which the
financial crimes squad is currently investigating following a raid on party
offices last week. This is the money that used to be spent on the poor. Now it is
to go to rent and utilities.
Golden Dawn
says it is being ganged up on, not just by the government but by all the
parties in parliament, because it is unfashionably patriotic at a time when
monetary, fiscal and much economic policy is being dictated by Greece’s
creditors in Brussels (European Commission), Washington (International Monetary
Fund), Frankfurt (European Central Bank) and Berlin (Angela Merkel’s
government).
“They’re looking for plausible grounds on
which to accuse Golden Dawn,” says MP Mihail Arvanitis. “Why? Why are the
so-called constitutional parties turning against Golden Dawn? Are they at pains
to protect Greece lest it be destroyed by Golden Dawn? No. It’s their own hides
they’re worried about. They’re traitors, and true criminals.”
Is the
prosecution of Golden Dawn a persecution, as the party claims? The Supreme
Court says it has powerful evidence against Mihaloliakos, yet much of this could
be circumstantial. Vourliotis’ indictment cites the party’s “military
structure, its absolute hierarchy… the blind obedience to orders from superiors,
the conspiratorial action”. Golden Dawn doesn’t deny such a hierarchy, but it
doesn’t amount to a crime.
More damning,
perhaps, are dozens of phone calls made on the night of the killing between
Mihaloliakos, the killer and the local Golden Dawn organiser. Their content is
not known but their timing is, and if leaked records are correct, they take
place in the form of a continuous cascade around the time of the killing.
Finally, there
is the as yet undisclosed deposition of a few Golden Dawn informants, which
could include at least two police officers arrested for alleged collaboration
with the party. Golden Dawn says that, like the killer himself, these
informants are provocateurs planted by the authorities.
“I have the
feeling that [chain of command] can be proven,” says Yiorgos Katrougalos, a
public law professor at the University of Thessaloniki, “because in the past we
had a constant presence of Golden Dawn in different neighbourhoods where they
have acted against immigrants, against homosexuals, against leftists, against
trade unionists – so the permanence exists in this kind of continuity in the
criminal action.”
Nonetheless,
the government has adopted a high-risk strategy. Golden Dawn is trying to turn the
funding resolution into a broader discussion about party and campaign
financing, a potentially inflammable topic in Greece’s present liquidity
drought.
Greek parties
are allowed to accept donations, but the lion's share of their
money comes from the state. A 2002 law allows them to claim 0.137 percent of
public income. This year that gave them 95 million dollars, divided according
to parties’ share of the popular vote. Golden Dawn, whose share was just over
two million dollars, believes that money is too much.
“We got quite a shock when we saw how much is spent on
parties in parliament,” says Ilias Kasidiaris, one of the six indicted Godlen
Dawn MPs. “A year ago we proposed a bill to scrap state financing, but we were
told that is unconstitutional. Well now they're doing it anyway to put a lid on
Golden Dawn's political activity.”
Golden Dawn is
small enough and isolated enough that its legislative proposals in parliament
can easily be quashed; but it could conceivably win public opinion over to the
idea of radically lowering public funding of the political system. Such a move
would do little damage to Golden Dawn now, but it would torpedo the finances of
the ruling conservatives and socialists, who have borrowed heavily against
future electoral victories. Together they owe banks more than $350 million. For
that sort of money, private donors could create several new parties.
Now that it has
broached the topic, the government is also being reminded of its pre-election
promise to instil transparency. “[Interior minister] Mr. Mihelakis had
committed to lowering party financing and toughening the requirements,” said
Democratic Left MP Maria Yiannakaki. “Authority to check political funding
would be taken from parliament and handed to an independent authority. We would
have expected today’s resolution to be couched in a broader context that
included all that.”
Parties are
governed by the mildest of accountability regimes, being obliged to publish
only a minimal balance sheet at the beginning of each year. Their accounts are
submitted confidentially to parliament’s audit committee, composed mostly of
parliamentarians, which does not make its minutes or its findings public. The
committee is also weak. It may only check the internal consistency of what it
is given. It lacks prosecutorial power to raid party offices or demand
documents, as, for instance, the financial crimes squad may do with
corporations. Unsurprisingly, the audit committee has never exposed any major
misdemeanours. “We hope that the other parties undergo the same
[audit] process,” says Kasidiaris. “If that happens it's certain that some of
their top people will go to jail.”
Such blatant
opacity has fuelled public indignation and helped weaken the authority of institutions
in recent years. “Golden Dawn is trying to exploit this diffuse anger of the
electorate against the party system to transform that into a kind of legitimacy
problem of democracy itself,” says Professor Katrougalos. He worries that Prime
Minister Antonis’ Samaras’ strategy of treating Golden Dawn and the main
opposition party, Syriza, as two equally dangerous extremes will also weaken
democracy. “He wants to present himself as the guarantor of stability against
not only the sort of instability represented by Golden Dawn, but also the basic
leftist party of the opposition, Syriza. So Samaras tries to make the equation
that everyone that contests his policy is a risk to the stability of the
regime.” Katrougalos believes this amounts to “a very short-sighted interest to
polarize the electorate.”
Golden Dawn has
always thrived on the notion that it is an unorthodox political force, not
subject to the realpolitik that leads to compromises and the loss of
ideological compass. If anything, both the legal and the political prosecutions
against it reinforce that image to its supporters. Polls taken since the
arraignments of its six MPs show that while it no longer enjoys double-digit
approval ratings, it has dropped to a solid base of about seven-to-eight
percent. That is more than enough to ensure its continued presence in the Greek
parliament, even if it has to contest the next election with one hand tied
behind its back. Unless it demonstrates a willingness to rebuild its authority
through greater accountability, the ruling coalition could find that its
punishment of Golden Dawn will also become its own.