The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Category: Uncategorised

The Tinderbox of Greece’s Political Contradictions

As Greeks went to the polls, a divided left struggled to channel the anti-systemic sentiments of the population


22/05/2023

NOTE: this article was written before yesterday’s elections when New Democracy made considerable gains

On May 21 Greece goes to the polls to elect a new parliament. The term of the ruling government under right wing New Democracy expires in July.

The vote will take place under a new (as close as possible to) proportional representation system in the 300-seat Parliament — posing difficulties for any party to attain an absolute majority. This opens the way either for coalition governments or for a second round of voting.

Until three months ago and despite serious failures, Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis appeared to be in control of the game. His government has already passed a law changing the representative system, so that the next elections will take place with the new system, which grants seats to the winner of the elections, making it possible for them to form a government. New Democracy’s plan was to head straight for a second round and get re-elected. However, today it does not seem to work.

The horrible train accident in Tempi on February 28 left 57 people dead and sparked a series of strikes and protests, which changed the political context in the country. But the discontent was not born suddenly because of Tempi. It was the fruit of prolonged resistance to the policies of the government.

Today a big part of the Greek society knows that New Democracy has been a murderous government of poverty, racism, sexism, environmental destruction and war mongering. Kyriakos Mitsotakis had set three main objectives when he became Prime Minister in 2019: to impose brutal neoliberal measures so that the profits of the Greek bourgeoisie increase, to pass measures against the working class and trade unionism, and to attack ideologically the Left and leftist ideas. The truth is that he increased the profits of the Greek bourgeoisie, stealing from the income of the working class. But he did not succeed at all in his goal to smash the working class and the left. It’s quite the opposite, trade unionism has recovered and spread to new “precarious” sectors and left ideas are a hope for better days. All recent polls show that the majority demands the nationalization of the main sectors of economy.

New Democracy in office: Sexism, lies and video tapes (and much more)

OECD statistics show that the average real wage in Greece in 2022 fell by 7.3%. According to Eurostat, the average per capita income in the country in 2022 was 68% of the average of the 27 EU countries, compared to 85% in 2009. According to the national official data, income inequality within the country increased by 2 percentage points between 2018 and 2020, which is the last year for which we have figures. In fact, it is some 2% higher (worse) than the average of the 27 EU countries.

New Democracy tried to handle things by granting subsidies to the poorer family households, as salaries are impossible to follow inflation and soaring prices in basic needs. There is an “energy pass” to make up for soaring electricity and gas prices, a “food pass” to balance ridiculously high prices for basic needs like milk, cheese, meat and vegetables, and an “Easter” pass for vacations! This has created a lack of security and dignity and evidently discontent, but the government claims that this is the only way for Greek capitalism to go forward and consequently for the working class to evidently benefit. However, reality contradicts them: Greece is the only country in the EU and perhaps the only country in the world where GDP is some 20% below what it was in 2009. It is the epitome of the failure of the European vision of Greek capitalism. At the same time the national debt amounts 420 billion Euros, some 120 billion higher than in 2009 when Greece entered the austerity memoranda which would supposedly manage the crisis.

Their hopes of recovery and catching up to the so called “investment grade” are sinking against the international backdrop of bank failures in the US and Europe. At a European Union level, the system is gearing up for a new round of austerity, as revealed by the Commission’s new “economic governance” proposal released on April 26.

To control action from the organized working class, New Democracy passed the notorious “Chatzidaki’s law” on labor affairs, named after the notorious right-wing minister who compiled it, which scraps previous achievements of the trade union movement and trade unions themselves, by introducing voting via email and making strike action an almost impossible goal. But so far it looks that trade unions have defied the law and continue strike actions. This was confirmed and ultimately visible with the two huge general strikes on March 8 and 16.

With all official mass media (TV channels, press and news web pages) being controlled by friends and collaborators of New Democracy (and being heftily subsidized by the state), the government appeared unscathed by their failures. The media presented an omnipotent cabinet, supposedly enjoying public support. Protests and strikes were absent from the newsfeed or commented as insignificant events plotted by traitors of the country.

Nevertheless, in the summer of 2022, what started as a complaint by journalist Thanasis Koukakis about his mobile being tapped grew to a huge scandal, with some 33 people having been found to have traces of the illegal spyware Predator on their devices. The list included PASOK leader Nikos Androulakis, members of the Cabinet and members of their families, politicians in the main opposition Syriza party, journalists and media professionals. Following protests, the government finally acknowledged it had wiretapped Androulakis’s phone — a move it called legal but wrong. Mitsotakis tried to exonerate himself by firing two top government officials, but the matter did not fade away, despite the claims that it had to do with “national security matters”, that is concerns from rival Turkey, with whom Greek militarism under New Democracy has engaged in a mad race for dominance in the region.

Last but not least is the racist policy of New Democracy, which has intensified illegal push-backs of refugees at the border with Turkey and at the islands, resulting in hundreds of innocent people being killed. On May 18, an article on the New York Times confirmed that the Greek government is putting refugees on rafts and sending them to drown.

Resistance from below

The collapse of the government of Kyriakos Mitsotakis was not a result of gradual decay and in any case did not come from within parliament, where New Democracy enjoyed a relative calmness, mainly because Syriza did not provide any serious opposition and a lot of important laws passed. We have described in previous articles in this webpage and above, that during the last four years numerous struggles challenged the policies of the ruling class and their favourite government. These burst inside the working class, the universities, included political issues to defend democracy and stop fascism and Nazism and demonstrated the potential inside the Greek society to fight back. Most of them ended in compromise, a few lost, some others won (for example police forces never managed to get a foot inside university campuses), but Mitsotakis was clang in power for good, until Tempi turned the calmness upside down.

Tempi revealed the mess created by privatization, cuts in public expenses and health and safety rules and caused thousands of people to question the efficiency of the government’s measures. A recent poll among 19-34 year old citizens reveals that the majority of young people are now for a strong public sector, 81% will go to the polls, and at the same time they don’t trust the “big” parties.

The Left

The Left in Greece has never been a marginal political force. It always shaped the political events, despite repression and military coup d’etats. This dynamic brought Syriza to the government in 2015 and contrary to the the U-turn and the betrayal of “OXI”, hundreds of thousands of people still believe that Greece has to break from austerity, militarism and challenge the ruling class. Different strategies though, do matter.

Many people angry and disgusted with New Democracy still turn to Syriza as the opportunity to get rid of Mitsotakis. The problem is not the will of these people, but the rightward shift of Syriza, which does not even promise to implement reforms, as they had done back in 2015. Instead of nationalization, Syriza talks about control of the state through “Independent Authorities”, which supposedly will control private companies but actually have been the cloak of privatization. Syriza now hosts ex-ministers of New Democracy and claims that a coalition government can include the most notorious politicians who implemented the memoranda back in 2010-12. And of course Syriza claims that the wall at the border with Turkey, which prevents refugees from entering Greece, has to remain. It is imperative to look for a left alternative.

The Communist Party of Greece (KKE) looks like the main left force; it is still loyal to Stalinism and bears no connection to most of the European CPs. Despite a recent “openness”, thanks to which several personalities disappointed by Syriza were invited into its ranks, it has an abstract strategy that “no real change can be achieved as long as we live in capitalism”. This is generally correct, but in practice it resulted in KKE not supporting progressive immediate measures, e.g. the re-nationalization of the railways after Tempi, with the argument that under capitalism this will not work! As a result, although KKE hosts a number of militants in its ranks, their energy is often spent in theoretical condemnations of capitalism and immediate achievements become an opportunist endeavour. Nevertheless, many people are turning to KKE as a left alternative to both, New Democracy and Syriza.

MERA 25 is the Greek formation of Diem 25, led by ex-Syriza minister Yiannis Varoufakis and has stood clearly against New Democracy in parliament, at times when Syriza refused to. Militants of MERA participate actively in several movements (democratic rights, youth, LGBT+ and women, environmental protests) and are quite open to discuss with other left parties. In the coming elections MERA has formed an electoral alliance with sections of Popular Unity (LAE), based on a minimum programme, in order to provide an alternative to the left of Syriza, an absolutely understandable objective. The weakness of this coalition is not in intentions, but in the continuity with the politics of Syriza back in 2015. Following the debacle of “OXI” becoming “YES”, it is imperative for the Left to provide a political explanation going deeper than the circle of the party leadership and to address a strategy for change. MERA 25 is oscillating between the denunciations of “techno-feudalism” as it calls the current economic system and a relief programme to be implemented by a progressive government. Who will form that government? Accusing Syriza is fair but not enough, when it appears as a possible leader of a governing coalition. How can we fight the “institutions” and the ruling class, which pressed Syriza’s government to capitulate?

A small example is the fuss created in the media following a statement by the press spokesman of MERA25 that “there is a possibility that the banks may close in the case of future policies proposed by MERA’s programme”. New Democracy and its media arm attacked Varoufakis with two main targets: on the one hand to bury any discussion of an alternative trajectory in the country with populist arguments of scaremongering and catastrophizing, and on the other to undermine a post-election coalition government led by SYRIZA, which would include MERA 25, on the ground that “you’ll bring chaos with Varoufakis”. Standing against the scapegoating of the right wing is absolutely necessary, but not enough to provide strategic answers on what is to be done.

Anticapitalist left

Having described the strengths and weaknesses of the reformist parties, it is important to examine any left alternative. The broad radical-anticapitalist left has never been strong in parliament but it is present in trade unions, local and regional councils (it holds numbers of counselors) and often plays a crucial role in the social movements. Its members have led strikes in public hospitals, education, universities, have fought sexism and homophobia and have been on the forefront in the successful struggle to put nazi Golden Dawn in prison and to defend immigrants and refugees. There is a constellation of organizations and parties with several ideological backgrounds, while splits, attachments to reformist parties and regroupments have always taken place.

The most serious attempt to unite these forces is undoubtedly ANTARSYA, a front founded in 2009, in the aftermath of the riots of December 2008 following the murder of 15 year old Alexis Grigoropoulos. Since then, the front has always participated in both social movements and electoral confrontations, with clear success in the first and medium to low in the second. It suffered pressures and splits towards a “broader” left, like for example during the formation of Popular Unity in 2015. Not dissolving itself for the sake of a current unity project, even when it looked promising turned out to be essential.

The previous months have seen an ongoing discussion between sections of ANTARSYA and a number of non-sectarian formations which broke from the left of Syriza and from Popular Unity. Unfortunately, so far this did not conclude to a new left front, resulting to an autonomous standing of ANTARSYA. Is it any good? Yes it is, if we want to claim political orientation to the struggles. Today we have the experience of Syriza, which appeared as a realistic alternative to get rid of the memoranda and ended up to lead new rounds of austerity. There is clearly an anti-systemic current in Greek society, it has been traced in the protests and surveyed in serious polls. Whether this current will turn to anti-capitalism or to reformism, or get disappointed from politics does matter.

Contrary to the mainstream hypocrisy that this anti-systemic mood will supposedly breed the “danger of the two edges”, ANTARSYA has greeted and supported this tendency in the streets. Standing in the elections is linked to an attempt to connect with these militants, with which we have fought harsh struggles together and turn the anti-systemic to a revolutionary political force. The pre-requisite for this is to combine its demands through a transitional program that will provide immediate answers in favour of the working class and put workers’ control at the centre. The restoration of wages and trade union power, state ownership and/or re-nationalization of social services (health, education, social insurance) and common utilities (electricity, water-supply, transport, ports etc.) are at the heart of this concept. Take for example the case of the train accident, where a transitional demand is “nationalization now under workers control” who, as it turned out, were the ones who knew how to make transport safe.

As the polling day approaches, it is likely that the formation of a coalition government will be a difficult equation and any office will be not strong enough to handle the hurdles of Greek capitalism and popular discontent. This opens all possibilities for the Greek working class and the movement to stand for the just demands described above. How the left parties will respond will be the key to winning the future struggles and to strengthening the left political alternative.

Dimitra Kyrillou is a member of the National council of Antarsya and was their candidate in Athens North-B1

Chile: triumph of pinochetism and the crossroads of the left

Gabriel Boric’s refusal to implement radical reforms led to his recent referendum defeat


21/05/2023

On Sunday, May 7, the elections for representatives to the Constitutional Council took place in Chile. The Republican Party of Chile obtained the majority vote, with 35.41% of the votes, and 23 elected representatives out of a total of 50. The party founded, in June of 2019, embodies a contemporary version of Pinochetism. Behind them Unidad Para Chile [1], took 28.59% of the votes, and  16 representatives. Finally, the “traditional” right wing, united under the Chile Seguro [2] pact, reached 21.07% of the vote and 11 elected representatives. The “extreme center” of the Todo por Chile [3] coalition and the right-wing populist People’s Party received a low vote share. Finally, a representative of the indigenous peoples, elected to a reserved seat, integrates the Constitutional Council.

There was a significant increase in spoiled votes, amounting to 16.98% (equivalent to 2,119,506 votes) –  previously 3.03% of spoiled votes (187,819) . Why? Some propose that these represent individuals who  likely supported the proposal for a new Constitution (September 2022 plebiscite).

The mobilization favouring the invalid vote, involved ex-conventionists, parliamentarians, social organizations, and grassroots activists. A spoiled vote  serves to uphold a critical perspective of the process and lay the groundwork for an impeachment. Particularly during the forthcoming exit plebiscite where individuals will cast their vote either “for” or “against” the second constitutional draft.

Previously, we addressed this process following the defeat of the Constitutional Convention (September 4, 2022 plebiscite). But these electoral results show a predominant control and oversight by political parties, to exclude key actors who played a significant role in the October 2019 mobilizations and, those who participated in the Constitutional Convention. Non-party political activists and social movements were excluded from this new process.

Following the rejected new constitution those with parliamentary representation robustly debated how to address the 2019 constituent momentum. In December 2022, the Agreement for Chile outlined the new process. It entails an Expert Commission, appointed by Congress to draft the constitution based on 12 defined foundations. It establishes a Constitutional Council consisting of 50 elected representatives. Unlike previously the current process only permits discussion of political parties.

This Constitutional Council reviews and votes on the already written draft. Then a Technical Committee on Admissibility, appointed by Congress, forms a meta-constitutional court. It reviews the text to ensure adherence to the 12 foundations defined in the Agreement for Chile.

Between September and December 2022 a strong opposition of the Republican Party, was led by José Antonio Kast, against a new constitutional process. How is it possible for the main opponent of an institution to secure an almost absolute majority of its seats? 

Pinochet’s Constitution and the current crossroads

The results of  May 7, are a strong blow to the government, which has acknowledged this. They affirm that they will maintain the course of their program. They aim to isolate the Republican Party by appealing to the “democratic” and “dialogue-oriented” nature of the traditional right-wing parties within the Chile Vamos coalition (UDI, RN, Evopoli). On the other hand, the Republican Party still does not know what to do with its new toy and faces attacks from all political sectors. They are accused of sexual abuse and invited to “avoid making the same mistake we made,” as President Boric stated. Boric was referring to the alleged lack of dialogue by the left in the Constitutional Convention. The Republican Party attitude was predictable.

Luis Silva, a lawyer and member of Opus Dei, who received the highest number of votes stated that he has “no fear of disagreement. That’s what votes are for. And if they don’t have them, they have to leave the square. And if not, we call upon the public force, because that’s what it’s there for, to enforce the law. Otherwise you end up dancing to the tune of the left”. With openly anti-left and anti-feminist rhetoric, the Republican Party articulated a novel political and ideological influence over the political right and its social bases. At their core lies an authoritarian, repressive, socially conservative Christian, and xenophobic nationalist project. 

One staple of the constitutional struggle in recent years was denunciation of the “Pinochet constitution.”  This phrase highlighted illegitimate approval during the dictatorship and its neoliberal content. Unfortunately, its illegitimate origin weighed more heavily than  its content. As reflected in statements by Minister of Women, Antonia Orellana, that having “the new Constitution crafted in a democratic setting… is valuable in itself.” Undoubtedly, a constitution born out of a dictatorship carries illegitimacy. However, the dictatorship’s motivation for a new constitution was not to seek legal validation, but to dismantle the democratic, republican, and progressive avenues of the previous 1925 Constitution. Above all, its intent was to pre-empt eradicate any resurgent transformative constituent movement with a socialist vision. The 1980 constitution was Pinochet’s “never again”. Never again would the people be allowed to organize, never again would a revolutionary left find its voice, and never again would the working class have a path to power.

Currently the dilemma is that the new constitution could end up worse than the Pinochet-era constitution, placing constituent sectors in an unfavorable position. The new constitutional councilor, Luis Silva (Republican), stated that “The government faces a major problem because if they call for approval, they will be endorsing a right-wing constitution. If they call for rejection, they will be stuck with the very constitution they wanted to change. And what will happen is that in either of these scenarios, once they are no longer in power, they will take to the streets demanding a new constitution. And if we Republicans are in government, I will tell them to go to hell.” 

Some hypotheses to understand and regain the initiative

How did we get here, and how could we move forwards from the left? I  highlight some hypotheses to explain the scenario and possible paths to regain the initiative.

1 It was a mistake for the government and its parties to push for a new constitutional process. It opened the door to a victory for the right. Since 2021,  a radical shift in popular concerns occurred, from socio-political issues of the constituent uprising to individual and family survival concerns within the context of the pandemic lockdown. This, in part, could explain the outcome of the plebiscite.

2 The political hegemony of the right comes from a government that backtracked on its program, adopting elements of the right-wing agenda. Alongside the shift in popular concerns, the right launched an offensive in the media and parliament to place safety and migration at the center of public debate, especially following the deaths of three police officers. This offensive led the government and the ruling coalition to a narrative and legislative work that was only a sell-out. Adopting a narrative criminalizing poverty and migration, they supported strengthening police repression. They authorized the use of firearms by the police who merely perceived threat. This “license to kill” has already claimed its first victims and, was used to overturn convictions of state agents guilty of human rights violations. The government justified its programmatic retreats based on the difficult balance of power, and placating the forthcoming discussion of tax reform to finance their expanded social rights program. However in March, Congress rejected the proposed reform. It begs the question, what sense does it make to grant legislative space to the right in exchange for parliamentary votes that will never materialize?

3 The process of polarization continues to deepen. Traditional sectors of the “center-right,” the center, and the “center-left” have lost political leadership, unable to offer an alternative. In the recent election, the center collapsed, represented by those who stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the reality of a crisis and cling to the post-dictatorship neoliberal administration, which was fiercely contested by the 2019 uprising.
The emergence of a counter-revolt in the “Rechazo” (Rejection) led by the far-right shows that reactionary sectors have caught up, seeking to hegemonize the terms of the political struggle with lies, provocations, and threats. These efforts have had electoral results, at least among the poorest sectors. There migration and security are the main issues and there is a higher concentration of evangelical influence.

4 The chapter of October 2019 is far from closed. The political crisis continues to unfold, no actors  able to overcome stagnation. With the weakness of progressives, apparently only pinochetismo can fulfill the state policies desired by capital in Chile. This means the precarization of life to weaken the value of labor, military containment of social instability, unlimited expansion of the primary-export matrix, and governing by brute force in the face of ineffective parliamentarism. This the normalization of pinochetismo. The government made overtures to the traditional right outside of the Republican Party, labeling it as the “democratic right” to open lines of legislative dialogue. The problem is that instead of dividing the right to weaken it, it grants political legitimacy to a sector that shares the social and political project of the Republican Party. 

5 The radicalization of the right and the drift of progressivism create an opportunity for transformative left-wing politics. However, a transformative alternative is not to appeal to the current common sense (formerly progressive and constitutional, now punitive and republican), but rather one willing to shake up the crisis. This by placing at center the immediate needs of the working, precarious, indebted population, offering the middle-class sectors a way out with universal policies, and breaking radically with big capital.

6 Unity to build a viable left-wing alternative cannot be guided solely by moral compass, it must be guided by the compass of warfare. No revolutionary project for Chile is possible without a feminist mass leadership. Feminism offers the best possible solution to “identity politics” because it overcomes the hidden identitarianism within misogynistic left-wing leadership. The universality of feminism is concrete and revolutionary. No new left is possible without the communist family, without the radical left, without the grassroots organizations, without the middle-level leadership of the labor movement, without university intellectuals (from working-class or middle-class backgrounds). In tactical terms, it is impossible to confront the extreme right unless a total tactical complementarity is embraced. We need to engage in all battles: the struggle for demands, self-managed and cooperative construction, institutional and electoral disputes. “He who desires the ends, desires the means,” as an old revolutionary used to say.

7 The first point of a new program must be to reclaim wealth monopolized by capital. It can no longer be solely about social rights financed through the same level of distribution between capital and labor, or targeted social spending programs funded by austere fiscal coffers. Mere redistribution fails if it does not confront profits. A tragic decision comes: either an increasing expropriation of illegitimate capital gains or a deepening cycle of extermination of the working class. This does not arise from ideological desire of the left, but from the actuality of our stagnant low productivity economies. The private sector is simply incapable of investing in sectors to revitalize growth in a beneficial direction for the entire population. Without expropriatory policy, that is, reorganizing work to increase the wage share and significantly transferring economic activity to the public sector, it is impossible to envision a transition towards the type of eco-social development we need to overcome the ecological crisis while ensuring a dignified life for our people.

Footnotes

1  “Unity for Chile”, coalition formed by Acción Humanista (Humanist Action), Comunes (Commons), Convergencia Social (Social Convergence), Federación Regionalista Verde Social (Regionalist Social Green Federation), Partido Comunista (Communist Party), Partido Liberal (Liberal Party), Partido Socialista (Socialist Party), and Revolución Democrática (Democratic Revolution).

2 “Safe Chile”, coalition formed by the Unión Demócrata Independiente (Democratic Independent Union), Renovación Nacional (National Renewal), and Evópoli.

3 “Everything for Chile”, coalition formed by the Democracia Cristiana (Christian Democracy), Partido por la Democracia (Party for Democracy), and Partido Radical (Radical Party).

Translated from the Spanish by Rafaela Apel Marcel

 

No to the Nakba Demo Bans, End Germany’s Criminalisation of Palestinian Existence

Statement by the European Legal Support Centre


20/05/2023

In another act of state repression, the Berlin police banned all events commemorating 75 years of ongoing Nakba. Following the demonstration ban from 2022, the police disrupted a Palestinian cultural event on 13 May in Neukölln, banning any political public speech, attempting to stop the distribution of books on Palestine on a discretionary basis, and preventing attendees from dancing the traditional Dabka, claiming that it was a form of “political expression”. One of the banned speeches was to be delivered by a member of the ELSC and a partner scholar, Anna Younes (PhD), with the purpose of informing people on their legal rights. Other events that were banned were scheduled for 13, 14 and 20 May 2023: these demonstrations wanted to demand justice for the Palestinian people by remembering the displacement and ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the course of the founding of the state of Israel. At least 11 demonstrations on the Nakba have been banned in Berlin since April 2022.

The justification for the bans is informed by a systematic pattern of anti-Palestinian racism criminalising solidarity with the Palestinian cause for freedom and return, as well as expressions of Palestinian identity. May 2022 already saw immense state repression against Palestinians and their supporters, when the Berlin police preventively banned five registered events commemorating 74 years of ongoing Nakba and honouring Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, who was murdered by Israeli Occupation Forces while reporting on their invasion of Jenin refugee camp. When individuals peacefully took to the streets to express their solidarity, the Berlin police unleashed a campaign of harassment arresting and beating activists for wearing the Palestinian scarf known as the Kuffiyeh or for being dressed in the colours of the Palestinian flag.

These anti-democratic measures are enacted as a form of collective punishment directed at anything visibly Palestinian, extending to any expression of collective memory and rights advocacy as seen through the recent bans of demonstrations in solidarity with Palestinian political prisoners in Berlin and beyond. Palestinians in exile commemorating their tragedy, and more generally Arab participants in the demonstrations are dehumanised and framed in the colonial tradition as ”highly emotionalised men” who would “glorify violence” and are “difficult to control”. Neukölln is placed under general suspicion and depicted as a harbour of violence, based on the racist criminalisation of its predominantly migrant, particularly Arab population. The allegations and language used in the prohibition orders, both in 2022 and in 2023, express blatant racism and, in particular, constitute Anti-Palestinian racism – a form of anti-Arab racism that aims to silence, exclude, erase, stereotype, or defame Palestinians and their narratives – towards the Palestinian community in Germany.

Attacks against the Palestine solidarity movement are ever-growing as Germany upholds its unconditional support for the Israeli occupation and continues to whitewash crimes of apartheid and settler violence. The Berlin government’s actions around Nakba Day reflect Germany’s complicity in the continuing oppression of the Palestinian people, and further constitute a wider assault on the fundamental rights of free speech and assembly. This must be read as a dangerous precedent for further arbitrary curtailments of basic democratic rights.

These bans are an attack on all of us. The ELSC stands in solidarity with all Palestinians and supporters of the Palestinian cause. As further Palestine solidarity events are planned in the coming days in Berlin, we call on all stakeholders to join us in demanding the protection of the most fundamental rights to freedom of expression and assembly, and to support the campaign launched in defence of these rights for Palestinians and their supporters in Germany.

If you, your group, organisation or otherwise have been intimidated, slandered, repressed, censored or banned from speaking out or participating in Palestine advocacy, or if you have questions about your rights, please reach out to us and complete the incident form.

This statement first appeared on the ELSC website. Reproduced with permission

Note that although today’s Nakba Commempration Demo has been banned, the solidarity rally organised by the Jüdische Stimme is still going ahead. Please come to Oranienplatz at 3pm to show your solidarity against state bans

“I wanted to say to Germany that there is a shared history here, but you’re not seeing it”

Interview with Palestinian Artists Rasha Al Jundi and Michael Jabareen about their project “Cacti: A Visual Protest Against the Silencing of (pro) Palestinian Voices in Germany”


19/05/2023

Hi Rasha, could you start just by introducing yourself?

Rasha (R-AJ): My name is Rasha Al-Jundi. I am Palestinian, who was born in Jordan but grew up in the UAE. I’m a second generation exile. My mother is from 1948 Palestine, my father is from a village outside Hebron.

I moved to Lebanon to study, and then worked in many different contexts as a humanitarian/development worker. But I recently decided to veer towards what I like to do, which is visual storytelling. I’m now appropriating multimedia stuff, including audio and archival images, in an attempt to find non-linear ways of telling stories.

I live in Nairobi, Kenya, but I shuttle between there and Germany because I have a German partner.

Today, we’re mainly talking about the multimedia project Cacti that combines photography with text and illustrations. What is the importance to you of the cactus?

R-AJ: Our relationship to the land goes far beyond the Israeli occupation which likes to greenwash and say that there were no trees and no people when Israel was formed – that it was a desert. The cacti and other trees in Palestine have always been there. We’ve traditionally used cacti to act as a natural fence around our houses.

Today they symbolize Palestine and its depopulated villages. If you google any current image of a depopulated village, you will find a lot of cacti growing there. They’re easy to grow, and they propagate very quickly. They can’t stop the tide.

And they’re the color of the Palestinian flag.

R-AJ: Of course, with their flowers. So the cactus is a very strong part of our culture. A lot of Palestinian artists also use cacti in their art, to symbolize Palestine or the forced expulsion.

There are a lot of walls in your photos, implying a comparison between the Berlin wall and the wall separating the West Bank from 1948 Palestine. What’s the significance of this?

R-AJ: The whole idea started when I met Michael. He told me that his family has been separated completely because of the wall. His father only found other family members when social media arrived. They didn’t know each other physically. Meeting someone in real life is also life-changing for me. Because I am a Palestinian but have never been there – I’m an exile.

Then we were talking about the Nakba ban last year, and reading about the silencing of Palestine, which is very systematic in Germany, especially over the last decade. It increased slowly and climaxed last year in Berlin.

I went away over Christmas and New Year last year, and contemplated what I’d read and heard, and decided to use the symbols that Berlin uses very well to commemorate its own history of separation, occupation, and colonialism on its own soil, to say that we are here.

I wanted to say to Germany that there is a shared history here, but you’re not seeing it. And I expect you to understand more than anybody else in Europe what is going on here, but you don’t. Instead, you use the Holocaust to explain your unlimited support to Israel. You don’t see that the wall represents occupation.

It is interesting that you’re talking about separation, because there is a very strong narrative in Germany that there was a terrible period of 40 years, where families were separated and people in the West and East were divided. This is rightly seen as something which was traumatic, and yet there is no comprehension that this has been going on for Palestinians for even longer.

R-AJ: Exactly. Let me tell a small anecdote. A friend’s parents visited her here in Berlin, and when they saw the wall they were laughing at its size. They said “this is a child of our wall”.

Michael told me how offended he felt when he went to one of the monuments just across from Checkpoint Charlie. There is a sign in three different languages saying “imagine a wall separating you”. But this is what Palestinians still experience every day. You don’t have to imagine it in history – it’s happening in Palestine. Yet Germany blindly supports Israel, not even recognizing the illegal settlements.

Berlin is a very interesting city. They do a very good job in commemorating historical events, whether it’s the wall, or the Holocaust, or other things that this city has witnessed and experienced. It was flattened in the Second World War. It’s very well documented, whether in museums or in outdoor spaces. I find that really good for visitors to understand where they are.

I just wanted to ask, when will we get the chance to commemorate our dead and our history?

Let’s talk about the Holocaust. There’s a photo in your exhibition of people going through the Holocaust Memorial wearing keffiyehs. When I saw the photo, I thought two things. Firstly, how moving it is. Secondly, that it will provoke a backlash.

R-AJ: It provoked a reaction – both positive and negative. The positive ones all came from people who oppose the instrumentalization of the Holocaust because they have family members who were killed in the Holocaust in different parts of Europe. They think that their history is being employed now to suppress Palestinian voices and to support oppression and colonization.

The negative comments were that it’s insensitive to use the Holocaust memorial site. A very basic and shallow argument. My intention was to provoke a debate. I view a lot of flat and boring artworks out there all the time. I didn’t want to be part of that.

Given the level of industrial genocide involved in the Holocaust, do you think it’s legitimate to compare what’s happened to the Palestinians to the Holocaust?

R-AJ: I don’t know if I was comparing as much as I was drawing joint histories of forced dehumanization. Germans fail to link their history of colonization of Africa to the Holocaust. This dehumanization of people didn’t stop or start with the Holocaust, which is what they fail to see.

We Palestinians are being dehumanized by a colonial power, supported by other colonial powers. I  show the shared history rather than compare what is happening on the ground. On the other hand, Ilan Pappé recently said that Palestinians are facing an incremental genocide.

Fortunately, the world did not agree with the Holocaust. But unfortunately, they’re not seeing that the Palestinians are facing this on a daily basis. Just last night, we lost 13 people in Gaza. Every day there are two guys here, five people here in the West Bank. I feel like the world either needs a big bomb or a big concentration camp to draw its attention or it doesn’t see anything.

There is a call for action here. You cannot just say we don’t accept the Holocaust, because it was so industrial and huge – which it was – but we accept what’s still going on with the Palestinians.

As someone who has spent most of your time outside Germany, how visible have the German Nakba and demonstration bans been from the outside?

R-AJ: It’s very visible. Even before coming to Berlin last November, I already read about it. It was all over the international news and mainstream media. In one of the images in the project, we actually have two tourists posing with us. They’re from Greece, they live in the UK, and they wanted to join. They had read about the ban, and said they think it is very unjust.

My brother who lives in the UK, another brother and sister in Canada, they all heard about it. And they were all asking me what’s going on. People in Jordan asked me if I would be put in jail for wearing the keffiyeh.

Is the discussion of Palestine different in Germany?

R-AJ: Many Germans choose to keep their heads in the sand. We’re talking about educated urban people, not some village in Bavaria. A majority of people who I speak to, who say “it’s really not my fight”, or “I’m so sorry, this is happening”, as if I tripped and fell on my leg.

I don’t find a lot of people who are keen on learning and reading and asking “what can I do about this?” We do have a German photographer ally, who’s helping us print the images at a discounted rate, and there are a lot of German activists who are supporters of our struggle. But the majority just wants to put their heads in the sand and say: “look, it’s too complicated”. 

Even if you explain everything very slowly and give context, they still lack understanding (or choose not to understand perhaps). It’s the Holocaust education and the guilt. They see the Holocaust as an isolated case, and just a German thing. The guilt is either bottled up or comes out in completely different and really weird ways.

Have you sensed any change in the 12 years you’ve been in contact with Germany?

R-AJ: I estimate that it’s pretty much the same. From my side, the change has been in me because I’ve got more involved with Germany rather than just working as an activist in the Middle East within my comfort zone.

This apolitical thing about Germans really irks me. They choose issues like climate change or Ukraine which are “neutral”. They choose feminist issues around Iran – forcing women to wear the headscarf but not India where women face oppression and aggression every day because they’re Muslim. They’re picking and choosing the things which agree with their Western mindset.

Michael has just joined us. Could you say who you are?

Michael Jabareen (MJ): I am just a Palestinian. Someone who lived in Palestine for 27 years before coming to Germany. I’ve been involved in the field of art and design, starting with art activism in Palestine. I’ve become involved with intersectional struggles.

Our side is having some small victories. I’ve come to this interview from the court case of a Palestinian artist who was arrested on Nakba Day last year, but the judge ruled that she does not have to pay her fine. Resistance is having an effect.

MJ: From what I saw from the court cases, it was very clear from police testimonies that the police officers themselves had no clear idea of what exactly is banned. Whenever the judge or the lawyer asks the police witness about the exact order that they got, they simply say that we just had an order to check if there is any Palestinian gathering, and to stop it.

When they were asked about how they would identify people who are gathered for a Palestinian assembly, they say that just wearing a scarf or anything related to the Nakba is enough. And of course, there were a lot of people who got arrested without having these symbols. It was very clear that people were kettled and arrested based on racial profiling. 

It’s not a good look for a German policeman to say in court: “I didn’t know what was happening. I was just obeying orders.”

R-AJ: There’s also this movement since Documenta last year. There is this way of looking at the arts and trying to scrutinize how art is being used for political reasons. It’s very draconian. There are a lot of judgements and pre-judgements sometimes in Germany without even looking at the content.

Do you have any last words?

MJ: I had a conversation with one of the policemen who was taking people to the police cars. I was saying that people are being arrested for doing nothing wrong. You are arresting people just for being Palestinian and presenting themselves visually. And one of the policemen said: “I know that arresting people is wrong, but these are the orders”. It is not that different from the past, just putting it under the cover of so-called democracy.

Tomorrow’s demonstration by Nakba75 has been banned by the Berlin police. A full programme is still taking place near Köpenicker Straße 40. Full details here.. The rally of the Jüdische Stimme has not been banned (yet). Please come to Oranienplatz at 3pm on Saturday, 20th May to show that you will not accept such repression.

Gallery – Cacti: A Visual Protest Against the Silencing of Palestinian Voices in Germany

 

Some first thoughts about the 2023 Turkish elections

Erdoğan did not win, but he did not lose either. Memet Uludag shares their thoughts on a disappointing night for the Left in Turkey’s 2023 presidential and parliamentary elections.


16/05/2023

The election results at a glance

Erdoğan has been in power since 2002. During his time in power, his party won numerous local/national/presidential elections as well as multiple referenda. In the 2023 election however, he didn’t win the presidential race. There will be a second round on May 28 between him (49.35%) and the opposition leader Kılıçdaroğlu (44.98%). Nevertheless, he didn’t lose either.

The unofficial parliamentary results suggest an unsatisfactory result for the opposition. Led by Erdoğan’s, the Peoples Alliance got 49.32% of the vote and 322 seats (Erdoğan’s AKP: 35.40% – 266 MPs; Far-Right MHP: 10.06% – 51 MPs; Other right-wing parties: 3.85% – 5 MPs) compare to the opposition Nation’s Alliance’s 35.21% of the vote and 212 seats (Kılıçdaroğlu’s CHP: 25.97% – 168 MPs; Far-Right İYİ: 9.84% – 44 MPs) and the Labour and Freedom Alliance who got 10.47% of the vote and 66 seats (Kurdish led HDP (or YSP): 8.77% – 62 MPs; Left-wing TİP: 1.70% – 4 MPs).

With nearly 50% AKP and their allies are well ahead of the rest and command majority in the parliament. The far right MHP have also increase their vote. The Kemalist/nationalist CHP are yet again stuck around 25%. For the past 20 years, it seems, they can’t go above this figure. The Kurdish HDP have performed below expectations.

So what happened and why?

How was there no defeat for AKP? With nearly 90% voter turnout it’s not voters apathy. There has been a serious economic crisis, rising cost of living and inflation. The sitting government has badly managed the earthquake disaster and floods and shown increasingly more authoritarian rule. Yet, they still perform above expectations at the polling booth.

There is huge disappointment even depression among Kılıçdaroğlu supporters. I am disappointed. Not because the opposition didn’t win but Erdoğan and his party didn’t lose. And the project of socialism has made little or no gain compared to rising far-right, nationalist, reactionary forces.

Some will say – as they did after many elections before – that people are stupid and vote like sheep. That would be a typical Kemalist (modernization philosophy of the transition era between Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey) response. As before, this will prove their snobbery towards the working class and their inability to admit their mistakes and the failures of their politics. Erdoğan and his party didn’t lose. Not because they were brilliant but because the politics of the opposition was/is not good.

It is clear. A big majority of the working class people don’t trust and have not forgotten or forgiven the Kemalist CHP and their past. Despite the efforts by Kılıçdaroğlu to present a reformed party (especially in relation to Muslim working classes) they are not winning support.

The opposition bloc promised social-political reforms but it is clear that people didn’t believe them. They did not run a left wing campaign. They ran a nationalist/populist one. They have targeted refugees. Their campaign included racism, nationalism and even militarism. The government has ‘better’ and stronger versions of these.

But the key message is clear. People don’t trust the Kemalists, even if they don’t like Erdogan’s rule and the AKP government, they don’t look up to the opposition.

What about the Left?

Were a serious, progressive, radical left that can relate to the working classes? Sorry, but nowhere really. The Communists didn’t even register with their tiny votes. Yet, again. No surprise here. Kemalist left and socialists are no different. The Turkish left continues to suffer from its historic co-option to and defence of Kemalism.

The Kurdish HDP have somewhat underperformed. Their claims to be a party of all-Turkey (not just party of Kurds and the Kurdish region) was always vague and never had political clarity about it. They have formed strange alliances with some of the marginal-sectarian-Stalinist and socialist groups which have gained them nothing. The HDP must clarify its political vision. There are lots of challenges and problems here.

Today, all seems very quiet

What happens now?

28 May is the second round for presidential race. The results are close enough. The race for the second round of the presidential election will be decided by a far right candidate eliminated with 5% vote. At a press conference he said he will support the candidate that will give him reassurances for tackling terrorism and deport refugees. Both candidates are engaging with him to win his support. He wants the Kurdish HDP to be criminalised. Guess what, he will get what he wants. And I will vote for whoever he doesn’t support.