Supporters of SYRIZA wave flags outside a university building on election night. Photograph: Getty Images
Show Hide image

With the rise of Syriza and Golden Dawn, Greece's status quo has been forever altered

Greek democracy will never be the same after this turbulent month.

I am grateful to expert Louise Mensch, who once had a Greek Salad from Waitrose, for analysing the result of yesterday’s election so that I can grasp it. She said: "When push comes to shove, the Greek people voted for austerity and sanity. Are you listening, Labour?" Obviously I cannot compete with this sort of laser-like analysis, which would reduce Shakespeare’s Othello to "interracial marriages just don’t work". But try, I must.

It is difficult to give you a sense of the tectonic plate shift which has taken place in the Greek political geology in the last few years. If you can imagine, between now and 2015, the Tories dropping thirty-two percentage points, the LibDems disappearing into seventh place with less than 5 per cent, the BNP securing 18 MPs, the Greens emerging from nowhere to become the main opposition and the prospect of a Tory/Labour coalition, you may get a taste.

Let us put aside the facile notion that a fragmented election result is "not decisive". It is, in many ways, a healthier expression of democracy than what has happened in Greece for the last 50 years - a polarised sharing of 80 per cent of the vote between two major parties who swap power every few years. It is as valid a decision as any other. In the case of Sunday’s election, it says loudly and clearly "we trust none of you unfettered or unsupervised". Given the history of corruption and mismanagement which has brought my country to its knees, it seems to me a perfectly sensible position.

The nominal victors are the New Democracy right-of-centre party. With 29.6 per cent of the vote, 2.7 per cent ahead of radical left SYRIZA, they have secured the much coveted "bonus" which, under Greek electoral rules, gives the top party an additional 50 MPs. This leaves them in the unenviable position of having to form a coalition and drive forward with the austerity package. To add to their woes, the most likely coalition partner (both in numerical terms and being pro-austerity) is the left-of-centre PASOK; their sworn enemies for a generation. PASOK, who were in power three years ago with 44 per cent, now languish on a paltry 12.5 per cent of the vote. Their fall from grace is truly astounding. The Communist KKE party has been obliterated into seventh place with less than 5 per cent. Other assorted new, coalition or independent parties have largely lost out too, as the vote became concentrated around New Democracy and SYRIZA.

SYRIZA is the real winner. I notice that both the BBC and Sky News yesterday took to describing them as left-of-centre or leftist. They are about as left-of-centre as Norwich is west-of-Japan. They are a radical left party and anti-austerity – a term which is not, as the Guardian seems to consider, interchangeable with anti-euro. They took shape in the debates of the Syntagma Square demonstrations, with little party funding or organisation, to secure 17 per cent in the May election and have increased that to 27 per cent a month later.

SYRIZA have already declared that they are not willing to play ball in a New Democracy led pro-bailout coalition. This leaves them in a uniquely strong position. Untainted by the corruption and dirty dealing of the past, their hands clean from the misery which will be visited on the electorate over the coming months, they can sit back, maintain their ideological position intact and watch their mandate grow in the opinion polls. Many commentators are now confidently predicting that their leader Alexis Tsipras (who British news outlets have taken to describing as "charismatic", presumably because it would be unprofessional to say he’s "hot") will be Prime Minister in Greece within a couple of years.

And SYRIZA have won in another very important way. They have shifted the whole debate on the bail-out package. So terrifying to Troika and their representatives was the prospect of having someone in charge who might put people above markets, that all the pro-bailout parties have had to water down their position during this campaign. Everyone is now talking about, at the very least, a relaxing of the conditions, a renegotiation of aspects of the package and an emphasis on growth.

Even the Euro-cacophony, which has been hollering that any attempt at deviation from the agreement would see Greece sent to the drachma naughty step, is making softer noises. German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said "I can imagine we could do something in terms of the time frame". The Commission and the IMF too, have been talking about helping Greece, using words like "partners" and "family". Are these the same people who told Greece last year to "sell some of its islands" in order to repay its debts?

There was another winner too. The far-right party Chrissi Avgi (Golden Dawn) cemented its position with 7 per cent of the vote and will get 18 MPs. These are not cuddly BNP types. They are a neo-Nazi party with a history of violence which makes Nick Griffin look like Julie Andrews. Their supporters call the leader of the party "Führer" and greet him with the Nazi salute. Their logo is a swastika, thinly disguised as an ancient Greek meander. The country is littered with their graffiti calling for "another holocaust – to clean the place out".

Many had said that the votes they got in the May election were protest votes; votes cast in anger. Many had hoped that their poster boy, Ilias Kasidiaris, viciously beating up a 60-year-old female rival MP live on television, would put voters off. Not a bit of it. Instead Kasidiaris has been elected to Parliament and will sit across from the very woman he assaulted. As one sharp blogger put it, "violence is porn for fascists". And if the woman you’re punching happens to have very loud opinions, happens to be a lesbian, happens to be a communist, happens to be all three, well that’s the "money shot".

Golden Dawn did not just appear out of nowhere. They have been around for a long time waiting for their opportunity. When I left Greece, many years ago, they would be the subject of whispered gossip at the grocer’s: "Did you hear? So-and-so’s son is a Chrissavgitis." It was tantamount to having a criminal in the family; a source of shame. Yesterday, the results from my home-town of Mykonos show that among the four thousand or so voters, 267 people voted for a Nazi party. I probably know some of them. A couple might be my distant cousins. What the hell happened?

Fear and anger happened. And the responsibility must rest squarely with the centre-right parties. Because their reaction to difficult times, their reaction to fear and anger, is to reach for insidious, populist right-wing strategies. More fear. More anger. Attack the immigrant. Blame the unemployed. Demonise the disabled. Wave the flag and clutch at nationalism disguised as patriotism. It’s like an involuntary, political nervous tic. "The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye", said O.W. Holmes, "the more light you pour upon it the more it will contract."

And this is the lesson which I hope the UK reader will take away and ponder. When the leader of New Democracy, Samaras, chooses to say that the reason kindergarten schools are struggling to cope is because of all the foreign kids, he paves the way for Golden Dawn to goose-step their way into Parliament. When Sarkozy courts Marine Le Pen’s voters, when Merkel says multi-culturalism is dead, when Cameron links race and religion to terrorism, they open the Overton window for the far-right burglars waiting outside. They make what was previously impossible, possible.

__________________________

On to more important matters now. The deities of football have set up a highly ironic Euro 2012 quarter-final between Greece and Germany on Friday. We should suggest a little bet to Merkel – "Double or Quits. What do you say, Ange?" If by half-time Greece is not performing to Merkel’s expectations, she may well get rid of our manager and appoint a technocrat of her choice. Perhaps Greece will have a government by then. If they don’t do as they’re told, she may do the same. It wouldn’t be the first time.

Greek-born, Alex Andreou has a background in law and economics. He runs the Sturdy Beggars Theatre Company and blogs here You can find him on twitter @sturdyalex

Getty
Show Hide image

A new German law wants to force mothers to reveal their child’s biological father

The so-called “milkmen’s kids law” would seek protection for men who feel they have been duped into raising children they believe are not biologically theirs – at the expense of women’s rights.

The German press call them “Kuckuckskinder”, which translates literally as “cuckoo children” – parasite offspring being raised by an unsuspecting innocent, alien creatures growing fat at the expense of the host species’ own kind. The British press have opted for the more Benny Hill-esque “milkmen’s kids”, prompting images of bored Seventies housewives answering the door in negligées before inviting Robin Asquith lookalikes up to their suburban boudoirs. Nine months later their henpecked husbands are presented with bawling brats and the poor sods remain none the wiser.

Neither image is particularly flattering to the children involved, but then who cares about them? This is a story about men, women and the redressing of a legal – or is it biological? – injustice. The children are incidental.

This week German Justice Minister Heiko Maas introduced a proposal aimed at to providing greater legal protection for “Scheinväter” – men who are duped into raising children whom they falsely believe to be biologically theirs. This is in response to a 2015 case in which Germany’s highest court ruled that a woman who had told her ex-husband that her child may have been conceived with another man could not be compelled to name the latter. This would, the court decided, be an infringement of the woman’s right to privacy. Nonetheless, the decision was seen to highlight the need for further legislation to clarify and strengthen the position of the Scheinvater.

Maas’ proposal, announced on Monday, examines the problem carefully and sensitively before merrily throwing a woman’s right to privacy out of the window. It would compel a woman to name every man she had sexual intercourse with during the time when her child may have been conceived. She would only have the right to remain silent in cases should there be serious reasons for her not to name the biological father (it would be for the court to decide whether a woman’s reasons were serious enough). It is not yet clear what form of punishment a woman would face were she not to name names (I’m thinking a scarlet letter would be in keeping with the classy, retro “man who was present at the moment of conception” wording). In cases where it did transpire that another man was a child’s biological father, he would be obliged to pay compensation to the man “duped” into supporting the child for up to two years.

It is not clear what happens thereafter. Perhaps the two men shake hands, pat each other on the back, maybe even share a beer or two. It is, after all, a kind of gentlemen’s agreement, a transaction which takes place over the heads of both mother and child once the latter’s paternity has been established. The “true” father compensates the “false” one for having maintained his property in his absence. In some cases there may be bitterness and resentment but perhaps in others one will witness a kind of honourable partnership. You can’t trust women, but DNA tests, money and your fellow man won’t let you down.

Even if it achieves nothing else, this proposal brings us right back to the heart of what patriarchy is all about: paternity and ownership. In April this year a German court ruled that men cannot be forced to take paternity tests by children who suspect them of being their fathers. It has to be their decision. Women, meanwhile, can only access abortion on demand in the first trimester of pregnancy, and even then counselling is mandatory (thereafter the approval of two doctors is required, similar to in the UK). One class of people can be forced to gestate and give birth; another can’t even be forced to take a DNA test. One class of people can be compelled to name any man whose sperm may have ventured beyond their cervix; another is allowed to have a body whose business is entirely its own. And yes, one can argue that forcing men to pay money for the raising of children evens up the score. Men have always argued that, but they’re wrong.

Individual men (sometimes) pay for the raising of individual children because the system we call patriarchy has chosen to make fatherhood about individual ownership. Women have little choice but to go along with this as long as men exploit our labour, restrict our access to material resources and threaten us with violence. We live in a world in which it is almost universally assumed that women “owe” individual men the reassurance that it was their precious sperm that impregnated us, lest we put ourselves and our offspring at risk of poverty and isolation. Rarely do any of us dare to protest. We pretend it is a fair deal, even that reproductive differences barely affect our lives at all. But the sex binary – the fact that sperm is not egg and egg is not sperm – affects all of us.

The original 2015 ruling got it right. The male demand for reassurance regarding paternity is an infringement of a woman’s right to privacy. Moreover, it is important to see this in the context of all the other ways in which men have sought to limit women’s sexual activity, freedom of movement and financial independence in order to ensure that children are truly “theirs”.  Anxiety over paternity is fundamentally linked to anxiety over female sexuality and women’s access to public space. Yet unless all women are kept under lock and key at all times, men will never, ever have the reassurance they crave. Even then, the abstract knowledge that you are the only person to have had the opportunity to impregnate a particular woman cannot rival the physical knowledge of gestation.

We have had millennia of pandering to men’s existential anxieties and treating all matters related to human reproduction, from sex to childbirth, as exceptional cases meaning women cannot have full human rights. Isn’t it about time we tried something new? How about understanding fatherhood not as winning gold in an Olympic sperm race, but as a contract endlessly renewed?

What each of us receives when a child is born is not a biological entity to do with as we choose. It is a relationship, with all of its complexities and risks. It is something worth contributing to and fighting for. Truly, if a man cannot understand that, then any money wasted on a Kuckuckskind – a living, breathing child he could get to know – has got to be the least of his worries. 

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.