Syriza members wave flags and banners. Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

After Syriza's failure, where next for the Left?

The failure of Alexis Tsipras leaves the Left at a crossroads. Where do we go from here? Michael Chessum writes from Greece.

Two weeks ago, DEA, the Trotskyist group that helped establish Syriza and is now a key part of its Left Platform faction, held a central committee meeting. The meeting proceeded under the premise that a new memorandum was about to be signed by Tsipras, signalling a surrender to Greece’s creditors and crossing a red line which neither DEA nor many other Syriza activists could endorse. Two days later, the referendum was called, and DEA put aside its misgivings and threw itself into a gigantic united Oxi campaign. 

But the conversations held in DEA, and in all manner of smaller groups which constitute Syriza’s left wing will be relevant again now. The content of the Memorandum going through the Greek parliament today is worse than anything previously imagined: unprecedented privatisation, loss of sovereignty, the forcible reversal of progressive measures introduce by the government, hikes in VAT, cuts and free market reforms. In the early hours of Saturday morning, the DEA’s MP was one of only two MPs in the Syriza parliamentary group to vote against the initial capitulation sent by Tsipras to the Eurogroup; today, a much greater rebellion is anticipated.

The scale of the surrender and the absurdity of the political situation may be a little overwhelming for an outside observer, but this is a moment for which many on the Greek far left have been practically preparing about for months, and theorising about for years. Most thought that Tsipras would sell out sooner. In explaining why he didn’t buckle in the last round of negotiations, and pushed on for the referendum, everyone - from party activists to the anarchists you meet in social centres - cite popular pressure.

Syriza’s right wing - a collection of politicians such as the Deputy Prime Minister Dianis Dragasakis and economy minister Georgis Stakathis – initially opposed the calling of the referendum. But the result has by coincidence played a pivotal role in their strategy: it took the energy and public pressure, formulated it around what was essentially a confidence vote in the government which the left had to rally around, and delivered what could be interpreted as a mandate for a new deal to keep Greece in the Euro and the government in power, at any cost.

Tsipras has essentially fallen in with this logic, and the sudden shift in Tsipras’s political role has left some Syriza supporters disoriented, as well as burned out from the referendum campaign. At an anti-Memorandum protest on the steps of the parliament on Monday night, one Syriza activist described him to me as a “victim” of the current situation who was “detached from reality by those around him”. How long this patience lasts remains to be seen.
For the vast majority of people we’ve met, the referendum gave precisely the opposite mandate: that Greece would not accept austerity, or at least nothing like what is now being proposed. They have a point: Syriza won the January election on the slogan “no sacrifice for the Euro”; it then won a 61 per cent majority for rejecting a deal whose core terms - and many other terms which are far, far worse - are now being rammed through the Greek parliament. Popular pressure will be in full swing again today, as a massive strike of Greek workers by calls on parliament to reject the Memorandum.

The strategy of Syriza in power has been consumed by the task of finding a deal: as many party supporters complain, it has been slow or absent in enacting many of the social reforms and tax policies it promised. The Tsipras administration has refused – either in terms of technical measures or in terms of making a political case – to prepare the ground for a Grexit, and the government continues to cling to the idea of a Euro membership compatible with its mandate, even as it is driven humiliatingly off a cliff. Those Syriza MPs that vote for another memorandum do so on the basis that rupture with the Eurozone – and further confrontation with the right in Greece – should be delayed. That delay is now turning into a permanent retreat.

This week may well witness the destruction, from the European left’s point of view, of the most promising political project on the continent.  Whether or not Tsipras remains Prime Minister, the Syriza government has already fallen. It has been replaced by a new parliamentary majority, composed of some Syriza MPs and the whole of the old, and supposedly vanquished, political order – Pasok and New Democracy.

For all that this may be tragic, it could also be part of a process. The internal fight, or externalised split, that is to come will expose some of the contradictions in Syriza’s strategy and open up windows, at least in theory, for a set of political forces to Tsipras’s left. The prospects for the factional struggle inside Syriza is difficult to predict, partly because the internal structures of Syriza have been functioning so unreliably since it took power (the Central Committee last met months ago and has focussed entirely on reviewing rather than determining government decisions), and partly because of the uncertainties about the fate of dissident MPs and activists, whose expulsions and resignations hang in the balance.

Whatever the outcome, what happens next in and around Syriza matters. Both the mainstream media and many on the British left have focussed obsessively on the party’s relationship with the EU and the Euro, but this is less than half of the story. Projects like Syriza were supposed to represent the future of the European left, with their unflinchingly radical programme, openness to social movements and internal democracy. Tsipras’s failure has stemmed not just from his unwillingness to break with the Eurozone, but with his refusal to contemplate the radical measures that it would have necessitated: the nationalisation of the banks, seizure of assets and a massive redistributive tax programme. The route to rebuilding the dreams that Syriza represented – in Greece and elsewhere –will lie in reclaiming the radical and democratic spirit that once characterised it.  

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The problems with ending encryption to fight terrorism

Forcing tech firms to create a "backdoor" to access messages would be a gift to cyber-hackers.

The UK has endured its worst terrorist atrocity since 7 July 2005 and the threat level has been raised to "critical" for the first time in a decade. Though election campaigning has been suspended, the debate over potential new powers has already begun.

Today's Sun reports that the Conservatives will seek to force technology companies to hand over encrypted messages to the police and security services. The new Technical Capability Notices were proposed by Amber Rudd following the Westminster terrorist attack and a month-long consultation closed last week. A Tory minister told the Sun: "We will do this as soon as we can after the election, as long as we get back in. The level of threat clearly proves there is no more time to waste now. The social media companies have been laughing in our faces for too long."

Put that way, the plan sounds reasonable (orders would be approved by the home secretary and a senior judge). But there are irrefutable problems. Encryption means tech firms such as WhatsApp and Apple can't simply "hand over" suspect messages - they can't access them at all. The technology is designed precisely so that conversations are genuinely private (unless a suspect's device is obtained or hacked into). Were companies to create an encryption "backdoor", as the government proposes, they would also create new opportunities for criminals and cyberhackers (as in the case of the recent NHS attack).

Ian Levy, the technical director of the National Cyber Security, told the New Statesman's Will Dunn earlier this year: "Nobody in this organisation or our parent organisation will ever ask for a 'back door' in a large-scale encryption system, because it's dumb."

But there is a more profound problem: once created, a technology cannot be uninvented. Should large tech firms end encryption, terrorists will merely turn to other, lesser-known platforms. The only means of barring UK citizens from using the service would be a Chinese-style "great firewall", cutting Britain off from the rest of the internet. In 2015, before entering the cabinet, Brexit Secretary David Davis warned of ending encryption: "Such a move would have had devastating consequences for all financial transactions and online commerce, not to mention the security of all personal data. Its consequences for the City do not bear thinking about."

Labour's manifesto pledged to "provide our security agencies with the resources and the powers they need to protect our country and keep us all safe." But added: "We will also ensure that such powers do not weaken our individual rights or civil liberties". The Liberal Democrats have vowed to "oppose Conservative attempts to undermine encryption."

But with a large Conservative majority inevitable, according to polls, ministers will be confident of winning parliamentary support for the plan. Only a rebellion led by Davis-esque liberals is likely to stop them.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496