Inner party turmoil could see Papandreou's referendum and his government sink within days, writes DAMIAN Mac CON ULADHin Athens
TWENTY-FOUR hours after their prime minister shocked his own MPs, opposition parties and the public, Greeks last night were still struggling to understand what led George Papandreou to declare his intention to hold a referendum on Greece’s new bailout and haircut deal.
Papandreou’s move, announced to unsuspecting members of the Pasok parliamentary party on Monday night, has been described as his biggest gamble yet, and one that could risk his country’s future in the euro zone.
In the knowledge that recent polls show that 60 per cent of Greeks view the Brussels deal as negative, opposition parties were universal in condemning the vote plan, with parties from the right to the left reiterating their calls for immediate elections.
So alarmed was he at Papandreou’s referendum plan, which he described as an “opportunistic experiment”, the leader of the country’s main opposition New Democracy party, Antonis Samaras, took his concerns to the president.
“Elections are a national necessity,” Samaras said afterwards. “Mr Papandreou, in his effort to save himself . . . is endangering our future and our position in Europe.”
In turning the post-euro zone situation on its head, less than four days after the deal on a debt haircut and second Greek bailout was struck, Papandreou also alarmed his own party, with four of his MPs – coincidentally all women – coming out publicly to reject the referendum idea.
In the most dramatic development, which reduces Pasok’s number to a precarious 152 in the 300-strong parliament, one of the dissenting MPs, Milena Apostolaki, announced that she would now sit as an Independent.
Yesterday afternoon, three more MPs, among them former minister and EU commissioner Vaso Papandreou, came out in support of the creation of a government of national unity – in order, they say, to safeguard the Brussels deal from what would likely be a No vote.
Although Ms Papandreou and her colleagues didn’t explicitly rule out voting against the prime minister in the confidence vote to be held on Friday night, the inner party turmoil could see his referendum and his government sink within days.
According to reports on Monday, the prime minister had only informed three close associates – among them finance minister Evangelos Venizelos – of his referendum decision beforehand.
Venizelos, however, has, through his aides, tried to say he knew nothing of the plans. But press colleagues, who were in the chamber as Papandreou made his announcement, said Venizelos did not appear to have been taken by surprise.
“He knew what was going on,” said one observer who did not want to be named.
It begs the question: what is the game plan of Papandreou and his closest associates? Or is there one?
While many doubt that the prime minister has the capacity to plot a long-term strategy, one of few scenarios circulating, which appears credible, is that Papandreou hopes the referendum idea will either force opposition parties to join him in a unity government or the ferocious opposition to it will allow him to leave the political stage, with some of his legacy intact.
Papandreou is aware that the referendum idea confronts his own party, opposition MPs and the public with a fundamental dilemma: to risk what he sees is a historic deal that reduces Greek debt and secures a second bailout for an even more uncertain future.
As it will be mid-January, at the earliest, before the referendum can be held, there is an awareness that the Greek people – and the European Union – cannot afford a period of protracted uncertainty.
Papandreou has made effective use of such dilemmas before: firstly, with his European partners, when he reportedly threatened to go to the International Monetary Fund alone, a move that would have deeply undermined the credibility of the union and, secondly, with his own MPs, who have had to vote for one austerity package after the other.
And now Papandreou is bringing his uneasy and restless electorate into the game, in a possible attempt to get the legitimacy for the austerity programme that his government – which was elected on a platform that promised modest wage increases and social welfare spending – never had.