I should have already covered this story: my only excuse is fatigue, but in this case that's really insufficient. As the Telegraph has reported:
Anibal Cavaco Silva, Portugal's constitutional president, has refused to appoint a Left-wing coalition government even though it secured an absolute majority in the Portuguese parliament and won a mandate to smash the austerity regime bequeathed by the EU-IMF Troika.
He deemed it too risky to let the Left Bloc or the Communists come close to power, insisting that conservatives should soldier on as a minority in order to satisfy Brussels and appease foreign financial markets.
Many others also cover the story, but possibly none as well as the Telegraph though. As Ambrose Evans-Pritchard suggested later in his piece:
Mr Cavaco Silva is effectively using his office to impose a reactionary ideological agenda, in the interests of creditors and the EMU establishment, and dressing it up with remarkable Chutzpah as a defence of democracy.
The issue is simple: the right-wing coalition in Portugal lost the election earlier this month, its share of the vote falling from just over 50% to 38%. This technically left it the largest party but that was solely because the left of centre parties had never been able to agree with each other in the past to ever offer anything that looked like a coalition. And now they have: the Greens, Communists and main left of centre party have suggested they can work together to form a government and between them they have more than 50% of the votes and seats. In that case they have the obvious right to form a government, and yet the Portuguese President has invited the right wing minority to form the government instead.
This is how the Telegraph reported his justification:
"Democracy must take second place to the higher imperative of euro rules and membership.
“In 40 years of democracy, no government in Portugal has ever depended on the support of anti-European forces, that is to say forces that campaigned to abrogate the Lisbon Treaty, the Fiscal Compact, the Growth and Stability Pact, as well as to dismantle monetary union and take Portugal out of the euro, in addition to wanting the dissolution of NATO,” said Mr Cavaco Silva.
“This is the worst moment for a radical change to the foundations of our democracy
"After we carried out an onerous programme of financial assistance, entailing heavy sacrifices, it is my duty, within my constitutional powers, to do everything possible to prevent false signals being sent to financial institutions, investors and markets,” he said.
And as Evan-Pritchard then noted:
Mr Cavaco Silva argued that the great majority of the Portuguese people did not vote for parties that want a return to the escudo or that advocate a traumatic showdown with Brussels.
This is true, but he skipped over the other core message from the elections held three weeks ago: that they also voted for an end to wage cuts and Troika austerity. The combined parties of the Left won 50.7pc of the vote. Led by the Socialists, they control the Assembleia.
So what we have is an EU President basically saying that he will ignore the outcome of a general election and appoint a right wing government rather than appoint a government that wishes to explore a Keynesian alternative to austerity, which austerity can never (as Evans -Pritchard correctly points out) work out for Portugal anyway. And why is he doing this? To appease bankers, markets and the European Central Bank. But the result is that democratic choice has been blatantly ignored in the interests of finance, austerity, small government, and the dogma of the ECB that has already sought to crush Greece.
As Evans-Pritchard summarised it:
Greece's Syriza movement, Europe's first radical-Left government in Europe since the Second World War, was crushed into submission for daring to confront eurozone ideology. Now the Portuguese Left is running into a variant of the same meat-grinder.
Europe's socialists face a dilemma. They are at last waking up to the unpleasant truth that monetary union is an authoritarian Right-wing enterprise that has slipped its democratic leash, yet if they act on this insight in any way they risk being prevented from taking power.
Brussels really has created a monster.
What might that monster be called? Given that this is about subjugating democracy to corporate interests the only word for it is fascism.
I thought Portugal put that behind it in April 1974. It looks like that wasn't the case.
Worry. And consider why so many are so unaccepting if Jeremy Corbyn. Might the motives be the same?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
If these events lead to the break up of the EU, the powers behind the EU -IMF Troika won’t be too bothered. They might even find it easier to pick off individual countries. There may be three choices 1) continue with the way the EU is going 2) break it up 3) reform it along more democratic lines.
“Brussels really has created a monster.”
I’m an ardent European, and would gladly see the creation of a United States of Europe. However, that could only be acceptable if the relationship between the federal centre and the constituent states were similar to that in the USA = a) a REAL written Constitution b) a REALLY elected Federal Parliament, with REAL legislative and supervisory powers (and not the current European Parliament, which is really only advisory in nature, and hence a sham and c) REAL transfer of Federal funding from rich states to poor states.
It would also have to jettison its preposterous neo-liberal ideology, and make the third pillar, tge Social Chapter, be the REAL guiding principle of its existence.
Until it does that, and acts to “tame the beast” referred to above, then I am moving over to the idea that Labour should campaign to come out, unless “root and branch” reform occurs, and also to campaign for a new EU, made up of current EU partners opposed to the continuance of the “monster” the current EU has become.
I believe President Anibal Cavaco Silva has handed the “Out” team an absolute gift of a boost to their campaign; hopefully he has done the same for those of us arguing against the idiocy of neo-liberalusm, as e emplified by the nonsense of Osbornomics.
Andrew
I also think this a massive boost to the out campaign
It has, in effect, become illegal to be anything but a neoliberal
I feel like an outlaw
And people will not accept that status
Richard
I am afraid it looks like we have only two choices, a) out, or the result will be, b) civil unrest and I can’t guarantee the former will avert the latter.
I’m sorry but I have never been able to see the EU working.
Put it like this if your fridge broke down,or you were choosing a car or holiday etc, would you be happy for 27 neighbours to decide what action you should take?……. I didn’t think so.
In terms of the Portuguese situation, as I understand the President is technically allowed to invite the right-wing coalition to form a minority government, but given that it is just that – a minority govt – they will have problems getting any actual policies through. Really this looks like a desperation move which is just delaying the inevitable – the appointment of a left-wing majority govt.
Howard
That’s the generous version
It is not what the President seems to have said
Either way a crisis seems to be in the making
Richard
I’m trying to get to grips with the mechanics of this.
If the neo liberal right wing party which lost the election and represents a minority in the Portuguese Parliament forms a “Government” through Presidential appointment how is it going to Govern when it cannot possibly get any of its policies and programme through the Parliament?
Once it is defeated in Parliament, which it surely will be, is it being implied that rather than allow a non neo liberal right wing Government further elections will be held until the “right” result is achieved?
The left are saying the new government may last a week
I strongly suspect new elections will be called by the President in that case and that is when the crisis will erupt
But, the commentators could be wrong, of course
They may find a way to suspend parliament anyway. They may use some variant of the 1974 Armed Forces Movement, which at its base was composed of Anti-Salazar conscript troops but whose leadership was commissioned officers, tied to the fascist property system; the aim would be to convince the population that progress can take some other direction than grass-roots democratic change. There are of course many roads along which a nascent revolution can be diverted. It’s obviously not true that TINA applies except as an imperative of propaganda.
The article points out that by law there cannot be elections until next year. A vote of no confidence in the parliament of the appointed gov’ would thus require the formation of a new gov’. What is unclear is, could “El presidente” (the reference to banana republics is intentional) keep appointing the same bunch of losers – with the same “no confidence” result. Pity the poor Portugese.
Question. Obviously a majority opposition can prevent a minority government from passing legislation. But could the majority opposition go further and put through parliament the legislation it hopes to achieve. In other words, the opposition could make itself the de facto government. I guess Dave Hansell is right, and if the opposition tried to do this in practice, parliament would be suspended and the minority would govern through “emergency powers”.
This is worth a read.
http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/telegraph-portugal-claim-busted.html
Agreed
Zero hedge sides with the Telegraph, I note
Here’s another interesting commentary on this situation, to add to the one Karen posted above:
https://medium.com/@chrishanretty/dan-hannan-and-owen-jones-are-both-wrong-on-portugal-6c3e38b9a5e8#.te0w3xx81
Let us hope that is right
I think this latest episode has made my mind up for me. The EU is a profoundly anti-democratic organisation and as much as i admire Yanis Varoufakis, i believe his faith to reform from within is misplaced and futile.
What i find partly astonishing is my own conclusion. I’ve always considered myself strongly pro-European, but the last few years (especially the last 12 months) have shattered those illusions one by one. I know the dangers of leaving given our trade position, but the danger to democracy is even greater. The countries in the monetary union are sleepwalking into disaster, especially those in the south and on the periphery.
Unless something fundamental changes before the referendum i can’t see me changing my mind.
perhaps Tony Benn did have the measure of it after all:
“”When I saw how the European Union was developing, it was very obvious what they had in mind was not democratic.”
It’s funny but hardly anyone in Portugal sees this as undemocratic. They voted in a President to have powers like this one under the constitution which they also approved. There’s a Presidential election in January, and they’ll choose another one anyway then, and it won’t be Cavaco Silva as he will have done the two terms maximum by then.
The Portuguese are far more interested in the entrepreneur who’s sunk 30000 bottles of red at the bottom of Alqueva dam. Apparently shipwreck quality wine matured under pressure commands a premium. The entrepreneur wants to recreate this, and the wine punters want a taste when it’s ready.
I don’t believe you
So the president is asking the largest elected party to try and form a govt., as is his right, instead of a loose coalition of other parties. Doesn’t seem entirely unreasonable as until they try to govern you won’t really know what the situation will be.