Since 2005, average propensity of consume has risen dramatically and household expenditure increased to alarming levels in Greece. Coupled with global financial crisis in 2008, current account deficit of the country driven by huge public and private spending along with high import demand have become serious threats to macroeconomic balances of the country. While Greece’s budget deficit reached at 13.6 percent of the GDP (four times higher than the Euro Zone is allowed) triggering the fear that Greece would default, rating agencies cut country’s rating in June 2011 to the lowest level that markets ever saw in the history of modern economy. As a result, Greece’s economy shrank sharply by 5.5 percent in the first quarter and 6.9 percent in the second quarter of 2011. Amidst the predicament, the government realized a new economic policy (fiscal austerity) program in collaboration with the EU, IMF and World Bank which basically aims at narrowing budget deficit and reducing public debt to managable levels by maximizing savings.
Economic Crisis vs. Political Crisis
The new economic program caused huge repercussions among Greek public and wide protests were held in Athens and other big cities of the country. Protesters even encircled the parliament during the events (which were intervened only by the policemen), no casualities were reported. While protests continued, the cabinet headed by the prime minister Yorgo Papandreu (PASOK) was almost entirely changed. In pursuance to the vote of confidence, the new cabinet submitted Medium Term Program to the parliament in June which mainly focuses on the fiscal discipline, cutting public workers’ salaries and minimizing the household expenditure. Immediate election, on the other hand, has became a hot topic not only for the Greek opposition but also for the public as a whole.
Starting almost in the very same date with Greece (February 15, 2011), the crisis in Libya however, has followed a different route. Employing the means of the army, the Gaddafi Regime has taken drastic action against protesters who were inspired by the Tunisian and Egyptian Revolution. In a month, hundreds of people have lost their lives in the face of intervention by the Libyan armed forces consisting not only of national army but also African mercenaries. During the upheaval, Gaddafi has never acknowledged the demands of the protestors, calling them “terrorists and rats” whom must be “squashed quickly”. Hence he did not take any measure towards reforming the system. It should be also noted that the means of the state (political, military or economic) were used only by the Muammar Gaddafi and his family who do not have any kind of political title whatsoever. Following the worsening plight in the country, the UN authorized (UNSC Resolution 1973) all member countries “to take necessary measures to protect civillians” and as a result NATO engaged airborne operations all over Libya in order to back the opposition which was now organized under the National Transitional Council in Benghazi. Thanks to international support, the opposition captured Tripoli and actually ended Gaddafi regime in August 2011.
Rules of Engagement
Similarities between the two crises are vast. For instance, Libya also experienced economic woes such as unemployment (even though it has never been declared, it is estimated around 25 percent), low income levels in spite of remarkable oil revenue (GDP per capita in Libya 93.00$ whereas 27.000$ in Greece), wide corruption and unfair distribution of income. Furthermore, initial period of protests are also common to some extent. Both protests started as peaceful demonstrations but in time they caused serious financial damages in urban areas due to people’s commitments to continue protests (demonstration, strike, sit down etc.) despite of government’s interventions.
However they did not end in the same fashion. Such decoupling originates from different types of engagement towards the people. In Greece, protests enforced prime minister to change the cabinet and the cabinet, the Medium Term Economic Program and international bail-outs were all adopted by the Greek parliament. Moreover, all actions taken by the government is in line with the rule of law (at least in theory) and even if it is'nt, calling an immediate elections was still on the table. This will be also valid if and when government’s economic program fails. On the other hand, Libya was ruled not by law but under one man show. Gaddafi did not have political options that would respond people’s demands even if he wanted to give one. There was no parliament or government in the modern sense of the word. Country’s political system is almost entirely lack of political inclusion, feedback and settllement mechanisms. Hence the only thing Gaddafi could do at that time, was to initiate a broad political reform process -including him to step down- which he did not see necessary. Unfourtunately, in times of conflict political reforms are harder to realize.
Declaring protestors as terrorists Gaddafi resorted to military tools (contrary of Greek’s resort to police) as if the country was waging war against an exterior enemy which in turn, paved the for his own demise.
Articles you might also like:
> Arab Spring: Why Now?
> Arab Spring: Understanding the Reasons
Leia Mais…
A bulk of the literature on foreign aid is centered on a simple question: Does it work?
