Europe’s Truths

Roger Cohen, 07/01/13

ELOUNDA, Greece — “The unexamined life is not worth living,” said Socrates. Pronounced of a Cretan summer evening in an outdoor theater, with a breeze wafting through the olive groves, the thought is doubly arresting — perhaps because it is evident in such a setting that we make poor choices in our lives by not exposing ourselves more to such beauty.

Another thing is apparent: South European nations, the “peripheral” ones in current parlance, have a hardship-softener too little factored into assessments of E.U. crisis — the sun — even if Germany has the money. That is one reason, along with the strength of family ties and the underground economy, why we have not seen a European eruption along the Mediterranean, as unemployment has soared.

Over the past three years, since Greece hit the panic button, Europe’s pain has been much examined, with inconclusive results. As Woody Allen noted, “What if the examined life turns out to be a clunker as well?”

The view that the 28-nation E.U., with Croatia joining this week, and particularly its 17-nation euro zone, is now a terminal clunker has become fashionable. The crisis that began in Greece has been controlled for now, but much of Europe, including France, is in recession. The questions triggered here about the future of Europe, and its common currency, are unresolved.

The Union that was the European miracle of the second half of the 20th century now embodies the malaise of the 21st.

A counterargument exists. It is that the agony of the euro will end up illustrating Jean Monnet’s phrase that crises are the great federators of history. The planned European banking union, single supervisory system and fiscal harmonization will prove to be the catalysts of the Continent’s ever closer union.

I heard both the European break-up and breakthrough views in equal measure during a conference here. What is unquestionable is that Europe is living its deepest unease since the end of the Cold War.  

France and Germany were the twinned engines of European integration: France gave the political lead, Germany the economic muscle. That is over. German dominance over a drifting France is so evident as to be almost embarrassing.

The French can no longer persuade themselves that the Union will be France writ large, and so they are ambivalent. Germany, uncertain about power because of the way it once used it, is hesitant about assuming what it is: Europe’s leading nation. It faces plenty of misgivings, not least in Greece, about any whiff of German assertiveness.

Britain might have stepped into this void. Instead, it stepped out the way. Under a Tory leader, in the grip of diffuse anger spewing from austerity, it has gone on a euro-skeptic walkabout. A referendum looks likely on continued E.U. membership in 2017.

The deepest problem is social (with the exception of the cohesive German model). Healthy markets require an equal dose of greed and fear. For a while all the easy money in the euro zone removed the fear factor. The rich got wildly richer. Now the hangover from the meltdown of 2008 persists in far sharper form than in the United States, which responded better.

It is compounded by austerity, exacerbated by strong feelings of injustice, fed by the fact that in countries like Greece credit is not getting into the real economy. Without credit there can be no resumption of growth. Massive fiscal adjustments have been made but people do not believe the worst is over — and they blame the Union.

What, they ask, is this undemocratic thing for? Not for our defense (peace is taken for granted); not for our prosperity (it has dwindled); not to build a United States of Europe that will count (the idea has become fanciful).

Ingratitude and short memories are facts of life. The Union is suffering from them at a time when the euro needs federalizing measures to be a credible currency. The question is whether these needed unifying steps are politically tenable as a populist anti-European right is rising in France, under Marine Le Pen, and elsewhere.  

The federalizing path is achievable. But it will require new leadership to make the case. About 80 percent of the world’s growth in the past five years has been in developing countries. For a Europe of dwindling importance to break itself up would be to ignore the course of history.

Europe needs a persuasive idea of its future that can rebuild democratic support. It needs growth. For that it needs competitiveness. These truths must be told.

As the 100th anniversary of World War I approaches, the European killing fields of the 20th century fade. Their story, and how the Union stopped the cycle of bloodshed, and how it later cemented the freedom of ex-Communist states, needs to be retold.

The euro is a political idea born of calamitous European experience. Unraveling would provide a sharp reminder of the calamities. That truth also needs to be retold. I can think of no one better to do so than the winner of the German election in September.

Crisis can still be the federator if leaders have a sense of history and a view of the future that extends beyond tomorrow.

You can follow me on Twitter or join me on Facebook. 

France Goes to Hollande

Michel Rocard

PARIS – France has now conducted its ninth presidential election under direct universal suffrage. And, for the first time in 17 years, after three consecutive defeats, the left – embodied in the Socialist candidate, François Hollande – will return to Élysée Palace. Indeed, the first implication of this unquestionably significant election is that it confirms a return to stability.

France is the largest country in Europe to have so much trouble finding its balance. Its revolution in 1789 initiated a long period of profound instability, featuring two empires, three monarchies, and five republics. The French have gone through 13 constitutions in less than 200 years.

At 54 years old, the current Fifth Republic is the second longest-lasting regime since the revolution. At times, there has been talk of a Sixth Republic, which would address limited but real concerns and difficulties. But voter turnout in the latest presidential election (80% in the first round, and 81% in the second round) leaves no doubt: our current system is strong, and we French are attached to it.

But the primary importance of the election result is the left’s return to power for only the second time in 31 years. In fact, when François Mitterand was elected in 1981, the left had been out of power since 1957.

Back then, the Communist Party was still powerful, and maintained close ties with the Soviet Union. The prospect that the Party could come to power in an electoral alliance with the Socialists struck fear in opponents. The Socialists, for their part, had not yet shed their intellectual skin. Mitterand’s political program was a hymn to economic planning, and the free market was still, for him, synonymous with oppression.

Today, there is no longer international communism, or, for that matter, French communism. We remember having seen the left govern without drama. Its two passages to power – ten years under Mitterand and five years with Prime Minister Lionel Jospin – forced the left to reconcile with reality. France’s international reputation was not damaged, and, at home, the left’s performance, especially concerning unemployment, compared well with that of other governments.

So, there will be no panic this time. On the contrary, the left’s return to power appears to be an entirely normal, almost trivial, example of alternation in government.

In fact, Hollande’s victory was underpinned not by a leftward shift among the electorate, but by voters’ rejection of Nicolas Sarkozy. Indeed, the result represents a stunning and historic defeat: during the Fifth Republic, three sitting presidents – Charles de Gaulle, Mitterrand, and Jacques Chirac – have been reelected after their first term in office. Only Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, weakened by the long decline of Gaullism, was not.

The rejection of Sarkozy is very different; above all, it is a matter of style. There remains a type of royalism among the French, and our constitution has many features of an elective monarchy. With his over-familiarity, simplicity, and occasional vulgarity, Sarkozy undermined the dignity of his sacred function. This was not forgiven, and was judged more severely than the shortcomings of his presidential record, which was not significantly worse than that of his predecessors.

Moreover, in substantive terms, Sarkozy’s tax policies, in particular, favored the upper classes and the wealthy. So a powerful combination of social and economic anger emerged, particularly given the perception that the excessive greed of financiers and bankers was the primary cause of the crisis that erupted in 2008, and that still menaces us today. A social and political correction was necessary, and it has occurred with a vengeance unique to France.

But the state’s coffers are dangerously depleted, and France now finds itself among the many countries whose debt burden compromises the eurozone’s existence. Thus, it is now subject to the discourse of economic orthodoxy, which, in insisting that all debts be paid to the penny, ignores that public spending is also an engine of growth. Just how much will actually have to be repaid? With Germany as the primary exponent of orthodoxy, the debate has raged on.

But now we see that austerity has plunged Greece, Portugal, and especially Spain and Italy deeply into recession. The president of the European Central Bank, as well as the International Monetary Fund, acknowledge the gravity of the problem. But what happens if we refuse to accept Germany’s position?

The victory of Hollande, who has said that he wants to “renegotiate” the European Union’s new, German-backed “fiscal compact,” will weigh heavily in this debate. Furthermore, the Socialists now control not only the presidency and the government, but also a majority in the Senate, all of the regional presidencies, 55% of the country’s departments, and most major cities’ town halls. In less than two months, they may control a majority of the National Assembly as well, implying a concentration of power that has never before been seen in modern France.

The Socialists can govern without limits, so it is up to them to govern well. It is this uncertainty that hovers over the future of France, if not that of Europe.

Michel Rocard, one of Europe’s leading statesmen, was Prime Minister of France from 1988-1991.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/france-goes-to-hollande

Hollande Must Betray His Supporters to Save Them

Clive Crook, 05/09/12

French voters are deluding themselves if they think the man they just elected president offers a viable alternative to the departing Nicolas Sarkozy.

Francois Hollande’s socialist program is inoperable. Let’s hope he understands that. If he doesn’t already, he soon will.

Hollande’s campaign was a throwback to Francois Mitterrand’s failed socialist experiment of the early 1980s. The new president doesn’t oppose Europe’s fiscal pact because it needlessly imposes too much austerity too soon -- which is true. He opposes the very idea of structural reform. In France the government already spends 56 percent of gross domestic product. Hollande now promises, among other things, to hire tens of thousands of extra civil servants and roll back Sarkozy’s increase in the retirement age from 60 to 62.

He can’t think of a public spending program he doesn’t like. His rhetoric is stridently anti-capitalist. And he proposes to pay for this further expansion of government with higher taxes -- including a new top income tax rate of 75 percent.

France isn’t starting from a position of fiscal or financial strength. Capital markets were already nervous about its prospects. They will stamp on any conscientious attempt by Hollande to keep his crazy promises -- and if that happens, the wider crisis in the euro area will flare again. The question isn’t whether the crowds in Paris celebrating the return of good old-fashioned socialism will get what they want -- they won’t. The question is whether Hollande will row back from his campaign pledges quickly enough to avert disaster.

Tactical Judgment

The mood of jubilation among France’s unreconstructed leftists will make it difficult. And Hollande doesn’t have much time. Mitterrand took from 1981 to 1983 to discover that his policies constituted the alternative that Margaret Thatcher had in mind when she said, “There is no alternative.” Hollande may have just days to come to the same revelation. Looming parliamentary elections complicate the tactical judgment. Hollande needs voters to give him the majority in next month’s vote for the legislature. He can’t betray his supporters before then.

Whether it’s sooner or later, Hollande will be forced to acknowledge reality, and the disillusionment of the French left will be terrible.

But if it’s sooner, some good could come of his election. The European Union needs to replace or at least modify the fiscal pact that binds its member governments to curb public borrowing at once. It also needs an easing of monetary policy and steps toward a closer fiscal union, which would lift the threat of insolvency from its distressed sovereign borrowers. Germany has set its face against all these measures.

If Hollande tries to disinter the French socialist project, the gruesome results would strengthen the conviction of German chancellor Angela Merkel that brutal austerity is the only way for the euro area to overcome its problems. The situation would then go from bad to worse, and the stresses on the EU itself would be enormous. But if Hollande can pivot in time to a milder program of coordinated fiscal moderation, high but not punitive taxes, and long-term control of public spending -- policies not that different from his predecessor’s -- Merkel and the Germans may choose to bend.

That’s possible because Sarkozy’s defeat was a defeat for Merkel, too -- her biggest to date. She had allied herself with the outgoing president, at one point even offering to campaign for him. (Sarkozy ultimately declined.) Governments that yielded to the German formula for recovery-through-austerity have been falling all across Europe.

Renewed Uncertainty

There was another election on Sunday -- in Greece. The two main parties had promised to honor the terms of the country’s bailout agreement with the EU and the International Monetary Fund. Both were routed, and the country was plunged into renewed uncertainty.

This worsening turmoil doesn’t advance German interests. It threatens economic ruin. Merkel’s refusal to bend is building resentment against her country’s dominant role in EU policy making. If Merkel wants to preserve that standing she’ll have to be more pragmatic.

Merkel’s officials have already been in touch with Hollande’s team, and a possible compromise on fiscal policy is taking shape. There’s talk of an increase of capital for theEuropean Investment Bank and jointly guaranteed bonds to finance new infrastructure investment. If that happens, Germany will insist it’s not a renegotiation of the fiscal pact, but a supplementary agreement. The commitment to fiscal control isn’t being softened, Merkel will say, but new measures to spur growth can be adopted alongside. Whatever.

A deal of the sort being discussed wouldn’t go far enough but it would be a move in the right direction. Full fiscal union won’t happen in the foreseeable future, because Germany would have to be willing to explicitly subsidize other countries, and the other EU states would have to be willing to let Germany dictate their fiscal priorities. That requires large-scale constitutional re-engineering. For the moment, it’s out of the question.

But this isn’t an all-or-nothing choice. Europe needs to find a middle way. For the EU to be a going concern, it must combine some degree of mutual fiscal support with a measured surrender of fiscal sovereignty. Joint “project bonds” for infrastructure would be a start.

Wisely, Hollande’s campaign was more about posture than specifics. We know he’s against austerity and for taxing the rich -- but he hasn’t drawn up a budget. That must wait, he says, until auditors have checked the government’s books. This could give the new president cover to rethink his position on longer-term fiscal control and structural reform. If he does that and insists on short-term fiscal moderation, whether this is deemed a renegotiation of the fiscal pact or merely a supplement to it, his election might help Europe.

But Hollande can’t be a good thing without letting his supporters down. That’s a hard truth to contemplate in your first week in office.

(Clive Crook is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this article: Clive Crook at clive.crook@gmail.com.

To contact the editor responsible for this article: James Gibney at jgibney5@bloomberg.net.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-08/hollande-must-betray-his-supporters-to-save-them.html

Leaders fall in Europe crisis: Sarkozy next?

DANIEL WOOLLS, 05/06/12

French President Nicolas Sarkozy is widely expected to be kicked out of office in elections Sunday. If he goes, he'll be in good company: Almost every crisis-hit European country that has held an election since disaster struck in 2009 has thrown out its leader.

Here's a look at countries where political cadavers litter the landscape.

— SPAIN: A burst real estate bubble also deflates faith in a Socialist government, which is nonetheless reluctant to admit Spain has problems. Blips of good economic news are seized upon as "green shoots" pointing to recovery. Wrong. Stimulus measures are enacted, then crushing austerity. Unemployment soars. The Socialists of Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero are wiped off the map in November 2011 elections; Mariano Rajoy's conservatives take over.

— ITALY: Silvio Berlusconi, the long-serving leader accused of everything from bedding escorts to serial corruption, finally bites the dust in November 2011. He resigns to cheers and jeers as investors lose confidence in his ability to spur economic growth and rein in debt. It's the end of a political era. Mario Monti, a former European Commissioner, is named to replace him and lead a technical government until elections in 2013.

— BRITAIN: Gordon Brown leads the Labour Party to defeat in the May 2010 election; Conservative Party leader David Cameron becomes leader of a coalition government. Brown had been finance chief for a decade before succeeding Tony Blair in 2007. Brown had boasted endlessly of ending the cycle of boom and bust — but as prime minister he presided mostly over bust.

— IRELAND: Brian Cowen, promoted to prime minister in 2008 after being finance minister, doesn't even get to run. He resigns as leader of the Fianna Fail Party weeks before the February, 2011 election. It doesn't help his party, which suffers its worst ever defeat. Cowen was finance minister during Ireland's banking crisis and the collapse of its housing bubble.

— GREECE: Greek Socialist leader George Papandreou swept to power in October 2009 over conservative opponents, pledging to spend his way out of a deteriorating economic situation. Two years later, at the height of Greece's worst financial crisis since World War II, Papandreou's own deputies force him out after he endangers a hard-won bailout by announcing he would put it to a referendum. He's replaced by caretaker Prime Minister Lucas Papademos.

— PORTUGAL: A month after Portugal requests a 78 billion-euro bailout, the center-left Socialist government of Jose Socrates is voted out of power in June, 2011. Portugal's woes stemmed from a decade of feeble growth as it failed to modernize amid increasing global competition and dug itself deeper into debt.

— DENMARK: A center-right government in Denmark loses power in September in part due to discontent over austerity measures introduced amid the debt crisis. It is replaced by a center-left coalition.

— FINLAND: Finland's government is reconfigured after June elections following a sharp surge in support for nationalists who oppose bailouts for debt-stricken eurozone countries. A conservative-led coalition spanning left and right is formed to keep the nationalist True Finns out of power.

Bucking the Trend:

— ROMANIA: Romanian President Traian Basescu wins re-election in 2009, the year Romania's economy shrinks by 7 percent and Romania takes a 20 billion-euro bailout loan from the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the European Union. Basescu, a former ship captain, prevails because he is seen as a strong leader in a time of crisis.

— POLAND: This has been a rare European success story: It's the only European Union country that did not to slip into recession during the global crisis of 2008-2009. Last fall the center-right party of Prime Minister Donald Tusk wins a second straight term in parliamentary elections, making history by becoming the first government since the fall of communism in Poland in 1989 to be re-elected.

— ALSO: Sweden's prime minister is re-elected in 2010 and the prime ministers of Latvia and Estonia are re-elected in 2011.

http://news.yahoo.com/leaders-fall-europe-crisis-sarkozy-next-163043148.html

Hollande’s dilemma: back Greece or Germany?

France’s new president, Francois Hollande, could position himself as the head of Europe’s southern rebels

GIDEON RACHMAN, 05/08/12

IN RURAL France on Sunday night, the president elect took to the stage and announced that he would lead the battle in Europe against austerity.

On the other side of the continent, Greek voters were calling his bluff. By overwhelmingly opting for parties that want to either repudiate or renegotiate Greece’s bail-out deal, they have handed Francois Hollande a painful dilemma. Will he stand with the Greek people against austerity? Or will he stand with the German government and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in insisting that the Greek bail-out cannot be renegotiated? The choice Hollande makes will be fateful, for France and Europe.

Potentially, France’s new president could position himself as the head of Europe’s southern rebels. There is no doubt the Spanish and Italian governments have been cheering on the French socialist. They, like the Greeks, desperately want to see a challenge to German austerity orthodoxy.

Yet any French effort to isolate Germany in the European Union (EU) would be a historic shift in postwar French foreign policy -- which has been built around the idea that the "Franco-German couple" should run the EU together. Allying France with the European south would also damage France’s self-image as one of the stronger economies in Europe. The perception of France in financial markets could also worsen. Most damaging of all, an open split between France and Germany would cause Europe-wide problems, opening up a seismic fault in the foundations of the EU and its currency.

As a result, most analysts assume Hollande will settle for a few face-saving gestures from Berlin, allowing him to say he has changed the direction of the EU debate in favour of "growth". Even before he was elected, experts in Berlin and Paris were sketching out a likely agreement.

A putative Hollande-Merkel deal would go something like this. The Germans would reject Hollande’s demand to renegotiate the new EU fiscal pact. Instead, Germany would agree to a vaguely worded new growth pact, which could sit alongside the fiscal pact. In similar vein, it would reject Hollande’s demand for eurobonds. But it would probably agree to EU-backed "project bonds", which might finance specific projects.

A boost to lending by the European Investment Bank would also be agreed. This would be a typical EU, Franco-German fudge allowing both to retreat with honour, leaving the outside world largely unaffected.

The new eruption of the Greek political volcano, however, greatly complicates this picture. The Greek problem is now so acute that it cannot be "fixed" through a few cleverly drafted clauses added to an EU treaty. It demands real and dangerous decisions.

Specifically, will Greece make further billions of euros worth of budget cuts, within months, as demanded by its most recent bail-out deal? If Greece refuses to do this, then the IMF has made it clear it will not authorise the release of the next tranche in aid to Greece. That, in turn, would mean that the Greek government simply ran out of money. Managed, if painful, cuts to pensions and wages would then be replaced by something much more chaotic and dangerous. The forced exit of Greece from the euro would also become much more likely.

The raw numbers from the Greek elections suggest that this stark choice might soon have to be confronted. The two mainstream, pro-bail-out parties, New Democracy and Pasok, received only about one-third of votes. They will struggle to form a coalition government -- and Greece may soon face more elections.

Moreover, even Antonis Samaras, the leader of New Democracy and still the likeliest next prime minister, would argue for changes to the Greek deal. Samaras knows the fact that both centrist parties are now associated with a deeply unpopular austerity package is dangerous -- it makes the nationalist and far-left extremists the only political gainers.

Specifically, Samaras thinks Greek businesses desperately need lower taxes. But he has received no encouragement from German Chancellor Angela Merkel. If he makes it as prime minister, Samaras would position himself as a reasonable rebel, arguing against counterproductive German austerity policies. That makes him sound like a natural ally of Hollande.

In reality, faced with a choice between supporting Greece and supporting Germany, the French are almost certain to go with supporting the Germans. Yet such a choice would expose Hollande’s anti-austerity rhetoric as vacuous. A few gestures towards "project bonds" will be as nothing, compared with the vision of France standing with the IMF and Germany to impose deep cuts on Greece, while the country’s economy shrinks and unemployment soars.

The combination of political chaos in Greece and an inflexible IMF suggests that Greece will hit a new crisis this summer. At this point, the EU will face a momentous choice. Does it step in with yet more aid for Greece, even as the IMF backs off? Or does it refuse to help Greece -- accepting all the political and economic risks that come with such a choice? Faced with such a crisis, Hollande’s vague and uplifting rhetoric about saving Europe from austerity is irrelevant.

©2012 The Financial Times Limited

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=171187

Angry Greeks reject bailout, risk euro exit

Dina Kyriakidou and Harry Papachristou, 05/06/12

ATHENS (Reuters) - Greek voters enraged by economic hardship caused by the terms of an international bailout turned on ruling parties in an election on Sunday, putting the country's future in the euro zone at risk and threatening to revive Europe's debt crisis.

The latest official results, with over 61 percent of the vote counted, showed the only two major parties supporting an EU/IMF program that keeps Greece from bankruptcy would be hard pressed to form a lasting coalition.

Conservative New Democracy and Socialist PASOK, who have dominated Greece for decades, were holding less than 35 percent of the vote. That would mean they might only scrape the 151-seat threshold needed for even the most fragile majority in parliament.

Once mighty PASOK looked set to be pushed into third place by the anti-bailout Left Coalition party, in a stunning vote against austerity policies that have caused deep hardship in one of Europe's worst postwar recessions.

New Democracy was polling just under 20 percent and PASOK a humiliating 13.6 percent with the Left Coalition on 16.2.

In the last election in 2009, PASOK won a landslide victory with 44 percent and the Left Coalition had just 5 percent.

"I cannot take it anymore, living as beggars in our own country. The Left Coalition can shake them up, and wake them up," said Kate Savvidou, 65, a pensioner who deserted PASOK.

Left Coalition leader Alexis Tsipras, at 37 Greece's youngest political leader, hailed a peaceful revolution and said German Chancellor Angela Merkel should understand that austerity policies had been defeated.

"Greek people gave a mandate for a new dawn with solidarity and justice instead of barbaric bailout measures," he said.

In another indication of the extent of public anger, the extreme right Golden Dawn party was poised to take nearly 7 percent of the vote. This would allow such a party to enter parliament for the first time since the fall of a military dictatorship in 1974.

New Democracy leader Antonis Samaras called for a pro-European national salvation government that would keep Greece in the euro zone. PASOK leader Evangelos Venizelos also called for a unity government, saying his party had paid the price for handling the sovereign debt crisis.

But the small parties who gained in the election are all against the bailout, while being too divided to form an alternative coalition.

If the results are confirmed, the election could plunge Greece into new political turmoil, reigniting a euro zone debt crisis first detonated by Athens in 2009, and starting it down a path that could take it out of the euro.

The Greek electoral shock coincided with the victory of Socialist Francois Hollande in France's presidential election and was likely to add to pressure for resistance to German-led austerity policies.

Italian technocrat Prime Minister Mario Monti, who faces increasing resistance to austerity at home, phoned Hollande and other European leaders after the election results to push for pro-growth policies.

FRAGMENTATION

Several analysts said the unprecedented fragmentation of the vote could bode weeks of instability and force another election.

But a New Democracy source said the party would not ask for repeat elections if it finished up as the largest party. Samaras is likely to be invited to try to form a government on Monday.

"This election was suppose to punish major parties and if they didn't manage to get a majority it was a punishment vote indeed," said Blanka Kolenikova of IHS Global Insight.

Greeks angry at record unemployment, collapsing businesses and steep wage cuts ignored warnings that a vote against the harsh terms of the bailout would push Greece towards bankruptcy.

"The exit polls confirm what has been patently clear for some time: there's no political consensus for the kind of reforms that Greece must implement if it wants to remain in the euro zone," said Nicholas Spiros of Spiro Sovereign Strategy.

Othon Anastasakis, director of southeast European studies at Oxford University told Reuters: "Greeks are sending a very strong message abroad, which is enough with austerity."

As they voted, many Greeks expressed their rage at the parties who accepted the harsh conditions of two bailouts that have kept the country from bankruptcy.

"My vote was a protest vote because they cut my pension," said 75-year-old pensioner Kalliopi, her fists clenched in anger. "I live in a basement but pay the same (property) tax as someone who lives in a penthouse," said Kalliopi after voting.

"I voted for Left Coalition, even if this means elections again in a month. I feel vindicated, things are changing little by little because people decided to speak up," said 22-year-old student Klelia Avgerinopoulou.

THREATS IGNORED

International lenders and investors fear success for the small anti-bailout parties could lead to Greece reneging on the harsh terms of the program, risking a hard sovereign default and dragging the euro zone back into the worst crisis since its creation.

Euro zone paymaster Germany has warned there would be "consequences" to an anti-bailout vote and the EU and IMF insist whoever wins the election must stick to austerity if they want to receive the aid that keeps Greece afloat.

But many voters bitterly dismissed such threats.

"I don't think that voting for a small party will make us go bankrupt. We already are," said 53-year-old Panagiotis, a craftsman, after voting for the conservative Independent Greeks.

Greece faces an acid test as soon as next month when it must give parliamentary approval for over 11 billion euros in extra spending cuts for 2013 and 2014 in exchange for more EU/IMF aid.

That looks like a tough task even if a new government can be formed in time, given the success of anti-bailout parties.

Under the constitution, Greek President Karolos Papoulias will give the biggest party after the election three days to form a government. If it fails, the next largest group gets a chance and so on down the line. If they all fail, new polls would be called about three weeks later.

(Additional reporting by Rene Maltezou, Karolina Tagaris, Ingrid Melander, Lefteris Papadimas, and George Georgiopoulos.; Writing by Barry Moody, editing by Mike Peacock)

http://news.yahoo.com/angry-greeks-vote-cliffhanger-election-041733917--business.html

「民主」的意思和意義不在「選舉」或人民有選舉的權利或機會；「民主」的意思和意義在於：

人民經由「選舉」的機制，直接選擇領導人或代議士，從而間接「決定」國家的走向和符合這個走向的政策及措施。

「民主」或「選舉」機制並不蘊涵，更不保證，老百姓能夠或會做出符合自己利益的選擇；它只保證老百姓擁有「選擇」的權利或機會，也就是通稱的「主權在民」。