CPG: On the results of the- Greece - elections of the 6th of May 2012

KKE: In the frontline of the struggles from today against the new anti-worker storm

“The election results definitely show a reversal of the political scene we were familiar with, the interruption of the rotation of the two parties, PASOK and ND. We are moving into a transitional phase where there will be an attempt to create a new political scene with new formations, new figures with a centre-right orientation or based on a new social democracy that will have SYRIZA at its core, aimed at preventing the rising radicalism of the people that would lead things towards a true overthrow in favour of the people. There will be an attempt to form a government either from these elections or from the elections to follow, a government made up of all parties, or a government of national unity, or a coalition government aimed precisely at preventing the creation of a majority current that will struggle for change.


We address the members of the party, the members of KNE, the friends, the supporters, the voters, the people who cooperate with the party, to everyone who has been with us at the frontline of the movement and the electoral battle and call on you to be at the frontline of the struggles in the next days because we have pressing, serious issues which are in progress, such as the collective bargaining agreements, the protection of the unemployed, the bankruptcy of the social security funds, the new measures which amount to 11,5-14,5 billion euros which will be paid for out of the pockets of the people. We cannot waste any time. The people must not waste time.

We urge the voters of PASOK and ND in particular, those who belong to the working class and the other popular strata to be at the frontline too, together with us and other militants, in the struggles, in the workplaces, in schools and universities, in the people's neighbourhoods. They are the ones who have to provide a new momentum and a mass character to the struggle. We call on the people not to be deceived by the attempt to disguise the political system that will take place in the days and months to follow. The election results, despite the fact that the votes were scattered in both directions, right and left, objectively demonstrate a positive tendency: that radical changes are maturing or will mature in the peoples consciousness, that the movement of the real overthrow will mature and this movement will not be far from, or even more so will not be in opposition to the political proposal of the KKE on the immediate problems, for the workers' and people's power.

We consider significant, positive and at the same time a great legacy for the next period the fact that we confronted on our own the pro-European, pro-EU forces in their entirety, irrespective of the positions they took concerning the memorandum, the fact that we fought in order to promote our own alternative proposal which responds to and satisfies the people's interests. We consider that this proposal constitutes a significant legacy for the people and of course will add a new momentum to the people's struggles. We feel that our responsibilities and our role in relation to the people and their problems must be strengthened and we believe that, in fact we are certain, we will continue to be the irreplaceable force that defends the people's interests.

Regarding the election result of the KKE: of course the CC will issue a comprehensive assessment after studying the results as a whole and the tendencies of the electorate in each region so as to draw more complete conclusions. But we can say that the KKE literally went through obstacles on both sides. On the one side there was the anger, the protest, the indignation which was absolutely justified but it was mainly without focus and on the other side there were the illusions. As the results show up to this point the KKE had a small increase. Of course we would have liked a bigger one. Nevertheless, I have to say that the CC and the party as a whole had no illusions that the votes of the KKE could increase exponentially because the performance of the KKE in the elections is above all related to the formation not only of a militant people's movement but to the formation of a powerful majority current that will be emancipated from the well-known dilemmas but also from the regenerated illusions.

The KKE had made public in good time, before the elections and without any hesitation, what kind of stance it will take towards any government that will emerge from the elections, centre-right, centre-left or “left' as it was served up or in the instance of a government of national unity or an all-party government as is being discussed right now.


We clarify our position: of course we are sure that neither PASOK not ND will make us a proposal for cooperation. They are very well aware of the deep differences between us. But we would like to answer once again the proposal that SYRIZA repeated after the elections concerning a government of the left. We will answer clearly without invoking what we can all see, namely that the votes and the seats are not sufficient. Maybe SYRIZA thinks they are enough, as it will try to gain support and votes from MPs of all the other parties. We clarify our position: we continue to say no to the cooperation because in the final analysis we have not come to this no position according to our high or low expectations regarding the results of the elections.

We heard that the president of SYRIZA will ask for a meeting and that they want to hold private discussions about the programme of the coalition government. Logically whoever has made a proposal for a coalition government should have said in detail before the elections what they will do in June, in July, in relation to concrete issues etc instead of general slogans and general denunciations of the memorandum. Or at least they should have been ready now. What do they want exactly? We have only heard about some allowances which can be ensured or other such things.


Nevertheless a government, irrespective of its composition, must deal with the whole spectrum of the problems. It should not merely denounce the memorandum but return to the people the gains that were abolished before the memorandum - because most of the gains were lost before the memorandum- as well as many others abolished after the memorandum. A government has to manage everything and not merely the unemployment benefit, as was mentioned. It has to manage issues of economy, the stance of the business groups towards the working people, the list of the privatisations adopted in the previous years. It has to handle issues of foreign policy such as the general commitments that arise from the EU, NATO, from the strategic alliance with the USA. There is no government that tears the agreements into pieces, abstracts politics and only promotes the packet of measures of the next day.


In order to agree with such a government the KKE needs to make a U-turn, a summersault and not merely a small retreat, a small turn. It must make a root and branch change. And above all it would have to make unacceptable compromises that have nothing to do with the people's interests. Maybe the people are not interested in the ideological purity of the various parties, but in a party that all these years, from the very first moment of its foundation, has been in the frontline of the struggle does not want to abandon this position in order to gain some ministries. The people do not need this kind of KKE”.

ATHENS 06/05/2012
THE PRESS OFFICE OF THE CC OF THE KKE

பிரான்ஸ்: நிதி மூலதன நலனுக்கு சிவப்புச் சாயம்

The challenge for Hollande

Exclusive7 May, by Roland Hsu

The French have voted for François Hollande as their next president. Behind their choice was the important question of trust. In the US, opinion polls often ask voters whether they “trust” a candidate. In France, since 2007, the question has been moot. For French voters of all political affiliations, Nicolas Sarkozy had for the last five years pursued a vigorous platform of distrust — distrust of organized labor, welfare security, immigrants, rivals among the far right, and of compromise and traditional democratic process.

What have we learned from the results of the election? In round one, French voters relegated the incumbent Sarkozy to second place, but they also held the Socialist challenger François Hollande to a meager lead, and gave the far-right Front National (FN) a record number and percentage of votes. This was a reprimand to both final contenders for president. But the real story, and the one that will continue to play out into the new Hollande administration, is that, by design or by default, voters gave the party that most clearly vocalizes a politics of resentment (the FN) a loud voice — and a plan to amass a block of seats in the National Assembly at the next legislative election this June. This development warrants very close monitoring: as we look ahead we should see May-June as a season of continuous campaigning for the leadership of the political right.

The new generation of FN leadership under Marine Le Pen successfully undermined Sarkozy’s campaign, sensing the consequence of the Hollande victory. The FN under Marine’s father Jean-Marie Le Pen was focused on what it saw as problems in society — immigration and loss of the traditional way of life of the small shop owner. But under Marine Le Pen it is now focused on the problems of government.

She achieved her aim to break the hold on the power and politics of the right, previously exerted by Sarkozy’s Union for Popular Movement (UMP). Under Sarkozy, the center-right was able to appeal to voters swayed by its general platform of fiscal and social conservatism. Apart from those voters who were willing to support a marginalized party (such as the FN), most people who defined themselves as conservative loyalists had no option but to support Sarkozy’s UMP. But with the defeat of Sarkozy, center-right community loyalty has imploded, and will continue to do so for the rest of the legislative campaign season. The resulting vacuum offers the Front National the best opportunity since its founding to step in as the viable party to represent those leaders and voters who seek a totally reorganized right wing.

To whom can President Hollande and his ministers of finance and of labor turn for partnership, and with whom will they be forced to make deals? The new French administration may have to do deals with a block of legislators loyal to the FN in order to pass and enact major policy on economic reform, immigration and foreign affairs. Yet we saw that the Sarkozy campaign’s courting of the far right had the effect of giving Le Pen a stronger voice in the future of policy-making than even Sarkozy had calculated.

Will the new French government continue along the “Merkozy” path — the Angela Merkel/Sarkozy duet that pushed austerity? Or will it now, as Hollande promises, lead a eurogroup of “growth” economies, and push through amendments to the proposed treaty on Stability and Coordination of EU economies?

It remains to be seen whether France finds a balance between austerity and stimulus. But the evidence suggests that the new administration will not be able to push through either austerity or stimulus in any meaningful way unless it repairs the mistrust that has been created between government, industry and that underclass of the unemployed.

In France, fixing employment means bridging deep chasms between employers and recent immigrants whom we know face discrimination in hiring. Since coming to office, the Sarkozy government focused on lowering the “cost” of employment (relaxing termination rules, reducing pensions), but this did little to address the problem of double-digit unemployment rates for recent immigrants. To lower unemployment, one first must address social conflict; and to address conflict, France needs a dialogue between political and disenfranchised community leaders. To date, the record of such dialogue has not been good.

Political leaders have not prioritized making first- and second-generation immigrant youth employable. Those who live in the suburban banlieues of disenfranchised youth and the unemployed have not forgotten that Sarkozy, when he was interior minister, responded to the riots of 2005 by labeling the participants (many of North African descent) as racaille orscum.

That memory should serve as a lesson to the new Hollande government. It will need to devote real and political capital to programs of social inclusion and job training. And it will need to do so while trading legislative favors with Le Pen and her new post-UMP colleagues on the far right. This is not an enviable prospect, but it is the likely, and perhaps only, scenario for creating sustainable employment.

For Hollande’s government to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio, it must lighten the weight of pensions. But to do so is impossible without winning at least minimal cooperation from organized labor. France is well known for its tradition of labor militancy, but in the recent past this has been played out in relatively impotent rituals of periodic demos: the last nation-wide, effective general strike was back in 1995 (protesting pension cuts under President Chirac).

Again, Hollande would do well to learn the lesson from his predecessor. In 2007 Sarkozy began his term with his budget minister describing French labor relations as being in the stone age, and unilaterally rolling out an aggressive labor reform package that had the effect of invigorating the anemic unions. That led to demonstrations whose size and vigor surprised even labor leaders. The reform package was mostly withdrawn, and government, labor and industry leaders have since then mistrusted each other.

So the critical question for the Hollande government is how to restore trust and win effective cooperation from organized labor, industry, the international investment community, immigrant community leaders, and also the far right. Hollande has little room to maneuver, and no better option than to invite his finance ministry to the table with representatives of industry and labor. Hollande and his Socialist Party could be better suited than their center-right predecessors to court labor. Can they also craft bargains that balance deficit reduction, economic growth, social justice and the demands of the invigorated center-far right? Perhaps this is the most pressing challenge for President Hollande as he begins his term.

பூட்டின்: மூன்றாம் முறை!

Amid protests, Putin becomes president for third time
MOSCOW - Vladimir V. Putin took over as Russian president for the third time Monday, even as hundreds protested against his taking over the mantle again.

The outgoing prime minister, who turns 60 this year, has served two presidential terms between 2000 and 2008. Putin took the oath of office at a grand ceremony at the Kremlin.
The streets were near empty as police had passed orders to detain anyone wearing a white ribbon, the opposition's symbol.

On Sunday, around 400 people were detained, including opposition leaders Sergei Udaltsov, Aleksei Navalny, and Boris Nemtsov, for holding anti-Putin protests.

After his swearing in, Putin named outgoing president Dmitry Medvedev to be prime minister.

In a brief speech following his taking over, Putin pledged to strengthen democracy in Russia.
"I will do all I can to justify the faith of millions of our citizens," he said. "I consider it the meaning of my whole life and my duty to serve my fatherland and our people."

He said Russia is entering "a new stage of national development" and that the next few years will be "decisive" for the country.

The ceremony was attended by ministers, religious leaders and some international figures, including former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi.

Meanwhile, police Monday detained some 120 protesters, including Boris Nemtsov, for holding demonstrations in Moscow.

Putin has indicated he may run for a fourth six-year term too, meaning he could remain in power until 2024.