Phobos and Deimos

One of the trickiest challenges politicians face in every country is to make the case for themselves that the decisions they are making will be translated into benefits (or lack of harm) for the society if sufficient time is given. Of course, this is clearer in countries and situations experiencing major problems: people want things to change now, not when the forces of the market find an equilibrium. As it has been frequently shown by history, it is under such a scenario that radical propositions usually emerge and maintain some kind of popular support, and that un-institutional means for political action are used.

The recent events in Greece can be seen in that light. During the last week, some journalists and top political figures were targeted. None of them were killed. This kind of violence reached its peak during the early hours of Monday when a car passed in front of the ruling New Democracy party’s offices and a passenger shot an assault rifle at the building. No one was hurt, but the Prime Minister’s room was damaged. Some press reports underline that although political violence has been relatively common under the current environment of crisis, never before had it been directed against the head of government in the country.

On one hand, it can be said that for the time being there is no reason to worry. Violence has been symbolic and, by shooting the building in the middle of the night, the perpetrators (preliminary police reports and the media suggest that the attacks were conducted by radical left organizations) made their message more or less clear: they do not like the conservative Prime Minister Antonis Samaras and want him out. On the other hand, the second part of the message is that opposition forces are willing to use force to sack the government. Even graver, the press has begun reporting references to terrorism. The Prime Minister was quoted as saying: “You can shoot a person off a building, […] but democracy will not be terrorized.” The problem with referring to terrorism is that this threat could eventually justify controls over speech, association, or other liberties, fueling the pretexts radical groups are seeking to act, beginning a spiral that easily leads to no good place.