사이드바 영역으로 건너뛰기

게시물에서 찾기서른즈음에

유럽 좌파통합운동의 현황과 쟁점

  • 분류
    운동론
  • 등록일
    2013/05/23 18:51
  • 수정일
    2013/05/23 18:51
  • 글쓴이
    서른즈음에
  • 응답 RSS

"유럽 좌파통합운동의 현황과 쟁점-Syriza, Left Bloc, NPA를 중심으로"

 

이 글은 맑스 코뮤날레에서 발표되었고 많은 호평을 받았다.

 

한국에서도 변혁적 계급정당 건설이 추진되고 있지만,

유럽의 변혁좌파들의 고민도 우리와 크게 다르지 않다.

일독을 권한다.

 

사노위의 이론정책지인 <사회주의 로그인 02>(신국판 280p, 13,000원, 타흐리르)

http://www.aladin.co.kr/shop/wproduct.aspx?ISBN=8996816442

에도 수록되어 있고,

 

참세상에도 2회에 나누어 연재되었다.

http://www.newscham.net/news/view.php?board=renewal_col&nid=70266&page=1

http://www.newscham.net/news/view.php?board=renewal_col&nid=70294&page=1

진보블로그 공감 버튼트위터로 리트윗하기페이스북에 공유하기딜리셔스에 북마크

The Struggle Against Rape and Sexual Assault: A View from the Left

http://www.radicalsocialist.in/articles/gender/518-the-struggle-against-rape-and-sexual-assault-a-view-from-the-left

 

The Struggle Against Rape and Sexual Assault: A View from the Left

Details

Published on Sunday, 20 January 2013 10:29

Written by Soma Marik

The Struggle Against Rape and Sexual Assault: A View from the Left[i]

Soma Marik

 

The Current Mobilizations over Rape:

As a historian, I know that the actions very often have highly unintended consequences. Historical turning points occur, not because deep planning willed them into existence, but at the intersection of many cross-currents. So it is today. Activists of our generation have been campaigning for long over rape, demanding changes in rape laws, changes in attitudes, and a wide range of demands. But it was not our repeated campaigns, nor even the over a decade long epic protest of Irom Sharmila, that managed to shake the entire country. It was, on the surface, a single incident, the Delhi bus gang rape of early December 2012. We are aware of the vast numbers who have come out and demanded punishment, government action, who have protested repeatedly and vigorously.  Accordingly, we need:

·        To understand, why this tremendous anger, and how do we relate to it? There are reasons for taking this approach, because at some important points, the approach of the feminist movement may not be the sameas the approach of a part of the current movement.

·        To reflect and ask ourselves, where do we go from here?  What will our long term demands be?

·        To discuss ways and means, by which the movement can develop.

The anger is the result of growing hostility of the people of India, including of the well-to-do middle class which has been much more looked after by all the regimes – UPA, NDA, United Front – and not just the most exploited social layers. This anger and rejection was earlier displayed by the support given to Anna Hazare. I do not thereby express my support to him. I am pointing out that Hazare received mass support because he seemed to represent an alternative to round and round of corruption, criminality, violence, by all the mainstream parties. Regardless of his own motivations, which were quite authoritarian, the social base that was behind him was not finished when his movement seemed to die down.

And this means, when we discuss rape and struggle against rape, we need to discuss politics, as well as legal issues. There are two distinct dimensions to the politics of rape. One is the party level, the other at a deeper social level. All parties and their spokespersons and ideologues have been trying to see how best to use the current crisis. Being at the government both in Delhi and in the Centre, the Congress has had the most difficult time. Its approach has been to call for calm, to promise that things will be done, to put up Sonia Gandhi on TV with a puffy face (you see, she too had been crying at the tragedy) —a move sadly let down by Man Mohan Singh not realizing he was still being recorded and asking handlers, Theek hai?

The Sangh Parivar has of course sought to cash in on the issue. It has done so in different voices, since it wants to talk to different constituents. The Sarsanghchalak has announced that rape occurs in India, not in Bharat. Return to “our traditions” and there will be no rape. And Swapan Dasgupta, the western trained ideologue who uses tools of analysis taken from western discourses to support the Sangh cause, has argued that as a result of liberalization, a confident young India has emerged which is demanding, not supplicating. Only Narendra Modi can be its role model, since he too is anti-establishment.

The demand for the death penalty has been raised for rapists. This was of course raised long back by Advani in 2002. But only selected rapes of course. V.D. Savarkar had long ago argued that in order to teach Muslims the proper lesson, it was necessary to rape Muslim women in a big way. This agenda was put to practice in Gujarat. Even before 2002, it was in Surat (1992) that Hindutva rioters not only raped Muslim women but videotaped the act. A decade later, there were mass scale rapes, sexual violence as well as murders when of course Narendra Modi was the CM then. And of course, now we have had Babu Bajrangi and Maya Kodnani convicted for masterminding some of the pogroms. And again of course, it was Modi who made Kodnani a minister, AFTER the pogroms. 

When we are asked to campaign only for death penalty, or when we are asked to put the entire focus on law change, these are dimensions we are asked to forget. Who are we asking to change the laws? Parties that have supported pogroms and rapes. Parties that have not only kept criminals in their backyards, but have actually made criminals, including people with rape and sexual molestation charges against them, MLAs, MPs and ministers.

Caste, Communal and Custodial Rapes:

There are also other politics involved, beyond the Congress trying to save its votes and the BJP trying to garner them.  There is a class, caste, gender linkage which is complex. Rape, Arundhati Roy pointed out, has become part of India’s political culture. Police attack villages and gang rape. Upper castes attack dalits and as part of that rape dalit women. At this point let us look at some of the images that haunt us.

·         Rape and murder of Thangjam Manorama of Manipur (2004) by Assam Rifles personnel. No punishment for the crime. Protection of the criminals because according to the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, army personnel in areas where this act has been invoked cannot be subjected to trial under the regular laws of the country.

·         The Shopian Rape and Murder of Niloufer and Aasiya (Kashmir 2009). Cover up and denial of rape. Nobody punished despite massive struggles.

·         The arrest of an adivasi social movement activist Soni Sori on the charge of being in the CPI (Maoist) in 2011, and actions against her including stripping during interrogation, insertion of stones in her vagina and rectum. The SP of Dantewada who had ordered this, Ankit Garg, subsequently awarded the Police Medal for Gallantry on 26thJanuary. Soni Sori is still in Raipur jail, in the custody of that same police force.   

·        Rape as a part of communalism – The Anti-Sikh riots, arson, murders, and as part of that cycle of violence, rapes of Sikh women, following the death of Indira Gandhi, in 1984. Prime accused included Jagdish Tytler, H. K. L. Bhagat, Sajjan Kumar and other Congress(I) leaders. There have been numerous anti-Muslim, anti-Christian communal attacks, promoted by the RSS or other members of its extended network of organisations, usually called the Sangh Parivar. These include Surat 1992, where rapes were videotaped and shown, and Gujarat 2002, where a very large number of rapes were committed.

·        Rapes by upper and intermediate castes on Dalits. They include the Khairlanji rapes and mass murders (2006) case.

The protests in Delhi were legitimate. The woman who died, contrary to Arundhati Roy’s claim, in fact came from a rural background though she was working in Delhi, according to a news published by The Hindu.  She earned hardly enough to be counted as middle class. So the kind of left wing argument that simply slotted the protests as middle class, just because a large number of middle class women were present, is questionable. Middle class is a vague term. There is an ideological pressure from the ruling class for working people in urban, non-factory jobs to imagine themselves to be middle class. Rather than a Marxist concept of class, dress code, “culture”, and other factors are worked in here. So old petit bourgeoisie, professional and managerial layers who are close to the ruling class, and salaried employees who by any objective definition, are clubbed together under this category. Attempts to marginalize the protests by saying they are middle class, leads one to a position close to that taken by Congress (I) leaders who have commented that the protestors do not have a grasp over reality and other comments.

But one point Arundhati Roy and others make does need to be taken seriously. The rapists in this case were lower class, and it happened in South Delhi. I do not make this comment in order to argue in the least that therefore the rapists should be let off. But I raise the point, because we have not seen such massive outrage when dalit women, working class women in unorganized sectors, etc are raped. Trade unionists and women activists connected to labour issues know quite well, for example, that there are sectors (one can mention brick-kilns in West Bengal for example) where women have to provide sexual services to contractors and overseers in order to get or retain their jobs. Since rape even in its current definition includes sexual intercourse under pressure, this is certainly rape – but never reported. We, activists in the women’s movement, have more often been accustomed to rallies and meetings where a hundred people attending were often taken as a good sign. I do not therefore blame those who were out on the streets. I just want to stress, that unless we are active in allcases, a class/ caste/community bias will inevitably creep in. And also, unless we are clearly aware of the politics of rape, we will not be able to understand just why, for example, the governments at state and centre want to bring in death penalty for rape, but only in very rare cases. After all, there have been very many rapes committed by men uniform. Soldiers protected by the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, police protected in various ways, have to be sheltered. The moment we take up such cases, we go beyond looking at rape as action by a few criminals or so called perverts, to looking at rape as part of the use of elite power or using women’s bodies to gain political mileage.

Participation first, critiques afterwards:

It is however necessary to know how to make critical comments. What we have seen is a massive public show of anger and a rejection of government cynicism. We have to be a part of such a movement, we have to be out there, on the streets, with the predominantly young people who have come out, before our critical voices make sense to them. In other words, our first practical task is to continue to build the movement. Our task is to reject all platitudes, all tall promises to the effect that we can go home since the duly constituted authorities are looking after the question of rape, and punishment of rapists.

After we have come out once, twice, thrice, we also have to start asking, where do we go from here? And that immediately raises questions of theory, strategy and tactics.

In order to ask what practical demands are needed next, we must start with the overall picture of rape and sexual assault in India, as well as the legal and administrative reflections of the same.

In 2010 there were over 22,000 rapes. In 2011 the figure was above 24,000. But this is just the number of recorded rapes. There are far greater numbers of rapes that are not recorded compared to the ones recorded. Legal experts point out that many rapes go unreported. Due to "family honour" many complaints are not made, or are withdrawn and in many cases the police do not give a fair hearing. Medical evidence is often unrecorded making it easy for offenders to escape without any conviction, under prevailing laws. And finally, existing laws marginalize many actions. Law is a representation of the social order. Our society is deeply impacted by four types of hierarchies – class, gender, caste and community. And these interact with one another. Rape is seen as loss of honour, chastity, modesty. It is not seen as violence inflicted on women. As a result, rape is defined so that it excludes all torture of a woman’s sexual organs, unless there is non-consensual peno-vaginal sexual intercourse. Moreover, it is held that there is no rape in marriage. In other words, a woman who had stones inserted in her vagina, as was the case with Soni Sori, cannot bring a charge of rape. What she can bring, at best, under existing law, is a charge of molestation. She was stripped, according to her own assertion, but this according to existing law, can only be called “outraging the modesty of a woman”. And even if Ankit Garg, the then Dantewada Police Superintendent, subsequently awarded the Police Medal for Gallantry, were to be convicted for these crimes, what would he be given? According to law, for molestation and outraging the modesty, these are the provisions:

Section.509 of IPC, -- when there is an intention to insult the modesty of any woman by the offender by uttering any word, making any sound or gesture or by exhibiting any object, with the intention that such word or such sound be heard, or that such gesture or object be seen by such a woman, or by intruding upon the privacy of such a woman.

Punishment:simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, with fine or with both.

 

Section 354 of the IPC considers the assault or criminal force to woman with the intention to outrage her modesty. This offense is considered less serious than Rape.
Punishment: Upto two years imprisonment or a fine or both.

Section 323 IPCpunishes anyone causing voluntarily hurt(non cognizable)
Punishment: Upto one year or Rs. 1000 or both.

So the maximum punishment will be four years’ imprisonment, plus an unspecified fine. A more likely scenario, even if he was to be convicted, is just some fine.

Let me connect this with certain other issues. This is where class and caste and community become so important. The legal terms used here are significant. We are talking about the modesty of a woman, and about molestation.  Given a hierarchical society, patriarchy does not have an identical impact on all sorts of women. Bhanwari Devi, a Sathin in Rajasthan, a low caste potter by social origin was raped because she was actively campaigning against child marriages. I do not want to go into all the details of her case. But it shows insensitivity by police, insensitivity by magistrate, and a deeply caste-ist attitude of the court. The district sessions judge pronounced that upper-caste men could not have raped a Dalit!!! The State Government formally decided to move the High Court, but till 2007, fifteen years after the rape, the HC had managed to hold only one hearing.

In another case, in a judgement delivered this December, Delhi district judge J.R. Aryan said, “IPC does not recognize any such concept of marital rape. If complainant was a legally wedded wife of accused, the sexual intercourse with her by accused would not constitute offence of rape even if it was by force or against her wishes.” In simpler language, after marriage a woman has no bodily integrity vis a vis her husband. It is his to take when and how he chooses.

While there cannot be any hierarchy of victimhood, according to which the rape of dalit women, or the rape of working class women, is more heinous than the rape of middle class women, the media blitz in the Delhi case highlights the existence of other hierarchies. By separating this one case from the many thousands of cases (572 rape cases recorded in Delhi alone in 2012) the media and the mainstream political parties have consciously sought to draw attention away from rape as a systemic matter. And our demands and movements have to take these into accounts.

Justice and the Social Order:

The crucial point where socialists need to intervene is in moving attention away from talk of vengeance, hanging, castration, to concerns for the victims, and the causes of rapes. First, we need to take a look at what kind of a society we live in, that constantly creates rapists. It is of course necessary to demand punishment for crimes. But when we talk about individual criminals and punishments, and when the cases highlighted by the Barkha Dutts and the Arnab Goswamis are cases where lower class rapists rape individuals, the full picture does not emerge. It means, on one hand, we are not trying to find out what drives such people to violence. On the other hand, it also means that we are hiding rapes that are created, promoted, and orchestrated by the state, or by powerful social and political groups. Perhaps the clearest evidence comes from the media endorsement of Narendra Modi in recent times, ignoring the convictions of Maya Kodnani and Babu Bajrangi. Rapes in Gujarat do not matter, since Modi has won elections thrice in a row and the GDP has grown.

It is also necessary for us to campaign about rape survivors and helping them overcome their trauma. When we talk about justice, we need, therefore, to focus on first, justice in ensuring that the woman is able to live with dignity, and second, that the social causes of rape are addressed, instead of merely retributive justice, that is, getting vicarious pleasure at long sentences handed out to a few among many rapists.

Finally, historical experience suggests left wing activists need to be involved within the social movements themselves, stressing that rape and sexual harassment is not permissible within the oppressed either. If we do not want to condone any rape, and at the same time want to ensure widest class unity of the oppressed, we need to take our campaigns among the oppressed, not just to point out that the ruling class is hand in glove with patriarchy, but also to stress how patriarchy influences the toiling people, and building up a struggle against it. To reject or minimize such actions as feminist irrelevancies, as large sections of the left once tended to do, and as it is still a tendency that reduces serious campaigning, is to ensure that patriarchy will remain and revive within the oppressed.

The Right Wing Discourse on Rape:

The role of the state all too often is obliterated when we look at each rape case in isolation. And when we focus only on the loss of chastity and modesty. Take the Delhi Case and the reason for public anger. The rape occurred in a bus, which was taken over by a gang of six persons. What exactly was the police doing? Where were they when a public vehicle was de-facto hijacked? Instead, they and the other arms of the state were visible against public protests. The use of water canons is not my sole point. The core area of Delhi was shut down. The Metro could not be used between a number of vital stations. All in the name of security. Whose security was being protected? Not that of ordinary citizens – not the woman who would die soon, nor her male friend who was badly injured.

The demand for changing the law from rape to sexual assault is at the same time the easiest to explain and among the hardest to achieve. Based on events I have already recounted, and many other events we know, such as the use of lathis or other implements to insert into the vaginas of women accused of being Naxalites, separatists, terrorists, Maoists, etc, if we do not provide for adequate punishment for these, we are ensuring gross miscarriage of justice. But it is difficult, because of the mindset of a society which is deeply patriarchal. It is a woman’s loss of honour or chastity that matters for this patriarchy. If raped, she is supposed to have suffered a fate worse than death.

A woman who has already “lost” her chastity and modesty by having sexual relations before or outside of marriage, is not considered to have suffered too much harm; and the perpetrator is therefore not required to be punished too severely. Till 2003, the defence could try to cast doubts on the victim’s evidence by raising the question of her past sexual history. The Indian Evidence Act was amended in 2003 to stop this, but the amendment appears to have impacted only the guilt determination phase of the trial, and not the sentencing phase. The stereotypes have an adverse impact on rape sentencing. In cases where the woman’s behaviour does not adhere to stereotypical constructs, the men who raped them end up getting lower sentences.

Once we have a category of crime called sexual assault, and with clearer guidelines for standards of punishment, it would be more difficult to let off rapists/assaulters who are socially higher up, or where the survivor is/was not someone who fit the stereotype. This can be seen very clearly with the Park Street Rape Case. Even now, a TMC leader can openly say that it was not a rape case at all, but a conflict between a sex worker and her clients. The sole “reason” if you want to honour the ridiculous argument with that term, was of course that she had been drinking in a bar late at night. In other words she was not the ideal woman. Ensuring principled sentencing, one that is in tune with our constitutional values, is a better guarantee for justice to rape survivors, rather than legislative steps providing for capital punishment, chemical castration and the like.

That we have had 24206 recorded rape cases in 2011, and that we have over 9000 past rape cases yet to be disposed off in West Bengal alone, show things about state machinery – police, civil administration, and judiciary. Police show reluctance or even hostility to take FIRs and file charge sheets on time. Medical examinations are not always properly performed nor is there adequate provision. Cases move excruciatingly slowly. As we noted, even in well publicized cases like that of Bhanwari Devi, the trial has been agonizingly long. And here, once again, we need to note that while class and caste are not the sole factors, how far cases move, how they are handled, are also not totally delinked from them. I want to stress that there is nothing wrong in student youth being angry at the Delhi case, or the Park Street case. But we need to ensure that regardless or their class, caste or community identity, all women get equal protection. This means campaigning as hard over the rape of a woman who works in an unorganized sector industry, as for middle class women. And this will not be done by mainstream parties, by the police, or by judiciary, without relentless pressure on them.

This pressure has to be built up and integrated with any socialist strategy. Today, we find a large scale attacks on the women themselves. According to the RSS supremo Mohan Bhagawat, rapes occur in India not in Bharat, i.e., among “Westernised” women. Factually this is false, since nearly a quarter of rapes occur in rural India. More important, this puts the blame for the rape on the women. It is they who supposedly invite rape for having gone out after dark, for having worn the wrong clothing. And obviously, rape as a political action by Hindutva advocates against Muslims or Christians is excluded from this notion of rape. Then it becomes “just retribution”.

Another figure, a widely known “Godman” named Asaram Bapu, has stated that you cannot clap with one hand. That is, rape is not something only the males do. The women too are responsible.

Rapes in the family:

Advocacy of chemical castration is based on an argument that not real men but sexual perverts are the rapists. This has to be contested. Rape is not about sex. It is about display of masculine power. Castration as a punishment supposes it is only the bad individual who needs to be punished, so why not deprive him of the power to rape. In the case of the Delhi rape, as I have already pointed out, the rapists were lower class. Now it is being insinuated, and in cases like the Marathi chauvinist Raj Thackeray, openly stated, that poor migrants are at fault. These people, you see, are sex starved, so they rape. This is a class cum regionalist targeting that we need to combat.

According to the National Crime Records Bureau data for 2011, “Offenders were known to the victims in as many as 22,549 (94.2%) [cases out of 24,206]” and “Parents/close family members were involved in 1.2% (267) of these cases, neighbours were involved in 34.7% cases (7835 ) and relatives were involved in 6.9% (1560 ) cases.” So the rapists are around us. They are created by a society that devalues women. And a “typical” rapist is then created as an illusion, with “acceptable” class-caste-community configurations.

Some Demands:

Many of the issues have led us, along with others, (many women organized in the network Maitree) to formulate demands, some of which are:

·        Time-bound trials in rape cases through fast-track courts in each sub-division of every district of all states needs to be ensured

·        Sessions courts must be established in the geographically remote or otherwise backward sub-divisions where such courts do not exist. Concurrently, fast-track courts for trial of sexual assaults needs be in place in all sub-divisional courts.

·        Wide publicity from time to time in all local languages across the country of the State’s provisions for shouldering liabilities involving legal procedures (including financial ones) in cases of sexual violence against women is essential for ensuring victims and survivors, especially from disadvantaged backgrounds, seek redress through law.

·        A code of conduct needs to be in place to prevent stigmatization of survivors of sexual assault. Character assassination of survivors of sexual violence during trial or at any time anywhere by elected representatives, other politicians, public servants and the media, should be made a punishable offence.

·        Extensive gender and sexuality sensitization programmes for the police and judiciary at all levels starting from the lowest tier, and irrespective of sex, is a must for doing away with patriarchal biases, making the legal system gender-friendly and helping in the de-stigmatization of survivors of sexual violence.

·        The police stations and police personnel should be rigorously trained in human rights and women’s rights irrespective of the gender of the personnel. There should be intensified trainings to police personnel to handle cases of sexual assault on cis gendered women, transwomen, transmen. These trainings should include previous cases to make them more sensitive in their handling and not moralistically judge the victim. There is a need to provide for penal measures of police personnel violate such training and ill-treat victims.

·        The Gender sensitization program must include disability component for the police and judiciary at all level so that sensitization and a clear understanding about the difficulties of Girls and Women with Disabilities is developed among the police and judiciary and the system become disabled  friendly and helps to reduce the stigma, negative and apathetic attitude towards such women and are able to take appropriate action in case of sexual violence on them.

 

The most important question is, however, how do we want to achieve all this?

The protests in Delhi were sought to be shut down. Protestors were compared to Maoists and terrorists. The CP of Delhi called attacks on them collateral damage, using rhetoric from the biggest imperialist power on earth. Unless we understand that this class dimension of the state is also there, and will not go away, we will be fooling ourselves. Of course we must demand reforms. But we must not give in to any illusion that incremental reforms will end up by creating a good and just society. The reforms will be won only if we are out there, mobilizing and fighting. Why has the Verma Commission been set up now? The NCRB data is first of all available to the state. It knew better than us how many rapes occur in a year. If it did nothing then but has moved now, that is because huge masses were out on the streets. And unless we plan our mobilizations, if we simply feel tired and go back home, or if we are happy with a speedy disposal of the case in the Delhi issue, with hanging being handed down, especially with the woman dead, and forget the other 571 rapes in Delhi in 2012, the 9000 pending cases in West Bengal, and so on, then in the long term nothing positive will emerge. As Meena Kandasamy reminds us “In handling rape cases, several judges have proved themselves to be incarnations of khap panchayat chiefs. Two years ago, in dealing with the case of a gangrape of a minor girl, Justices H.S. Bedi and J.M. Panchal of the Supreme Court of India held that “there can be no presumption that a prosecutrix would always tell the entire story truthfully”. The above bench also shamelessly said, “In rape cases, the testimony of the victim cannot be considered to be the gospel truth.” This inherent suspicion by the judiciary is another act of silencing. The system tells you, speaking out will be a disgrace since you have to be disbelieved.” The idea that only the rapists are perverts, ignores the system which creates rapists and promotes rape as part of its political culture. We have to make this struggle part of wider struggles for human rights and for a better social order.

 

 

 

 

[i]This is based on several speeches delivered and discussions held with various groups in late December 2012 and early January 2013. As a result, it bears the imprint of a specific discussion and debate, though some attempts have been made to situate it in a wider context.

진보블로그 공감 버튼트위터로 리트윗하기페이스북에 공유하기딜리셔스에 북마크

이슬람 독재로 귀결된 이집트 혁명(2013.1.9)

이슬람 독재로 귀결된 이집트 혁명

 

이집트 혁명의 배경과 무바라크 체제

2011년 튀니지에서 시작된 아랍민중의 항쟁은 이집트와 리비아를 걸쳐 전 아랍의 항쟁으로 발전하였고, 벤알리와 무바라크, 카다피의 일당 혹은 일인 독재를 끝내는데 성공하였다. 아랍민중들이 거부하였던 그 체제는 무엇이었을까? 공교롭게도 이들 세 나라는 모두 세속적인 권력이란 점이 특징이다. 세속적인 국가란 샤리아(이슬람 율법)가 헌법과 법률의 근본원리가 되어야 한다고 주장하는 이슬람 근본주의자들과 다르게, 타 종교를 용인하고, 여성에 대해 억압적이고 차별적인 이슬람 율법을 강요하지 않는 국가이다, 이들 국가는 2차 대전 후 반식민지 상태에서 친제국주의적인 이슬람 왕정 통치를 대체한 국가로 그 의미에서 자주적이고 세속적인 시대정신을 구현한 국가였지만, 다른 한편으론 노동운동을 비롯한 민중운동은 물론 이슬람 근본주의자들을 비롯한 다른 정치세력을 용납하지 않고 정보경찰에 의존하는 장기간에 걸친 일당 독재 혹은 일인 독재 국가였다.

그리고 1980년대 이후 이들 나라들 역시 신자유주의 세계화 체제에 편입되면서 국가의 후견기능이 약해지는 가운데, 2008년 세계 대공황으로 인한 식량가격의 폭등과 특히 교육받은 청년세대들을 비롯한 높은 실업률이 항쟁의 배경이 되었다.

무바라크 체제란 한마디로 군부에 기반한 독재이고 여기에 특권층이 기생하는 반민중적 체제였다. 건설업, 방직업, 숙박업까지 국가경제의 40-50%를 운영하는 군부는 이스라엘과의 평화공존정책이란 미명하에 이스라엘이 후방을 걱정하지 않고 팔레스타인과 가자지구를 유린할 수 있게 만들어 그 대가로 미국으로부터 매년 12억 달러의 군사지원을 받는 친제국주의 세력의 온상이었다. 즉 무바라크 체제는 반민중적인 친미 친제 군부독재 국가였던 것이다.

 

무바라크 퇴출 후의 과도기와 이슬람헌법 반대투쟁

2011년 2월 무바라크를 몰아낸 이집트 혁명은 최고군사위원회(SCAF)의 과도적 시기를 거쳐 2012년 6월 무르시의 선출, 12월 22일 국민투표를 거쳐 새로운 헌법을 채택함으로써 새로운 체제로 이행하였다.

무바라크 없는 무바라크 체제라고 비난받았던 SCAF는 민중들의 열망을 짓밟고 낡은 기득권을 지키기 위한 보루였다. 그리고 2011년 말 총선에선 혁명의 과정에서 온갖 기회주의적 행보를 보인 온건 이슬람주의 세력인 무슬림형제단의 평화정의당(FJP)이 48%, 살라피주의(이슬람 근본주의)의 알 누르 당이 28%의 의석을 차지하였다. 의회의 다수를 장악한 이슬람주의 세력들은 군부와 친 무바라크 보수세력이 온존하고 있는 사법부 그리고 야당(친무바라크 세력, 자유주의 세력, 콥틱 기독교 세력 등)과 타협하여 헌법위원회를 구성하였지만, 이슬람주의 세력이 타협을 깨고 이슬람근본주의를 관철하려 하자 2012년 4월 사법부가 헌법위원회를 해산하였다. 2012년 11월 중순부터 시작된 반 무르시 투쟁 혹은 이슬람 헌법 반대 투쟁은 이슬람주의자들이 다수가 된 새로운 헌법위원회가 만든 헌법초안을 둘러싸고 시작하였다.

이집트 국회에서 지명된 100명으로 구성된 헌법위원회에서 무슬림형제단을 비롯한 이슬람주의 세력이 2/3를 장악하고, 세속주의를 부정하고 대통령과 이슬람세력의 권한 강화로 나아가자, 2012년 11월 17일 자유주의자와 콥틱 기독교 세력 29명이 헌법위원회를 사임하였다. 다음날부터 시민들은 헌법 재제정과 학살책임자 처벌 등을 외치며 타흐리르 광장에 집결하였고 11월 21일 수천 명의 시위대가 경찰과 격렬하게 충돌하였다. 11월 22일 무르시는 학살진압 책임자의 처벌 요구에 대해 군부와 검찰 최고위층을 해임시키면서 그 이하의 군 장성과 검찰간부들을 면책하는 조치와 사법부의 헌법위원회 해산시도를 예방하고자 새로운 헌법과 법률 그리고 정부조직에 대한 사법부의 권한을 부정하고 대통령의 초월적 권한을 규정하는 헌법선언(대통령령)을 발표하였다. (헌법선언은 최근 이스라엘의 가자지구 공격 때 미국과 군부 그리고 이집트의 자존심을 어느 정도 살린 중재로 무르시의 위상이 높아진 국면에서 진행되었다.) 극우들이 몰려 있는 사법부는 사법부의 독립성을 무시하는 독재라고 비난하고, 자유주의자들은 이슬람근본주의로의 회귀와 독재에 대한 반대에 나섰다. 현대판 파라오법이라고 일컬어지는 이 헌법선언으로 주요 도시에서 반 무르시 투쟁이 본격화되고 격화되었다. 무르시 퇴진을 외치는 10만 명이 넘는 시위대는 12월 4일 대통령 궁으로 몰려갔고, 다음날 무슬림형제단 수천 명은 대통령궁 주변에서 농성하는 시위대를 습격하였다. 이에 격노한 시민들 수천 명이 달려와 격렬한 충돌이 빚어졌다. 시민들은 다시 타흐리르 광장 옆 내무부 건물이 있고 2011년 무바라크 축출투쟁의 상징이었던 무하마드 마흐무드 도로로 집결하였다. 계속되는 충돌로 2명이 죽고 451명(이 중 경찰 160여명 포함)이 부상당하고 250명이 연행되었다. 시위가 거세어지자 무르시는 12월 8일 헌법선언을 철회하였지만 헌법채택을 위한 국민투표는 강행되었고, 찬성 63.96%로 새 헌법이 채택되었다.

무르시는 반무르시 세력-이집트 민중, 자유주의 세력, 사법부-을 싸잡아 혁명을 반대하는 세력이라고 몰아 붙였고, 이 과정에서 자유주의 세력은 반독재의 리더로 부상하였고, 극우보수인 사법부 또한 이슬람독재에 반대하는 전선에 얼렁뚱땅 끼어들었다. 낡은 지배계급의 핵심인 군부는 SCAF의 수장이었던 탄타위를 비롯한 한두 명의 최고위 장성을 제외하고는 자신들의 세력이 온존될 뿐만 아니라 미국의 군사지원도 계속된다는 점에서 무르시의 굳건한 동맹세력이 되었다. 토론할 기회조차 없이 한 달 만에 강요된 헌법채택을 위한 국민투표는 무르시의 승리로 끝났다.

 

지배계급의 재편-반동적인 이슬람주의 세력과 군부의 연합독재

2011년 이집트 혁명이 무바라크를 앞세운 군부와 사법부, 특권층 그리고 미국을 비롯한 제국주의 세력이 한편이고, 자유주의자들이 모인 제도 야당과 끊임없이 기회주의적인 온건이슬람주의 세력인 무슬림형제단과 보다 근본주의적인 이슬람주의자들(살라피주의자), 그리고 억압받는 노동자계급을 포함한 민중을 다른 한편으로 한 혁명이었다면, 이 혁명은 단지 군부의 권력독점이 군부와 온건이슬람주의 세력의 동맹으로만 변하였을 뿐, 반민중적이고 친제국주의적인 성격은 변함이 없을 뿐 아니라 여성과 시민의 자유에 억압적이고 반동적인 이슬람근본주의의 성장으로 귀결되었다. 그리고 무바라크가 억압하였던 노동자계급의 단결권과 파업권은 그대로이다.

이렇게 볼 때 지난 10월 이후 격심해진 이집트의 헌법반대 투쟁 국면을 서방 언론들은 단지 무르시를 앞세운 이슬람주의 세력과 자유주의자들이 앞장 선 세속주의 세력 간의 대결로 묘사하였지만, 그 보다 더 중요한 것은 무바라크로 상징되었던 반민중적인 군부독재가 또 다른 반동세력인 이슬람주의 세력이 군부와 동맹한 새로운 반민중적인 독재로 재편되었다는 점이다.

이집트 혁명은 대중의 격렬한 투쟁만이 아니라 그 혁명을 중단 없이 전진시키고 그 성과를 수렴할 투쟁 속에서 대중적 권위를 쌓아온 정치세력 혹은 혁명적 세력의 성장이 동반되어야 함을 다시 한 번 일깨워 주었다.

진보블로그 공감 버튼트위터로 리트윗하기페이스북에 공유하기딜리셔스에 북마크

긴축에 맞선 포르투갈 노동자민중 투쟁 (2012.10.15)

<격주간 정치신문 사노위 42호> 긴축에 맞선 포르투갈 노동자민중 투쟁 “포르투갈이여! 당장 자본을 뛰어 넘자!” 초강력 긴축으로 포르투갈은 신음 중 “트로이카는 떠나라! 우리는 우리의 삶을 되돌려 받기를 원한다. 너희들은 한 줌이고 우리들은 수백만이다!”(9월 15일, 포르투갈의 긴축반대 시위 슬로건) 포르투갈은 2011년 4월 트로이카로부터 780억 유로의 구제금융을 받기로 하고 강력한 긴축과 구조조정 정책을 추진하여 왔다.(총 780억 유로 중 300억 유로는 이자와 커미션으로 지출되고, 120억 유로는 민간 은행에 구제금융으로 직접 지출되었다.) 강력한 긴축정책으로 부가세가 23%로 인상되었고, 각종 간접세와 대중교통 이용료가 인상되었다. 교육과 의료예산 삭감에 따라 대학 등록비와 의료기관 이용료(의사진료당 5유로, 응급치료시 20유로 신설)도 인상되었다. 이러한 긴축정책에 맞서 포르투갈 노동자와 민중은 2011년 11월 24일 총파업을 벌였고, 금년 2월 11일에는 30만 명이 참가한 대규모 시위를 벌인 바 있다. 사회동반자협약, 노동자의 목 죄기 작년 6월 정권을 잡은 파소스 코엘호가 이끄는 우파연립정부(사회민주당PSD과 인민당PP, 민주통일동맹CDS)는 트로이카를 능가하는 긴축과 구조조정을 시행하여, ‘믿을 수 없는 그리스인들’과 달리 포르투갈은 EU의 충성스러운 학생임을 보여주려 하였다. 2월에는 ‘사회동반자협약’을 추진하였다. 이 협정은 포르투갈의 양대 노총의 하나인 CGTP(포르투갈노동자총동맹, 공산당 계열)와 연대를 깬 UGT(노동자총연합, 사회당 계열) 지도부의 동의를 얻어 진행되었다. 당시 UGT 지도부는 더 가혹한 트로이카의 안을 피하기 위해 ‘덜 나쁜 차악’을 선택했다고 변명했다. UGT는 2011년 트로이카의 ‘구제금융에 대한 양허안(MoU)’에 사인하였다가 집권당에서 물러난 사회당의 동맹노조다. ‘사회동반자협약’의 내용은 참혹하다. 연간 유급휴가를 25일에서 23일로 축소, 국경일 13일에서 9일로 축소(독립기념일과 공화국의 날도 포함), 해고수당을 30일분에서 20일분으로 축소, 유연근로시간 연간 150시간으로 확장(근로시간을 성수기에는 연장하고 비수기에는 감축하는 것), 실업수당을 받는 실업자가 실업수당보다 낮은 일을 받아들일 경우 실업수당의 50% 지급(이것은 실업수당 예산을 막대하게 절약시킨다), 연장근로 수당과 연 200%의 보너스 50% 삭감, 합법적 해고사유의 확장 등이다. 즉 노동자계급에 대한 노골적인 공격으로, 경제위기의 모든 부담을 노동자에게 지우겠다는 것이다. 9월 15일, 백만 시위에 나서다 9월 15일, 수도 리스본을 비롯한 40개 도시에서 100만 명이 시위에 나섰다. 직접적 계기는 9월 7일 정부가 재정적자 감축 목표를 달성하기 위해 내놓은 ‘사회보장기여금(TSU)’에 대한 조정안 때문이었다. 이 안의 골자는 사회보장기여금에서 노동자의 부담은 11%에서 18%로 인상하고 자본가의 부담은 23.75%에서 18%로 인하하는 것이었다. 그 결과 노동자들은 1년에 1개월분의 급여에 해당하는 추가부담을 해야 한다. 그리고 정부는 23억 유로를 노동자로부터 빼앗아 자본가의 지갑에 넣어 주게 된다. 하지만 재정적자를 GDP의 4.5%로 억제하기 위한 이 조치는 실패할 것이 뻔한 조치다. 그리스와 마찬가지로 긴축은 재정적자를 줄이기는커녕 오히려 경기후퇴를 악화시키고, 실업을 증가시켰다. 개인소비(-6%)와 투자를 위축시켜 이미 성장률을 3%나 떨어뜨렸다. 공식 실업률은 2008년 4월 8.2%에서 올해 7월 15.7%가 되었고, 내년에는 17%가 될 것으로 예상된다. 대중총파업으로 온 나라를 마비시키자! 9월 15일 시위는 노조와 정당들이 주도했다기보다는 9월 7일 정부 발표에 분노한 사람들이 SNS를 통해 시위를 제안하자 전체 민중이 호응한 것이다. 이날 시위에는 실업자, 어머니들, 공무원, 비번인 경찰관, 우편집배원, 의사, 소상점주, 머리 긴 젊은이들 등, 긴축정책으로 수탈당하고 고통받는 거의 모든 민중들이 동참했다. ‘정권타도’를 외친 이날 시위에서는 다음의 성명서가 채택되었다. “빵이 없는 불행, 집을 잃는 불행, 비정규직의 불행, 그들은 우리가 이런 불행 속에 살기를 원한다. 그리고 그들이 빼앗아 간 우리의 일자리, 그들이 부정하는 적절한 일자리에 대한 권리, 학교에 가고 일터에 가기 위해 필요한 대중교통비의 인상, 그들이 파괴하기를 원하는 국가교육, 아플 때 적절한 치료를 받을 수 있는 의료서비스에 대한 권리, 우리에게 속한 이 모든 권리를 빼앗아 간 이 불행한 사태를 우리는 더 이상 감내하지 않을 것이다. … 우리의 항의와 요구를 분명히 하자. 트로이카보다 더한 트로이카 정부는 즉각 물러나라! 그러나 간판만 바꾸는 또 다른 트로이카 정부는 원치 않는다. 우리들에게 강요되는 이 재난에 대하여 노조가 요청하고 전체 대중이 광범위하게 참여하고 사회의 전 분야가 참여하는 대중총파업으로 온 나라를 마비시키자!” 당장 자본을 뛰어 넘자! 민중들의 거대한 분노 앞에 정부는 ‘사회보장기여금 수정안’을 철회하였다. 하지만 이것은 작은 승리일 뿐 정부는 수정안으로 감축하려고 했던 예산을 부가세나 다른 요금의 인상을 통해서 보충하려고 할 것이다. 하지만 이미 우파연립정부는 존립의 명분을 잃었다. 두 좌파정당인 포르투갈 공산당PCTP과 좌파블록(BE: Bloco de Esquerda)은 정권 사퇴와 부채지불 정지를 주장하고 있다. CGTP는 정권 사퇴를 요구하였다. 9월 21일에는 국가의 비상상태 때에만 소집되는 국가자문위원회가 열렸고, 수만 명의 시위대가 CGTP의 요청에 호응하여 8시간 이상 회의장을 둘러싸고 피켓 항의를 계속하였다. 긴축과 구조조정을 강요하는 트로이카와 포르투갈 자본가계급의 목표는 분명하다. 노동자의 피를 빨아라! 그리고 이러한 공격은 자본주의가 계속되는 한 멈추지 않을 것이다. “포르투갈이여! 당장 자본을 뛰어 넘자!” 9월 21일 포르투갈 민중이 찾아낸 구호이다. 이제 전 세계의 노동자계급이 답할 차례이다. “만국의 노동자여 단결하라! 그리고 당장 자본을 뛰어 넘자!” 박석삼
진보블로그 공감 버튼트위터로 리트윗하기페이스북에 공유하기딜리셔스에 북마크

트로이카, 그리스에 또다시 긴축 요구(2012.09.20)

<격주간 정치신문 사노위 41호> 트로이카, 그리스에 또다시 긴축 요구 노동자계급의 연대가 대안이다 트로이카, 그리스에 주6일 노동일 요구 지난 8월 31일 트로이카(IMF, 유럽연합, 유럽중앙은행)는 새로운 구제금융 제공을 위한 전제조건으로 그리스 정부에 주6일 노동일을 포함한 긴축조치를 요구했다. 여기에는 월 586유로(약 85만원)밖에 안되는 최저임금의 삭감, 해고고지 기간의 폐지, 사회복지비에 대한 기업부담 완화와 같은 조치들이 들어 있다. 수차례에 걸쳐 강요된 긴축정책으로 그리스 노동자들의 임금은 2009년 이후 25%가 삭감되었고. 2012년 2월 시행된 최저임금은 22%(청년노동자는 32%), 공사부문 연금은 10~12% 삭감되었다. 사회복지 지출은 50%가 축소될 예정이고, 부가세는 23%나 치솟았다. 유로통계청에 따르면 올해 7월 실업률은 23.1%, 청년실업률은 53.8%, 사회빈곤층은 28%(303만 명)에 달한다. 1차 구제금융 제공시부터 트로이카가 강요한 긴축정책에는 정부지출을 줄이기 위한 복지 축소나 공공부문 임금삭감만이 아니라, 전체 자본가계급에게 수혜를 주는 해고수당과 최저임금 삭감, 단체교섭권 무력화까지 들어 있었다. 국제금융자본의 대리인인 트로이카의 목표는 분명하다. 노동자계급을 공격하고 짓밟아라! 자본의 천국을 만들어라! 긴축조치의 목표 그리스 노동자계급이 일자리에서 쫓겨나고 복지를 빼앗길 때, 부자나라라는 독일의 노동자계급의 처지는 나아졌을까? 아니다. 후퇴하였다. 전체 노동자의 4분의 1이 저임금 부문에 종사하고, 수백만 명이 일자리가 없어서 사회부조를 받아야 하고, 음식물 지원을 받는 사람의 수는 2011년 30만 명에서 2012년엔 150만 명으로 증가하였다. 누군가가 해고되어 가정이 파탄날 때, 누군가가 일자리를 못 구하여 쓰레기통을 뒤지거나 삶을 포기할 때, 그나마 해고되지 않고 밥줄이라도 있는 것을 다행으로 여기며 위축되게 된다. 그리스 노동자계급에 대한 공격은 그 자체로 독일을 비롯한 잘 사는 나라들의 노동자계급에 대한 협박이 되고 공격이 되고 있는 것이다. 이처럼 국가부채위기를 빙자하여 자행되는 트로이카의 공격은 단지 그리스 노동자계급과 민중만을 향한 것이 아니다. 자본가계급의 착취율과 이윤율의 회복을 위해 노동자계급의 몫을 빼앗고 후퇴시키기 위해 진행되는 유럽을 비롯한 전세계 자본가계급의 철면피한 공격의 일환이다. 반자본 투쟁의 출발점 노동자계급의 연대! 자본은 부채의 완전한 회수만이 아니라 동물적 삶도 감수하고 묵종하는 순종적인 노동자계급을 만들려고 하고 있다. 이것이 만국의 노동자들이 단결해야 하는 이유이고, 노동해방은 자본주의 철폐 없이 이루어질 수 없는 이유이기도 하다. 한편에는 국제금융자본을 비롯한 전세계 자본가계급의 첨병으로 IMF를 비롯한 트로이카와 결코 남의 돈을 떼어 먹거나 못 갚으면 안된다면서 트로이카의 주구 노릇을 하는 그리스의 자본가 정부가 있다. 또 한편에는 연금과 복지와 일자리를 빼앗기는 그리스 노동자민중과 ‘바닥을 향한 경주’로 내몰리는 전세계 노동자계급이 있다. 해답은 분명하다. 노동의 지옥을 끝장내기 위해, 전세계 모든 노동자들이 연대하여 자본가계급과 싸워야 한다. 자본가 권력을 끝장내고 자본의 착취고리를 끊어내는 길에 나서야 한다. 박석삼
진보블로그 공감 버튼트위터로 리트윗하기페이스북에 공유하기딜리셔스에 북마크

시리아 사태, 민중의 적은 누구인가(2012.9.13)

<격주간 정치신문 사노위 40호> 시리아 사태, 민중의 적은 누구인가 시리아 민중의 적은 아사드만이 아니다 2011년 봄 튀니지와 이집트 민중봉기에 이어 시리아 민중도 30여 년간의 장기 일당독재에 저항하는 투쟁에 나섰다. 평화적인 시위에 대한 정권의 무자비한 학살은 희생자가 3천, 5천, 1만, 2만 명이 넘어도 끝나지 않고 계속되고 있다. 잔인한 비극은 왜 끝나지 않는 것일까? 악마는 단지 아사드뿐인가? 시리아 학살이 끝나지 않자, 미국, 프랑스, 사우디와 카타르, 알자지라는 아사드의 무도함을 폭로하고 비난하면서 국제적 개입(소위 인도주의적 개입)을 촉구하면서, 제국주의 개입전쟁으로 나아가고 있다. 그 결과 시리아는 단지 독재와 반독재세력 간의 투쟁만이 아니라, 온갖 반민중 세력이 민중을 볼모삼아 벌이고 있는 추악한 비극의 현장이 되고 있다. 시리아 민중의 자주적인 항쟁을 억압하는 요소들 수십 년간의 독재에도 불구하고 민중의 압도적 힘으로 정권을 몰아내지 못하고 있는 이유는 반독재의 대의에 또 다른 악마적 요소들이 개입하고 있기 때문이다. 프랑스 식민지에서 독립한 시리아 민중은 반서방·반제국주의 정서를 갖고 있으며, 미국이 테러와의 전쟁을 운운하며 이라크에 개입하면서 민중을 학살한 만행을 보면서, 제국주의의 개입을 두려워한다. 터키에 본부를 두고 국외에서 임시정부를 자처하는 SNC(시리아국민평의회)나 내전의 주력인 FSA(자유시리아군)의 상층부는 반세속주의(근본주의)적인 무슬림형제단이 장악하고 있으며, 터키, 사우디, 카타르, 미국과 NATO로부터 자금과 무기를 공급받고 있다. 대다수의 시리아 민중들은 독재에 반대하지만 제국주의 세력의 개입을 원하지 않는다. 시리아 여성들 대다수도 여성의 인권에 대해 개방적인 세속적인 독재가 여성에 대해 지독한 억압을 자행하는 이슬람근본주의자들의 독재로 바뀌는 것을 두려워한다. 소수 종파인 기독교인들이나 소수 종족인 쿠르드족, 다수 종족인 알라위파도 종파간·종족간 싸움을 원치 않는다. 항쟁의 처음부터 인구 절반이 모여 있는 다마스커스와 알레포에서 대규모적인 시위가 일어나지 않은 이유는 여기에 있다. 포기해선 안되는 반독재, 반제국주의, 반근본주의 미국과 NATO를 비롯한 제국주의자, 그들의 친구이자 지독한 왕정 독재국가이며 여성을 억압하는 무슬림형제단의 본산인 사우디나 카타르, 2만명의 쿠르드인을 학살한 터키, 그리고 그들에게 영합하여 항쟁의 군사화와 제국주의 개입전쟁으로 이끌고 가는 SNC와 FSA의 상층부, 카다르와 제국주의를 위해 악의적이고 편파적인 선동을 일삼는 알자지라(왕정독재국가인 카타르가 운영하는 위성방송으로 바레인 민중의 투쟁에 침묵함). 이들 모든 세력이 민중의 바람을 왜곡하고 유린할 것을 피부로 느끼는 시리아 민중들은 전망을 찾지 못하고 있는 것이다. FSA에 참여한 대다수의 청년들은 분명 반독재 열망에 가득찬 자발적인 참여자들이지만, 제국주의가 지배하는 질서와 반인권적·반여성적이며 시대착오적인 종교적 근본주의자들의 책략은 시리아 민중의 전도에 거대한 암운을 드리우고 있는 것이다. 그들은 아사드 못지 않은 시리아 민중의 적이자 시리아 민중의 행복을 위협하는 악마들이다. 반독재, 반제국주의, 반근본주의! 이것이 오늘 시리아 민중과 전세계의 진보적 세력이 옹호해야 할 기치이다. 박석삼
진보블로그 공감 버튼트위터로 리트윗하기페이스북에 공유하기딜리셔스에 북마크

도둑맞은 혁명 - 다시 지배자들에게 넘어간 이집트(2012.7.15)

<격주간 정치신문 사노위 37호> 도둑맞은 혁명 - 다시 지배자들에게 넘어간 이집트 험난한 투쟁 예고 코미디 지난 6월 30일 이집트대선에서 무슬림형제단의 무르시 당선자가 최고헌법재판소에서 선서를 한 후 장군들의 축하를 받으며 대통령직에 취임했다. 2011년 2월 11일 이집트 민중들이 30년간 일당독재를 해온 무바라크를 몰아 낸 과정과 그 이후의 과정을 아는 사람들에겐, 무슬림형제단, 반동군부, 무바라크가 임명한 재판관들이 벌이는 이 광경은 그저 코미디일 뿐이다. 권력을 장악한 군부 이집트 군부는 아랍민중의 대의를 배반하고 국가에 기생하는 반동세력일 뿐이라는 것은 이미 알려진 사실이다. 그럼에도 2011년 2월 100만 명이 넘는 이집트 민중들이 반정부 시위에 나서자, 무바라크를 피신시키고 국회를 해산하면서 권력을 장악한 것이 바로 탄타위 장군이 이끄는 SCAF(군사최고위원회)다. 권력을 인계받은 SCAF가 저지른 만행은 수없이 많다. 몇 가지만 예를 들면, SCAF는 2011년 3월 시위를 조직하거나 선동하면 10만 달러의 벌금형이나 징역형에 처한다는 악법을 만들었다. 그리고 법을 앞세워 수많은 민간인 시위대를 군사재판에 회부했다. 또한 민정이양 일정을 걸핏하면 연기해 왔다. 2011년 11월에는 기성정당과 군부 군력 유지를 위해 “민선정부가 헌법 원칙을 위배할 경우 군이 헌법을 수호하는 기관의 역할을 하도록 하고, 의회는 군에 영향을 미칠 수 있는 법률을 발의하기 전에 군의 승인”을 받도록 하는 헌법원칙을 발표했다. 군부의 ‘혁명’배반 이에 대대적인 반정부 시위가 폭발하였다. 11월 18일 수만 명으로 시작된 시위는 11월 25일에는 전국적으로 100만 명이 참여했다. 이날 10명이 죽고 1,000명이 부상당했다. 이처럼 이집트 군부는 이집트 민중의 민주화 열망을 총칼로 억압해온 민중의 적이다. 그리고 11월말 선거에서 온건이슬람세력인 무슬림형제단과 알누아르 당이 다수당이 되자, 최고재판소는 지난 4월 구체제에 참여한 사람들의 출마를 막은 것은 헌법에 어긋난다는 판결을 하면서 의회를 해산시켜버렸다. 이어 지난 6월 중순, 대선을 앞두고 SCAF는 국방장관은 대통령의 감독을 받지 않으며, 군대의 민간인 구속권과 군사재판 회부권을 보장하는 것, 입법권·헌법조항 승인권(거부권)·전쟁선언권 등을 담은 임시헌법을 만들었다. 그리고 이를 위한 헌법기초위원회 구성을 발표했다. 여기서 대통령의 권한은 부통령과 내각의 지명권, 예산제출권 그리고 사면권뿐인 허수아비에 불과했다. 군부와 손잡은 무슬림형제단, 도둑맞은 혁명 무슬림형제단은 2011년 11월 군부가 헌법원칙을 발표하자 대부분의 정당들이 선거보이콧을 주장할 때, 선거참여를 발표해 민심을 배반했다. 이어 국회를 해산하겠다는 최고재판소의 결정을 존중하겠다고 발표해, 군부의 2중대 노릇을 자처했다. 뼛 속까지 기회주의 세력인 무슬림형제단의 상층부는 이렇듯 대중이 투쟁에 나서고 있을 때, 그리고 투쟁에 나서야 할 때마다 투쟁에 찬물을 끼얹고 김을 빼는 역할을 해왔다. 군부, 재판관들, 무슬림형제단이 공동으로 축하하는 민선 대통령은 희대의 희극이자, 이집트 민중의 비극이다. 결국 이집트 혁명투쟁은 처음부터 다시 시작될 수밖에 없는 상황에 놓여 있다. 박석삼
진보블로그 공감 버튼트위터로 리트윗하기페이스북에 공유하기딜리셔스에 북마크

그리스 노동자민중들의 투쟁은 더욱 전진해야 한다!(2012.7.6)

<격주간 정치신문 사노위 36호> 그리스 노동자민중들의 투쟁은 더욱 전진해야 한다! 총선 결과 6월 17일 재선거에서 신민주당·사회당 등 보수정당, 보수 언론, 유럽지배자들과 그 대리자인 트로이카는 ‘좌파의 집권은 그리스의 유로존 퇴출과 같다’며 그리스 노동자민중을 협박했다. 이런 가운데 치러진 그리스 총선은 노동자·민중에 대한 수탈로 국제금융자본에게 진 빚을 끝까지 갚겠다는 신자유주의 보수세력의 승리로 끝났다. 2009년 총선, 지난 5월 총선, 이번 6월 2차 선거과정까지 본다면 2009년 0.58%에 불과했던 극우 세력은 지난 5월 선거에서 19.93%, 이어 이번 재선거에서는 16.01%를 받았다. 지난 30년 동안 정권을 장악하고 있었던 중도보수세력은 2009년 77.39%에 달하던 지지율이 지난 5월 총선에서는 44.65%, 재선거에서는 49.79%를 얻어 재집권에 성공했다. 반면 좌파세력들은 12.74%에 불과했던 지지율이 이번 5월 총선에서는 26.88%를, 2차 총선에서는 31.84%의 지지율로 상승했다. 급진좌파연합은 긴축 반대 슬로건을 앞세워 제2당으로 부상하면서 유럽 지배자들을 놀라게 했다. 다른 한편으로 극우를 포함한 우익들 역시 예상을 뛰어넘는 지지율을 보였다. 과거 경제위기가 히틀러의 집권을 위한 기회였듯이 현 경제위기는 좌파와 함께 극우의 성장을 위한 기회가 될 수 있음을 보여 준 것이다. 결정적 순간에 후퇴해버린 급진좌파연합 6월 17일 2차 총선은 부채위기의 해법을 둘러싸고 ‘유로존 잔류냐 탈퇴냐’의 선택을 강요한 신민주당과 ‘긴축이냐 반긴축이냐’를 앞세운 급진좌파연합의 양강 대결이었다. 신민주당과 급진좌파연합간에 박빙의 승부가 전세계의 관심사로 주목을 끌었음에도, 선거참가율이 5월 1차 총선에서 65.10.%(2007년-72.1%, 2009년-68.9%)였던 참여율이 62.47%로 오히려 떨어졌다. 이는 부르주아 선거 속에서 희망을 찾지 못하는 층이 늘었다는 것을 의미한다. 이번 재선에서 급진좌파연합은 지배계급과 트로이카에게 분명한 대결 태세를 보여주지 못하고 기존의 입장에서 오히려 오른쪽으로 물러났다. 은행국유화 대신에 공적 통제를 내세웠고, 긴축조치의 완전한 회복이 아니라 2차 구제금융 이전으로의 회복, 그리고 임금삭감 없는 일자리 나누기와 주 35시간 노동을 철회하였다. 한마디로 동요하고 불안해하는 소부르주아층의 지지를 얻어 집권하려는 의도가 명백해졌고 급진좌파연합의 노선적 모호함과 그에 따른 정치적 한계가 드러났다. 위기는 유예됐을 뿐, 더 급진화된 투쟁으로 노동자계급(총 취업인구의 60%), 영세자영업자(20%), 실업자(실업률 20%이상)는 트로이카의 야만적인 억압과 수탈에 시달리고 있음에도 불구하고 이번 선거에서 자본의 ‘유로존 탈퇴’라는 위협을 뛰어넘는 계급의식을 획득하지 못하고 있다. 이는 투쟁의 미성숙을 의미하는 것이고 좌파 정치세력들이 정치적 전망을 분명하게 밝혀내지 못하고 있다는 것을 의미한다. 이번 선거로 성립되는 연립정부는 트로이카로부터 약간의 떡고물을 선사받겠지만 그것은 결코 대중의 불만과 분노를 만족시킬 수 없을 것이 분명하다. 따라서 조만간 연정은 다시 위기에 처할 것이다. 이러한 국면에서 좌파는 자본에 대한 단호한 대결 태세를 갖춤으로써 대중을 조직하고 투쟁을 더욱 발전시켜나가야 한다. 이번 총선은 그리스 좌파 정치세력과 노동자민중들에게 ‘계급투쟁의 진전’이라는 과제를 고스란히 남겼다. 박석삼
진보블로그 공감 버튼트위터로 리트윗하기페이스북에 공유하기딜리셔스에 북마크

아랍민중의 적은 누구인가(2012.4.11)

<격주간 정치신문-사노위 : 9호> 아랍민중의 적은 누구인가 아랍민중의 과제는 결코 장기독재를 형식상의 민주주의로 복원하여 단기독재자를 선거로 뽑는 것이 아니다. 진정 민중을 위한 권력, 민중의 권력을 창출하는 것이다. 2011년 1월에 시작된 튀니지 민중들의 영웅적인 항쟁은 30년 장기독재자인 벤 알 리가 도망가게 만들고, 수단, 오만, 리비아, 바레인, 예멘, 요르단, 시리아 등 주변 아랍 민중들의 투쟁에 불을 붙였다. 아랍민중은 무엇 때문에 투쟁에 나섰나? 지난 1월 4일 튀니지에서는 대학 졸업 후 일자리가 없던 청과물 노점상 모하메드 부아지지(당시26세)가 경찰 단속 이후 생계가 막막하자 분신자살을 시도하여 사망하였다. 이 사건을 계기로 조직노동자들은 투쟁과 파업을 선동하였고, 경찰은 시위대를 60명이나 학살하였지만, 노동자계급이 앞장 선 민중들은 이에 굴하지 않고 경찰과 군대의 폭압을 넘어 독재자를 몰아내었다. 부아지지의 분신은 단순히 한 청년만이 겪은 고통에서 비롯된 것이 아니다. 지금 전 세계의 젊은이들이 일자리가 없어서 고통받고 있다. 그나마 남아있는 일자리는 맥도날드 잡이라고 부르듯 서빙이나 편의점과 피시방 알바 등 저임금의 허드렛일뿐이다. 1980년대 이후 노동자계급과 민중의 복지에 대한 자본과 국가의 노골적인 공격인 신자유주의 체제는 일자리만이 아니라 그나마 남아있던 복지를 빼앗고, 민중의 삶을 유린하고 있다. 그리고 2008년 투기적인 금융자본의 노름판이 무너져서 대공황이 일어나자, 자본은 위기를 노동자계급과 민중에게 떠넘겼다. 2009년 유럽의 그리스와 프랑스 등의 노동자계급은 일자리와 복지의 축소에 총파업으로 맞섰다. 2009년 말부터 오바마가 자신들의 위기를 타국에 전가하기 위해 달러를 찍어서 전 세계적으로 뿌리자(양적완화 정책) 그 틈을 타 투기자본들은 석유와 자원과 식량을 사재기하고, 아랍민중들은 치솟는 식료품비와 물가고를 견딜 수 없게 되었다. 2011년 아랍민중들은 이처럼 단순히 장기독재를 참을 수 없어서 항쟁에 나선 것이 아니라 자본의 수탈과 위기전가를 더 이상 참을 수 없어서 항쟁에 나선 것이다. 북아프리카와 중동과 아라비아 반도의 최하 30년 이상의 무수한 철권독재정권들과 왕족독재국가들의 공통점이 있다. 이들 나라들은 석유를 비롯한 자국의 부와 자원을 미국과 유럽의 독점자본에게 개방하고 그에 기생하여 소수 특권층의 배만 불린 기생적이고 약탈적인 반민중적인 독재정권들이라는 점이다. 아랍민중들은 단지 형식적 민주주의 즉 통치자를 선거로 뽑는 자유를 얻기 위해 일어선 것이 아니다. 제국주의와 제국주의의 독점자본과 결탁하여 그들을 억압하고 수탈하고 있는 반민중세력들을 척결하고 민중을 위한 세상, 민중의 권력을 위해 일어났다. 그럼에도 이들 나라의 군부를 포함한 낡은 지배계급은 분노의 표적이 된 벤 알리와 무바라크 등 독재자만 퇴장시키면서 민중의 분노를 수습하려고 한다. 지금 이집트에서 보듯 그들은 고문기관의 이름을 바꾸고 대통령을 4년마다 선거하는 것으로 이 투쟁을 잠재우려고 한다. 그러나 우리는 보았다. 선거로 뽑힌 이명박과 국회의원들이 미국의 축산자본과 사료자본의 앞잡이가 되어 제나라 국민에게 미친소를 못 먹여서 환장하고, 온갖 거짓 핑계로 4대강을 밀어부쳐 투기꾼들의 기쁨조 역할을 하는 것을 보았다. 선거로 뽑힌 노무현이 비정규 악법과 파견악법을 만들어 KTX의 여승무원과 기륭의 노동자들의 피눈물을 흘리게 한 것도 보았다. 국민이 선출한 그들은 국민의 종이어야 하지만, 국민을 배반한 그들은 국민을 단지 통치와 억압의 대상으로만 볼뿐이다. 국민은 주권자가 아니라 4년마다 한번씩 유권자 취급을 받는다. 이제 모리배들에게 정치를 맡길 수 없다. 민중이 주인이 되고 대중이 자기 스스로를 지배하는 세상을 만들어야 한다. 아랍민중의 항쟁은 또다시 그렇고 그런 모리배들이 민중의 뜻이 아니라 자기들의 뱃속만 챙기기 위해서 제국주의와 결탁하는 그런 형식적인 부르주아 민주주의가 아니라, 민중이 주인이 되는 그런 세상을 만들어야 한다. 아랍민중의 진정한 적들 민중들의 투쟁은 이처럼 참다운 민주주의 즉 대중의 자기지배를 향해 나아갈 수밖에 없다. 그리고 그 길은 낡은 지배세력과 미국과 서방의 제국주의자들에게는 참을 수 없는 것이다. 그러므로 이제 반민중 반동세력들은 온갖 허울좋은 명분으로 민중의 항쟁에 개입한다. 바레인의 민중이 왕정독재를 밀어부치자 사우디 등 왕족독재국가들은 군대를 파견하여 바레인 민중을 학살한다. 이들 반동왕족들의 큰형님인 미국과 유럽의 제국주의자들은 이런 학살에 대하여는 입 한번 벙긋하지 않는다. 이스라엘이 팔레스타인의 양민을 학살해도 침묵한다. 리비아 민중항쟁의 초반에 카다피가 민중을 학살해도 눈치만 보며 입에 발린 소리만 하더니, 카다피 정권 하에서 고위관직을 지낸 자들이 카다피를 등지면서 카다피보다도 더 잘 제국주의 형님들을 모시겠다고 하자 갑자기 정의의 사도가 되어 인권을 운운하며 공습을 퍼붓는다. 이처럼 제국주의자들은 자기들에게 밉보인 권력에게만 인권을 들먹인다. 똑같이 민중을 학살하고 있는 사우디와 바레인과 이스라엘은 공습하지 않으면서 반미국가인 이란과 가까운 시리아는 인권이 유린되고 있다면서 군사적 개입을 운운한다. 아랍민중의 진정한 적은 군부와 왕족을 비롯한 반민중적 친서방 독재세력과 미국과 프랑스를 비롯한 제국주의 세력이다. 아랍민중의 과제는 결코 장기독재를 형식상의 민주주의로 복원하여 단기독재자를 선거로 뽑는 것이 아니다. 진정으로 민중을 위한 권력, 민중의 권력을 창출하는 것이다. 그것은 민중을 배반해오고 배반할 수밖에 없는 친서방 반민중적인 제국주의 세력을 끝장내는 것이다. 그들만의 권력이 아니라 우리들 민중의 권력을 창출해야만 한다. 아랍민중이여 전진하라! 반민중 세력과 제국주의 세력을 끝장낼 때까지 !!! 박석삼
진보블로그 공감 버튼트위터로 리트윗하기페이스북에 공유하기딜리셔스에 북마크

Starting anew with the Left Bloc

Starting anew with the Left Bloc

Alda Sousa, Jorge Costa

http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article2560

 

This article was first published in the book "New Parties of the Left: Experiences from Europe" from Resistance Books in 2011.

 

Starting anew

This chapter does not aim to be a political or social essay on the history of the Bloco de Esquerda (Left Bloc). Neither is it a journalistic account or report. Both authors are founding members of the Left Bloc and have belonged to its leadership from the start. We are in fact an active part of this story: the way we look at and write about 12 years of existence of the Left Bloc comes from our personal commitment.

We accepted the challenge proposed by the editors. In the last 12 years several articles have been written on the Left Bloc or by Left Bloc members in various anticapitalist newspapers, mainly in Europe.

However, with this chapter, we present further information which allows the reader to get a clearer picture of how and in which political climate the Bloc was founded and how it has developed. Why was the decision taken to launch a new organisation instead of an alliance or coalition? How was it done? How did the former organizations relate to this process? Did they fuse in the Left Bloc? How do you become a member? How are the leaderships elected? Who chooses the comrades who will eventually become MPs or councillors if they are elected? What does our parliamentary work look like? How do we use our strong presence in Parliament? What does our political and social work outside Parliament look like? Do we define ourselves as anticapitalist s? How do we relate to other political forces on the left? Are we clear about forming a into government with social democracy or not? Which were the major and more difficult choices the Left Bloc had to face?

Actually, these are some of the core questions which both of us have been asked over the years when talking to members of other European anticapitalist organizations.

A success so far.... very much due to the initial choices

From the start, and especially after, or just before, another success of the Left Bloc, many political commentators, journalists and politicians from other groups have predicted and announced its imminent demise. The “caviar left”, the “impossible union between Trotskyists and Maoists”, a bunch of “trendy intellectuals aside from social reality”, were some of the epithets we have been awarded. When the Left Bloc won 3% of the votes some commentators predicted that it had reached a peak from which it could only fall. But the Left Bloc continued to grow, to 6.8% and 10%. Not only did the Left Bloc not disappear, it became an inescapable political force which changed the political landscape. It has became a party that counts, able to prove in practice that we are not doomed to be smashed by neo-liberal capitalism and that some small victories are possible even in the context of a fierce capitalist offensive. This is particularly relevant in a defensive period, since it is important to show that struggle pays. Today it is impossible to imagine Portuguese politics without the Left Bloc. As to the criticism of being just a bunch of trendy intellectuals (as opposed to the Communist Party who is supposed to be “the” working class party, even for right wing commentators), one just has to attend any of our national conferences or public meetings, to realize how plural and diverse the Left Bloc is in terms of jobs, culture, generation, political experience.

People of all ages, retired, casually employed youth, unemployed, service workers, factory workers, rural workers, intellectuals, university teachers, students, immigrants, people who lived underground or left the country before 1974 and people for whom the Left Bloc is the first politically organized militancy, the Left Bloc has many colours.

Nearly 12 years after its foundation, we are convinced that the “key” to the success of the Bloc rests on the initial decision to set up a new party, instead of a coalition or an alliance of forces. This new party was not founded on the basis of historical or programmatic affinities and a priori ideological cohesion, but rather on a common understanding and analysis of the current global political situation, the role of capitalism and imperialism and therefore on the basis of the political confrontations which would shape our activity.

The possibility of building this regroupment in a very defensive situation, with people from different political origins and traditions, implied that we had to be able to formulate concrete political proposals and to have an impact on society. That is why started by discussing not a programme of historical reference, but a programme of political intervention.

One of the consequences of this decision was, over the years, the building of a new and strong political leadership.

The workers’ movement and the Portuguese political parties

It may be difficult to understand the changes that the Left Bloc brought about without setting it in the context of Portuguese society and its specific political and social history. The Portuguese bourgeoisie had been weak in the 19th and 20th centuries compared to other European ones. The late industrialization of the country gave rise to a working class which was still embryonic at the end of the 19th century. In 1910 the monarchy was overthrown and the Republic installed.

From 1910 to 1926 (when the fascist coup took place), the major current within the workers’ movement was the anarchists. Their newspaper “A Batalha” (The Battle) was the most read paper in the country. The Socialist Party (SP), social-democrats linked to the Second International, was already weak. After agreeing with the decision of Portugal to enter the First World War, their credibility declined to the point that they virtually disappeared, only re-emerging as an organization again in 1973, a year before the fall of the dictatorship. Today the SP is a quite inorganic force within the labour movement, in spite of the number of votes it gets among sectors of the working class and the poor.

The Communist Party (CP) was founded in 1921. It was not, as in most countries, a split from social democracy, but rather a convergence of anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists and other sectors of the working class. In fact the CP was the only political force to survive the strong and severe repression that the dictatorship imposed on the working class, intellectuals and society as a whole after 1926, although later some other organizations were created under dictatorship.

In the mid 1940s, the CP adopted a strategy of entering the national trade unions created by the Salazar regime. To some extent it proved to be useful, as they were able to influence the leaderships and call for some strikes in very difficult repressive conditions. A large confederation of trade-unions, the CGTP-Intersindical, was created in 1970, when the regime had somewhat softened.

Together with the prestige of the CP leaders (who endured many years of prison, torture, and of living underground), this has allowed the CP to have control of the organized workers movement when the dictatorship was overthrown in 1974 and thereafter. This partially explains why the workers’ movement, dismembered by the repression and without a public existence, was not able to stand autonomously. Moreover, even during the pre-revolutionary years of 1974/5, only a minority of advanced workers raised the question of taking power.

The working class and the left parties at the fall of the dictatorship

25th April 1974 marked the end of a 48 year dictatorship and the start of a pre-revolutionary process which was to last until November 1975. On 30 April Álvaro Cunhal (the CP General Secretary) returned from his long exile in the former USSR and Mário Soares (the SP leader) comes back from Paris. A huge crowd greets them as their trains arrive at Lisbon Central Station. 1st May 1974 saw the largest ever demonstration in Portugal, 1.5 million people gathering at a football stadium with the two leaders side by side speaking to the crowd.

Of all the organizations that became open and legal after April 1974, the CP was obviously the largest and best organized. But other organizations, especially with a Maoist origin (coming from a 1964 split of the CP, following the impact of the Sino-Soviet conflict), were also very important. União Democrática Popular (UDP) had, at one time, several thousand members and managed to elect one MP in Lisbon on several occasions (in 1975 for the Constituent Assembly, in 1976 for the first elected Parliament and again in 1979). Also organisations like Movement of the Socialist Left (MES), with its origins among Left Catholics, students and intellectuals, played an important role against the colonial war before 1974. The Proletarian Revolutionary Party (PRP) was a split from the CP who turned into armed struggle in last years of dictatorship. The Communist Internationalist League (LCI), the Portuguese section of the Fourth International, was founded only a few months before April 1974 but it also played an important role in that period, not only in its mistrust of the large alliance of classes with the military advocated by the CP but also in contributing to an independent organisation of workers and of the soldiers. Soldados Unidos Vencerão (United Soldiers will Win) (SUV) were very much influenced by the LCI who later became the Partido Socialista Revolucionário (PSR) in 1979.

In May 1974, Ernest Mandel was the invited speaker at a very large meeting held in Lisbon, called by several organisations besides the LCI. The question of independence of the former colonies was key.

However, with the normalisation following November 1975 most of these organisations collapsed or were incapable of resisting the capitalist offensive that followed. Some, like MES, even dissolved into a large talking shop. The UDP and PSR were the organisations most able to fight back and resist. Even though that first experience was not very successful, the UDP and PSR made an electoral coalition in 1983 in Lisbon and Porto.

Throughout the 1980s the PSR was engaged in several important activities like feminist work, student work against the fees, anti-racist work, anti-militarist work (for which we paid with the murder of José Carvalho, one of our leaders, by a band of skinheads in 1989). The end of the 1980s and 1990s were also marked by several experiences of opening up and relating to other currents and individuals. In 1987, Combate, formerly the PSR monthly newspaper, turned into a much wider project where several journalists and intellectuals formed the majority of editorial board although they were not members of the PSR. That allowed for a much wider audience and the collaboration of different sectors of the Left who were certainly not prepared to join the PSR but who played a major role in these years of resistance and strong debate.

In 1991 an important group left or was expelled from the CP. While some of them quickly joined the SP, others, like Miguel Portas, were to set up a new group called Política XXI. By the end of 1997, the PSR and Política XXI formed a coalition in the local elections in Lisbon and Porto.

The question of abortion: from a taboo to the 1998 referendum

The 1886 Portuguese Penal Code considered abortion a crime and women could be sentenced to from two to eight years in prison. In 1974, some small but radical women’s groups raised the question of legalizing abortion. A small group of doctors even organized a clinic where early abortions could be performed within a safe setting. This clinic was to be closed later on, during the normalization years. The LCI was the first political force to also stand for abortion rights. But as late as 1978, several years after the fall of the dictatorship and when abortion was already legal in many European countries, the CP claimed that it was not a question felt by working-class women who, according to them, were only worried about the rise in the cost of living and not interested in abortion rights.

In 1979, the National Abortion and Contraception Campaign (CNAC) was set up, petitioning for a change in the law. Later that year, Maria Antónia Palla, a journalist, was taken to court and was accused of incitement to abortion, because she had produced a TV programme on backstreet abortion in 1976! In the same year, Conceição Massano, a young woman from a village in Alentejo, was denounced by a neighbour who had read her diary where she had written about an earlier experience of abortion. The solidarity movement was so strong that none of the judges convicted them.

Only in 1984 did the law make its first change, proposed by the SP: abortion became legal in case of rape, where the mother’s health was really in danger (up to 12 weeks of pregnancy) or in case of malformation of the foetus (up to 24 weeks). In all other cases, that is, when a woman decided to terminate a pregnancy because she did not want to have that child, abortion remained forbidden; the penalty also changed, reduced to up to three years of imprisonment.

In 1998 the SP was in government with a relative majority in Parliament. A group of young socialist MPs introduced a bill to decriminalise abortion on demand up to 12 weeks of pregnancy. It was passed by three votes. Under the pressure of the conservatives, and being himself quite conservative on this issue, the Prime Minister António Guterres proposed a referendum on “Do you agree with decriminalising abortion when requested by women, up to ten weeks into pregnancy, and performed in an authorised health institution?”

It was held on 28 June 1998: only 31.9% voted, a massive abstention for Portuguese standards: the NO result had an extremely narrow victory, 50.07% to 48.28% who voted YES. So, the penal code which criminalised abortion, with the threat of up to three years in jail, did not change then. It had to wait until the new referendum which took place in 2007.

The aftermath of the referendum and the founding of the Left Bloc

Profound defeats often contribute to the dismantling of political organizations. But they may also be an opportunity to learn from its lessons and to build new alternatives. That is precisely what happened in Portugal after the first referendum on abortion, which came in a period of political retreat, after an accumulation of right wing offensives and a series of defeats for the working class.

Most of the present leaders of the Left Bloc as well as many members of the three founding organizations were then engaged in the campaign, either in their former party’s campaign or in a broad umbrella movement which campaigned for decriminalisation, together with feminists, members of the CP and members of the SP (very divided internally on that question). The broad pro-choice movement did not really have a strategy to win. It both underestimated the offensive of the Catholic Church and of the right while making its campaign too self-confident.

The weakness of the radical left then became more apparent, leading to debates within each of the three organisations that later founded the Left Bloc. What is the value of a left organisation if we are neither able to stop the attacks of the ruling class nor to win a referendum on abortion?

It was Luís Fazenda, at the time the General Secretary of UDP, who took the initiative to contact first Fernando Rosas, a well-known and respected historian, a former CP militant and a former leader of the Movimento Reorganizativo do Partido do Proletariado (MRPP) who became a fellow traveller of the PSR in the 1980s. He then contacted Francisco Louçã who contacted Miguel Portas from Política XXI. In a video produced at the Left Bloc’s tenth anniversary, Fernando Rosas recalls his first meeting with Fazenda: “His idea was very clearly to go forward in creating a new political project, not just an electoral coalition”. The four of them started to meet regularly to discuss their analysis of capitalism, imperialism, the political forces in Portugal and the political answers that were so badly needed.

At a later stage, meetings took place not just among the four of them but of delegations from each of the three organisations and also some independents who became very enthusiastic about the possibility of creating a larger left platform. When a quite broad political agreement was reached, the next difficult decision was whether to create just an electoral coalition or an alliance or else to found a new party

Founding a quite unorthodox new party

After several months of meetings it became clear that an electoral coalition or an alliance would show little ambition. It would have been too short a project leaving many left militants with the impression that they were together just to secure seats in Parliament and not necessarily to make the much needed changes.

This proved to be right. The fact that the Left Bloc was set up as a new party made it possible for many activists from the left -trade-unionists, members of workers’ committees, feminists, ecologists, activists from other social movements, along with many well-known left intellectuals, to take part in the process. So we brought together very different traditions, coming from the CP, Maoist or revolutionary Marxist (Trotskyist) currents, as well as people from independent social movements.

At the end of 1998, start of 1999, each of the three organisations held a conference to explicitly discuss and vote on the question of making just an electoral coalition or launching a new party. Although at each conference there were militants who just wanted a coalition, the vast majority of delegates voted enthusiastically for the proposal of setting up a new party.

The Left Bloc was deliberately not a homogeneous political force with a defined ideological profile. Besides being a pluralist organization, its definition stemmed more from the concrete needs of intervention, the political confrontations that were bound to shape our activity than from an a priori ideological cohesion. So, the appeal that brought together the founding members of the Left Bloc was at the same time vague and very ambitious.

Bloco de Esquerda foundation: the appeal “Starting Anew” (1999)

“Bloco takes over the great traditions of popular struggle in the country, learning from other experiences and challenges. Bloco renews the legacy of Socialism and incorporates the convergent contributions of several citizens, powers and movements that have throughout the years been engaged in searching for alternatives to capitalism. This is the starting point to build a popular, plural, effective, influential and militant Left able to rebuild Hope.”

Between February and April 1999, many public meetings took place in the main urban centres of Portugal, having as speakers not just one of the leaders of the three organizations but also independents such as Fernando Rosas or José Mário Branco. These meetings were always packed, they attracted many people, not just the organizations’ rank-and-file but also many young people who had started to radicalize, and older militants from all left currents, “orphans” of former left organizations who had never given in to reformist ideas. Since affiliation to the Left Bloc is on an individual not on a collective basis, this allowed many left individuals and activists to join without having to make a choice between each of the three currents.

Fernando Rosas commented recently: “I think that a very important factor was the political and personal trust that was established between the four founders and the commitment that was established among us that the Bloc was more important than the sum of each of its components. Therefore we agreed that different political positions could be overtly expressed, but also that no public declarations should be made BEFORE we had attempted to have a common position on the subject.”

A document was signed between the organizations in early 1999. Besides the rule quoted above, it established that the three founding organizations would continue to exist as long as they felt the need for it, and also contained details such as who would be the first candidate in European elections and the first candidate in Lisbon. These safeguards proved to be useful in later years.

How are leaderships elected?

We have often been asked this question. The best way to answer is to explain the preparation of our national conferences, which take place every two years. Any group of 20 Left Bloc members may present a political platform to be discussed and voted on. Each platform has equal rights: the organizing committee of the conference (composed by some members of the outgoing leadership plus one representative per platform) ensures the publication and diffusion to all members of a bulletin with the various platforms and contributions, as well as the calendar of debates between the platforms and the dates for election of delegates. At the conference, the platforms present a slate for the leadership, which has to include parity between men and women. Slates not linked to one of the political platforms are not allowed, since for us a leadership should not be a sum of individuals but the result of the expression of concrete political points of view.

The Mesa Nacional (National Leadership) of the Bloc, about 80 members, is elected at the national conference, in direct proportion to the votes that each platform scored. At its first meeting, the National Leadership elects a Political Committee of 15-20 members that takes major political decisions in between meetings of the National Leadership which are held every two months.

Since the Left Bloc’s foundation, the three organizations that founded the Left Bloc and the majority of independents have always been part of the same platform. In the early years, independents had a quota of 50% and the remaining 50% were distributed equally among the three currents. It is still an unwritten rule that the three founding organisations have the same number of members in the National Leadership.

A peculiar and innovative way of being anticapitalists

Soon after its foundation it was clear that the Left Bloc was much more than the sum of its initial parts. A “shared hegemony” in the leadership, together with an extraordinary skill in creating political responses and a high level of political confrontation gave the Left Bloc a wide audience, built trust and many hundreds of people joined the party, which now has around 9,000 members.

The Left Bloc has always been able to combine its presence in Parliament with an intense contact with workers, students and intellectuals. While this happens all year round, it becomes more intense and visible in summer, when the Left Bloc holds public meetings in popular places, near the coast and the beaches. Over the summer of 2010, for instance, these meetings attracted some 20,000 people.

The Left Bloc is no longer seen as just a protest party, but a party posing an alternative. Even in Parliament the Left Bloc has succeeded in getting several proposals approved, the first, in 1999, being to consider violence against women a public crime. Many more could be cited. The Left Bloc is therefore seen as a party which can lead to some, albeit sometimes small, victories.

From its early days, the Left Bloc has allowed political representation of its initial components. So far there has not been a fusion of the founding organisations, they have changed into political associations with their own websites and educational activity, without competing with the initiatives of the Left Bloc.

The Left Bloc is an anticapitalist force, heterogeneous but with a strong and cohesive leadership, plural and with diversity in its membership and leadership. There are Marxists and non-Marxists. But the Left Bloc has learned from the very beginning that plurality may be expressed as polyphony, not as cacophony as Luis Fazenda likes to say. We do not measure our anti-capitalism by the number of times we use the word anticapitalist or revolutionary in our resolutions or leaflets. We are not a party that makes abstract propaganda for socialism. In our opinion, the idea that most demands can only be fulfilled under socialism may turn out to be dangerous and demobilizing. We have sometimes been accused of not having a strategy and of relying too much on tactics. From our point of view this is both unfair and wrong. The interview with Francisco Louçã explains this point very well.

Present and future challenges

This chapter was not supposed to deal with the current situation. But what we are living now in Portugal is not a “normal” situation. The consequences of the economic crisis and the rejection by the Portuguese Parliament of PEC-IV (the proposed austerity package) on 23 March 2011 led to the immediate resignation of Prime Minister Sócrates and to new national elections which will take place on 5th June.

At the beginning of April Sócrates asked the European Commission for help concerning the Portuguese debt. Shortly after, a troika composed of a representative of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), another from the European Central Bank and also a European Union commissioner came to Portugal to assess the situation. They met with the right-wing parties: Partido Social Democrata (PSD) and Centro Democratico e Social (CDS) and with the SP. Both the CP and the Left Bloc have refused to meet with entities that nobody elected and refused to pretend that they were open to negotiate with them.

At the start of May, the Portuguese troika of PS, PSD and CDS signed an agreement with the international troika accepting the conditions imposed on Portugal in order to get a loan of 78 billion Euros. The content and consequences of the agreement are devastating: of the 78 billion, 54 billion will be used in paying back those who have lent us money, 12 billion to recapitalize the banks. There will be only 12 billion Euros left. It is predicted that in two years’ time we will be an additional 100,000 unemployed, adding to the already existing 700,000, social benefits will be reduced dramatically, company taxes be diminished and VAT will go up.

Besides opposing this agreement and its consequences, The Left Bloc has concrete proposals:

1) An audit of the debt, so that we know exactly to whom we owe and why we owe. As Francisco Louçã said, when we go to a restaurant we do not pay the bill before we have checked it. In fact we propose that the part of the debt that results, for instance, from corruption be taken out from the debt.

2) Immediately initiate a process of renegotiating the debt, payment deadlines and interest rates

3) Create a bailout fund with money coming from taxes on transfers to off shore accounts, and taxation of stock market operations

Obviously the results of the elections are difficult to predict. We live in a period of strong and deep crisis and recessions do not favour the Left. A small party would not have the capability of facing the present situation. But a party like the Left Bloc speaks for millions of people in TV debates and will be in contact with many others during the campaign.

The crisis and the debt are a challenge. We aim to take the challenge and transform it into a new opportunity to build a larger left. Our strategy is clearly to become a new leadership for the left, alternative to the SP’s leadership.

Chronology of important events for the Bloc

1999 - Up to the end of February, the project of the Left Bloc is presented in public meetings by its founders. These meetings are always packed and a new enthusiasm and hope is felt. End of February, the Bloc becomes a new political party.

In May the Bloc takes part in the mobilizations against the NATO intervention in Kosovo. In June European elections take place. Miguel Portas is the 1st candidate on a national slate. The Bloc has its first electoral experience of many to come. The result was only 1.79% but very promising.

By the end of August a referendum on independence took place in Timor-Leste a former Portuguese colony occupied by Indonesia since 1975. The outcome is a massive victory for the pro-independence movement but the pro-Indonesian paramilitary forces do not accept the defeat and spread terror and horror in the population. In Portugal the largest solidarity movement ever seen takes to the streets with daily initiatives and the Bloc plays a major role in it.

In October National elections take place. The Bloc elects two MPs: Francisco Louçã and Luís Fazenda. When the parliamentary session opens, they stand up for 2 full days, until the other parties accept that one of them is to sit in the first row, (as the leaders of all parliamentary forces do). A fifth party is represented in Parliament, something the other forces find hard to accept. Moreover, the Socialist Party, with the most votes, elected 115 MPs, exactly one half of Parliamentary members, which obliged it to make alliances either with its Left or with the right.

2000 - The first bill that the Bloc proposed in Parliament, that violence against women is considered a public crime, is approved.

The Bloc starts to change the political landscape of the country, not only by its cutting- edge proposals in Parliament but mainly because its two MPs and other leaders are present in every important struggle: whether it is a factory that is about to close, or a member of the Roma community that is beaten to death at a police station, the Bloc is always present in solidarity. Also, the existence of two MPs gives them a much wider audience in the media, particularly on television. The concrete proposals of the Bloc, in particular in what concerns the tax reform system and social security become widely known

In March the Bloc hosts the 1st meeting of the European Anticapitalist Left, where the Scottish Socialist Party, the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire and the Red-Green Alliance are the other participating organisations.

2001 – Presidential elections take place at the end of January. The Bloc presents Fernando Rosas as a candidate. He scores 2.98%.

The G8 meets in Genoa. The Bloc is present at the anti-G8 demonstration with a delegation. From then onwards, the Bloc will always be present and establish links with the anti-globalisation movement.

When Bush occupies Afghanistan, the Bloc starts to build a long term anti-war movement.

Local elections take place in December and the Bloc is present for the 1st time. Although the result was rather modest as compared to the National elections, it has meant the beginning of a slow organization and political intervention at the local level.

2002 – The disastrous result of the Socialist Party in the local elections, in particular in large cities, leads to the Prime-Minister’s resignation and the call for new National Elections, which take place in March. A coalition between the conservative party (PSD) and the Christian-democrats (PP) wins by comfortable majority. The Bloc elects 3 MPs: Francisco Louçã and Luís Fazenda are again elected in Lisbon and João Teixeira Lopes in Porto (the 2nd largest city). This was a major breakthrough that no organization of the radical left has ever achieved before.

The coalition government led by Prime Minister Durão Barroso (now president of the European Commission) initiates a series of attacks on working class rights, by changing the laws existing since 1975/76. The hot debates in Parliament between Francisco Louçã and Durão Barroso became widely popular. The Bloc fought this new Working bill in Parliament and in society. In December a general strike takes place and the Bloc is very involved and its leaders are most welcome at any workplace.

2003 – The Bloc takes a major role in organizing initiatives against the forthcoming invasion of Iraq by Britain and the USA. Traditionally, the CP has organized a “Peace movement” which was a sort of umbrella for its satellite organizations, therefore limiting the participation of a wider audience. Besides holding several public meetings across the country, the Bloc was also able to organize a huge public meeting in Lisbon with speakers ranging from Francisco Louçã, one MP from the Communist party, Carvalho da Silva (the leader of CGTP), Maria de Lourdes Pintasilgo (catholic, former candidate to the presidency in 1986), the former president Mário Soares, and even some Conservatives who were against the war.

Moreover, when Bush, Blair, Aznar and Durão Barroso met in the Azores and signed the agreement to invade Iraq, the Bloc organized a demonstration outside the military basis of Lajes, with 300 people and the presence of Francisco Louçã.

2004 – A petition for a new referendum on abortion gets to Parliament. The law requires 35,000 signatures, the broad movement created along 2003 and 2004 reaches 121,151. The right wing coalition refuses to call for a new referendum.

The exhaustion of Barroso’s government increases as shown by the results of the European elections held in the beginning of June. Soon afterwards, Barroso is chosen to become President of the European Commission and resigns as Prime-Minister. The Bloc calls for new elections, but President Sampaio chooses Santana Lopes (from Barroso’s party) as Prime-Minister. The disaster goes on and by the end of November the Parliament is dissolved and new National elections are called for February 2005.

By the end of 2004 and beginning of 2005, the 3 founding organizations of the Bloc ceased to exist as such, turning into political associations.

2005 – In the February elections the Socialist party wins with absolute majority. The Bloc elects 8 MP’s (4 in Lisbon, 2 in Setúbal and 2 in Porto, 4 men and 4 women). A new and very difficult political period starts then, with Prime Minister Sócrates implementing all the anti-working class reforms that Barroso did not achieve.

At its 4th Conference, the Bloc clearly defines itself as anticapitalist force.

2006 – Presidential elections take place in January. Francisco Louçã stands as a candidate. End of 2005 and January 2006 a very strong and militant campaign runs throughout the whole country. This campaign shows the popular roots of the Bloc while also reinforcing it. Francisco Louçã scored 5.3% of the votes. Mário Soares (former president and the official candidate of the Socialist Party won 14.3%, while Manuel Alegre, a Socialist party member and vice-president of the Parliament won 20.7% presenting himself as an independent candidate and passing Soares to his left.

After the presidential elections, Bloco underwent an internal debate about the strategic course: it assumed/defined the aim of becoming an alternative to the Socialist Party, in order to debate the majority within the Left.

In September the Bloc organised a March for Jobs that crisscrossed the country: two to three public meetings every day, with many workers present. Sometimes, the workers of companies that were going bankrupt or threatened with closure contacted us or we went to these companies.

A general protest against Sócrates’ policies takes place in October. The Bloc supports the trade-unions mobilizations against cuts in pensions, jobs and public services.

2007 – In February a new referendum on decriminalization of abortion takes place. The YES wins. The Bloc campaigned in the most difficult areas of the country (where the NO had won in 1998) and also helped boost the plural and broad civic movements who determined a victorious political line.

At its 5th Conference, the Bloc clarifies its participation in political activities at International level. It also defends climate justice and ecological revolution as part of the socialist transformation process.

In September the Bloc organizes a March against precariousness which affects over one million workers in Portugal, mostly (but not exclusively) young people.

2008 – The government attacks on Education bring over 100,000 teachers to demonstrate twice that year.

2009 – At its 6th Conference, the Bloc discusses the participation of some left parties in governmental coalitions in Europe, concluding that they led to very serious defeats (see text).

Three elections take place in 2009: for European Parliament, where the Bloc scored 10.3% and elected 3 MEPs; national elections where we went from 8 to 16 MPs, not only electing one more MP from Lisbon and one more from Porto but also broadening the regional representation (1 MP from Braga, Aver, Coimbra, Elyria, Santarem and Faro); and local elections where we elected several members to local parliaments.

2010 – The Bloc decides to support Manuel Alegre as candidate for the presidential elections which will take place in January 2011.

The political and social situation is worsening. Besides all legislation already approved by the government, which takes social benefits from the poor and does not touch the banks and the rich, the situation is to become even worse with the 2011 Budget. November the 24th a general strike takes place, called by the two main trade-union confederations. It is estimated that 3 million people went on strike.

At the end of November, a NATO summit takes place in Lisbon and the Bloc is much involved in anti-Nato activities, either with other forces or with a concert against NATO organized by the Bloc.

2011 – The Left is defeated at the presidential elections hold in January, since Cavaco Silva, the historical leader of the right, is elected in the first round. Manuel Alegre scores only 20% of the votes, the same as 5 years before.

As the government of the Socialist Party hardens its attacks both on working class and the unemployed and retired, the Bloc sets in Parliament a censure motion against the government, which was discussed (but defeated) on March 10th.

The rejection by the Parliament of PECIV (Stability and Growth programme), presented by Prime Minister José Sócrates March 17th led to his resignation and the call for new General Elections which will take place 5th June.

In April the IMF settles down and starts to impose its conditions for a loan to Portugal.

Meanwhile, the Bloc has started the preparation of its VIIth National Conference to be held May 7-8th. The development of a strategy against precariousness as well as a programme for a Left Government able to defeat the IMF are at the centre of the debate.

Alda Sousa, April 2011

진보블로그 공감 버튼트위터로 리트윗하기페이스북에 공유하기딜리셔스에 북마크