IMG_0294In view of the Greek financial crisis, austerity measures and the social unrest that have followed, ELIAMEP organized a closed discussion on Tuesday, 01/06/2010 on the topic of “Social unrest” with Professor Stathis Kalyvas, Prof. of Political Sciences and Director of the Program on Order, Conflict and Violence, Yale University.

Social unrest and regime changes

Professor Kalyvas presented a historical review of the phenomenon of urban mass protest. Going back to similar cases in the past he made two basic assertions. First, he observed that until today, social unrest has led to regime change only in authoritarian political systems (since democracies seem to have larger absorption and crises management capacities). Such cases are the Iranian revolution in the 1970s, as well as the ‘velvet revolutions’ of Eastern Europe that led to the collapse of communist regimes after 1989. In democratic regimes, on the contrary, social unrest has a tendency to lead to political instability and economic stringency. Second, although there are limited systematic studies on the correlation between economic crises and social unrest, based on the existing bibliography it becomes clear that that there is no linear progress from economic hardship to social unrest. Rather, social unrest seems to have its roots in social and political causes, while ethnic differences also seem to play an important role.

The Greek case

It appears that in the Greek case there are three particularities:

– A deeply rooted ‘protest tradition’ stemming from the period following the dictatorship in Greece.
– The presence and augmenting activity of extremist groups, which has a negative impact on organized demonstrations, often leading to selective media coverage focusing on the extremist groups and related acts of violence and vandalism.
– A degree of tolerance from the part of the protesters and public opinion in general, towards protest, even in its more violent forms, which stems from the distrust that has gradually developed towards the State and its representatives in Greece.

According to Prof. Kalyvas, while the first dimension cannot be tackled, being fundamentally rooted in the Greek historical experience from the dictatorship period, the other dimensions – activity of the extremist groups and tolerance of Greek public opinion – can be controlled with interventionist measures. A basic element to this approach is the reorientation of the citizen to the cost that his participation to acts of violence and hooliganism may have.

The dangers of social explosion in Greece and its consequences

It is the combination of the abovementioned elements rather than the economic crisis itself that may lead to social unrest in Greece, possibly enhanced by a growing dissatisfaction among the younger generations or other social groups on which the crisis may provoke a larger social impact. Nevertheless, even if a significant social unrest does provoke internal reshuffle it is not likely to bring structural changes to the political scenery. The case of Argentina in 2001 is characteristic.
To conclude, there is little likelihood that a systemic change may occur in Greece. It is likely, however, that social unrest will lead to political instability and a partial restructuring of the Greek political system.