From top: Donald Tusk, President of the European Council; Julien Mercille

There is a dangerous spectre haunting Europe.

But it’s not from the left.

Dr Julien Mercille writes:

What does it mean to be a “radical” in politics?

A “radical” is simply someone who wants to achieve social change that is thorough and fundamental. It is contrasted to those who believe that the current system is largely fine and that only minor improvements are needed.

The term is often used by conservatives to make progressives look dangerous, as in “those radicals are a threat to the stability of our country”.

For example, Stephen Collins, the Irish Times political editor, had an article this weekend echoing Donald Tusk, the European Council President and former Prime Minister of Poland.

Both of them discussed European elites’ real worry about the rise of Syriza in Greece: “political contagion”. This just means that if Syriza is successful, it will empower “radicals” elsewhere, so that progressive parties could grow in other countries, including Ireland. This is because people in Europe will see that it is possible to challenge successfully the troika and bring to power governments that reflect people’s interests to a greater extent.

Therefore, the European and Irish establishments seek to discredit progressives by labeling them as “radicals”. It is supposed to make you think that radicals = extremists = no stability, and therefore I should vote for the traditional parties.

A look at a few examples from Collins’ and Tusk’s articles illustrates how this tactic works.

Collins states that “a spectre is haunting Europe… and that spectre is political chaos”. In Ireland, almost half of voters have now deserted the traditional parties and moved towards independents.

Collins labels those emerging politicians as “radicals”, including Sinn Féin, the Anti-Austerity Alliance, and People Before Profit. They are “extremists” who threaten the “political stability” provided to us by Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour. Indeed, between 1932 and 2007, Fianna Fáil won approximately 40% of the vote, but is now at about 20%. The “radicals” have thus stepped in to fill the void. The same thing happened in a number of European countries.

Tusk voices similar concerns. He says the stand-off between Syriza and the European establishment has given “new energy to radical political groups”, and created a “pre-revolutionary atmosphere”. He says he fears “ideological or political contagion” from the Greek crisis, not “financial contagion”.

He thus reveals the real reason that motivates European and global elites to humiliate Greece. It has very little to do with economics and everything to do with nipping in the bud the threat of an example that could inspire progressives elsewhere. If the motivations were purely economic, the crisis could be solved relatively quickly and easily: give new loans to Greece, stop austerity, cancel part of the debt, and allow the economy to recover.

Tusk says just as much: he is “concerned about the far left”, which is advocating “this radical leftist illusion that you can build some alternative” to the current EU economic model.

In short, the traditional parties are pictured as embodying “stability” and “moderation” while leftists are depicted as “radicals”.

In fact, the traditional parties are radicals too, but conservative ones. They have sought, and have been successful, in reorganizing society drastically during the crisis, so that those in power dominate ordinary people to a greater extent than before.

Consider the following few examples among the policies enacted by the ruling parties that have contributed to raising the deprivation rate from 11.8% of the population in 2007 to 30.5% in 2013 (the latest available data).

– Cutting or freezing employees’ wages: a new Central Bank survey shows that 84% of Irish firms either froze wages (60%) or cut wages (24%) between 2008 and 2013. This is so drastic that when compared with other European countries, Ireland comes second only to Estonia for the extent of wage cuts during the crisis. This is of enormous benefit to employers.

– Transfering the private debts of banks onto the shoulders of ordinary people by orchestrating a €64 billion bank bailout and a blanket guarantee that made us responsible for €365 billion of bank liabilities.

– Keeping our ultra-low corporate tax rate at 12.5% and opposing a financial transaction tax that would raise much-needed revenues for public services.

– Implementing JobBridge and other similar cheap labour schemes to provide employers with low-cost workers.

– Privatising a number of public services to allow the corporate sector to increase its profits while often leading to worse services for people.

– Cutting numerous community and public services that make it more difficult for citizens who need them to access them. The effect is to disempower people. This applies to cutbacks of about 40% to all of the following: Rape Crisis Centres, Violence against women programme, projects for youth, drugs programmes, Family Support Agency, etc.

Those moves, and many more, are by definition very radical, in the conservative direction. It is thus not true that the traditional parties are “moderate”, nor do they provide “stability”. In fact, they alienate people, and this is why we have witnessed all over Europe the rise of progressive forces.

It is thus conservative radicalism that is dangerous. Progressive radicalism is good because it calls for an in-depth transformation of society in a way that would reduce inequality.

For example, the corporate sector would pay its fair share of taxes, bankers would pay their own debts, the economy would have started growing way earlier by stimulating it instead of asphyxiating it with austerity, and quality services would be provided.

Julien Mercille is a member of the Irish Greek Solidarity Committee. His new book, Deepening Neoliberalism, Austerity, and Crisis: Europe’s Treasure Ireland (Palgrave) is out now. Follow him on twitter:  @JulienMercille