Social security: Learning from the past
The social security system – a pillar of democratic societies and one of the fundamental rights of their citizens – functions within specific conditions and boundaries.
Even if the chronic ailments that define the Greek system are mitigated or even wiped out entirely, there remain other key components of the equation, most notably the fact that life expectancy continues to grow, and the ratio of working men and women whose contributions are essential to funding pensions and medical care for the elderly of the future is shrinking.
The above reality has no ideological underpinnings and cannot be ignored by anyone – right, center or left.
Just a few days ago, Deputy Labor Minister Panos Tsakloglou pointed out the obvious by saying that retirement ages will not go up in the next three years, but that this is something that will inevitably happen down the road.
His comment prompted an immediate and explosive reaction from some in the opposition. That a serious technocrat, an expert on the subject who enjoys the respect of his peers inside and beyond Greece, should be lambasted for stating the obvious is startling in itself, when the fact is that every democracy is facing or will have to face the decision to raise the retirement age. Yet if anyone dares to say as much, they may come under fire.
Wouldn’t it be better, instead, if we learned from the past?
In the case of social security, we should have taken some lessons away from the reform efforts of Tasos Giannitsis more than 20 years ago, whose failure resulted in the consequences we know so well in this country. His vindication after the fact did nothing to save people’s pensions during the economic crisis.
All Tsakloglou said was that the time will come when as a society and a political system we have to discuss the question of raising retirement ages, yet he came under attack. Even the government spokesman felt the need to clarify that “there is no question of raising the ages or any other changes to retirement limits. The deputy minister was having a general discussion, as is the case in every other country.”
The mistakes of the past have not, unfortunately, served as a lesson for everyone. As on other topics, a revolution of common sense is needed here. Populism has shown its limitations. There are no easy fixes. It would be good if the government and the opposition could agree on the need to deal with the problem and come up with – potentially differing – ways for doing this through serious dialogue.
On the other hand, even though the fragmentation of the opposition is not a useful development for the country, it does present the government with an opportunity in the sense that it allows it to take the leap on the serious issues, like saving the social security system, not in the short term with half-measures, but in the long term with serious changes.
