A (mathematical) critique of SYRIZA

In his Foundation series, Isaac Asimov narrates a diplomat's visit to a planetary colony of scientists. Most of the scientists are really impressed with the diplomat, and are confident in the government's support when he leaves. But one scientist is unconvinced. He tells his colleagues that the diplomat didn't really say anything, didn't make any promises or commitments. The other scientists are all like "how can you say that, he said so many things, it was great".

So the skeptic translates all of the diplomat's speeches into logic symbols, simplifies the equations that describe the diplomat's words and speeches and proves that his (the diplomat's) statements contradict each other or are arbitrary and noncommittal. The skeptic is thus able to prove his colleagues that the government doesn't plan to help them.

I want to do the same to prove with mathematical rigour that SYRIZA is staffed by people who are either incompetent or corrupt or crazy. Before I geek out, I am going to make my critique in plain English, and I will then translate it into maths.

Plain English Critique
First, let me be clear about my objective in this post: I am not about to argue that SYRIZA's intended policies are wrong. Nor am I going to argue that SYRIZA is the reason Greece is doing worse than ever (though I certainly think so). Perhaps the reason Greece is doing so badly is because of the EU or the IMF or austerity or neoliberalism or lizard people, SYRIZA would do a great job if all of the above were removed from the picture (especially the lizard people).

I am not even going to talk about the manifestly corrupt practices SYRIZA has engaged in - hiring demonstrably unqualified people for advisory positions, paying out insane amounts to public company executives when there are people literally starving in Greece &c.

What I am going to talk about is how even you are a SYRIZA supporter, even if you agree with SYRIZA's intended objectives, you ought to condemn SYRIZA because they have failed to implement these policies. I am also going to argue that this failure is inexcusable.

Thankfully, making this argument is far easier than evaluating the appropriateness of a particular goal or policy ex-ante: I just have to look at what is promised and compare it to what is achieved. Of course, I have to take into account mitigating circumstances. If the love of your life misses your appointment at the top of the Empire State Building because (60 year old spoilers) she was hit by a car, or fails to meet you at a train station because her grandmother died, it's not fair to accuse her of malice, cruelty or incompetence.

Let's start by looking at what SYRIZA promised "committed" to do (in the words of its leader) and what it delivered. I have compiled a list of key commitments outlined in the "Thessaloniki Programme", a manifesto unveiled by Alexis Tsipras just before winning the national elections, and the actions he took when in government. Each promise is colour coded based on whether it was upheld or not (in what I think is a pretty self-explanatory way (i.e. the colours' meaning is self-explanatory)).

I did not cherry pick promises to only highlight the ones he didn't live up to; I just focused on the ones I considered the most important. Feel free to read through his speech to see the full list. Now then, Tsipras promised to...

1. Restructure the debt, which he deemed unsustainable =>Not only has SYRIZA not achieved this, but Tsipras now apparently believes the debt is viable and is now arguing against the IMF which thinks otherwise.
2. Increase the Public Investments Programme budget by 4 billion => The 2015 budget was 200 million EUR lower than the 2014 budget; the 2016 budget was 350 million EUR higher than the 2015 budget - but clearly, there was no 4 billion increase.
3. Increase pensions => Haha, no. And sorry, I can't resists a bit of sensationalism: not only did SYRIZA not increase pensions, but police harassed the pensioners who protested against further pension cuts.
4. Replace memorandum policies immediately, without waiting for the outcome of future negotiations => Clearly not.
5. Provide free electricity and food and rent subsidies to 300,000 households => I can't tell whether Tsipras delivered on this. Some news sources say he did, some he didn't - so let's be charitable and mark this promise as upheld.
6. Give a Christmas pension bonus to 1,200,000 people => Delivered.
7. Cut oil tax => Nope. Oil in 2016 was about 10% more expensive driven by tax increases.
8. Cut ENFIA (property tax) => Nope. On average it went up.
9. Increase the tax-free income level to 12,000 => SYRIZA actually decreased the tax-free income level (except for families with more than 3 children).
10. Increase the minimum wage to 751 EUR for all ages => Nope.
11. Create new agency to tackle tax evasion, "very modestly" forecasting 3 billion EUR tax recovery in the first year => I do not know whether such an agency was created, though I can't find mention of it in the government's budget letter. However, the 3 billion income certainly didn't materialise: total direct tax income increased by about 800 million EUR and indirect tax income by about 1.2 billion EUR. These are driven by increases in tax rates, not tax evasion crackdown (at least, no mention of the latter is mentioned as a source of growth in the budget letter).

So. 11 promises, of which SYRIZA delivered on 2. In most cases, not only did SYRIZA not do what they promised to do, but they did literally the opposite. Then there is the matter of the referendum. SYRIZA called for a national referendum asking the Greek public's opinion on whether the government should agree to the terms of the 2015 bailout. The Greek public overwhelmingly voted "no". Two days later, Tsipras ignored that result and signed a new deal with the EU. (I suppose he was hoping that a "No" vote would scare the EU into offering better terms. When this didn't happen he capitulated).

In summary then, SYRIZA imposed more austerity measures, increased taxes, lowered the tax-free income level, cut pensions and capitulated to Europe's demands. All this after Tsipras said that he's not an "all-weather prime-minister" and that he's not glued to the prime-ministerial chair - implying that if he could not deliver on his promises he would resign.

I think that even the most ardent socialist will have to agree that SYRIZA has failed to accomplish its self-imposed goals. Let's now visit the mitigating circumstances clause. Those who are still inexplicably sympathetic to SYRIZA claim that the party and its leader had all the best intentions, and would have delivered on all their commitments, had Europe let them. They (the inexplicably sympathetic apologists) say that Tsipras has been strong-armed by the EU and the IMF. That he couldn't have done anything else.

I find this defense lacking. To explain why, let's think about what makes for mitigating circumstances when breaking a promise. Personally, I take promises very seriously. I believe a person can be forgiven for breaking a promise in extremely rare cases, only if an event that is truly material and unexpected occurs.

But let's be very clear here: traffic or a late request from your boss are not material and unexpected events that would justify breaking a promise to meet for dinner. Things like this happen all the time - and they're why you should never make promises about casual things like a dinner date. To me, a person who has integrity will carefully consider all the possible scenarios in which he would not be able to uphold a promise, and will either not make it, or will make a specific caveat in case such a scenario transpires.

Back to Tsipras, he was not literally forced to impose more austerity cuts - Germans didn't invade Greece and put a gun to his head (which would be unexpected and material to say the least). The EU and the IMF could only "force" Greece to agree to more cuts in the same way they have always done: by threatening to withdraw support, causing Greece to exit the EU and default on its debt. This threat isn't new. Tsipras made all his promises knowing that this was the EU's position. He didn't say he would do all these things if the EU and the IMF let him; he said he would do them regardless (see promise 4 above).

That he failed to consider the EU not backing down from its demands as a possibility is therefore not merely incompetence; it's not merely carelessness; it's not wishful thinking; it is lack of integrity. You can argue all you want that the EU is unreasonable, or that the IMF is staffed by incompetent and evil economists. This does not change the fact that Tsipras made promises he did not keep.

BUT. Because English is flimsy and vague and leaves room for misrepresentation, I want to now formally prove this thesis. Normal people, stop reading here. Geeks, read on.

Mathematical Proof
First, you might want to have a look at the basics of propositional logic here or here.

Now, let's start with the following premises. I have made these as thorough as I could, but if you believe I have missed a possibility in any of the implications below, please let me know.

• (A lied) => (A is dishonest) ∨ (A is crazy/does not understand the concept of lying)
• (A is dishonest) => (A is dishonest for selfish reasons) ∨ (A thinks dishonesty will serve the greater good)
• (A thinks he serves the greater good) => (the greater good increases) ∨ (A was wrong)
• (A made a promise) => (A considered likely events that would cause them to break the promise)
• (A broke a promise) => (A lied) ∨ (A faced unexpected change)
• (A faced unexpected change) => ((A had anticipated all likely events) ∧ (unlikely event occurred)) ∨ (A had not anticipated all likely events)
• Tsipras made a list of promises
• Tsipras broke these promises
• No unlikely events occurred.
• Greece is doing worse than ever (i.e. the greater good has not been served)

Based on these, we have:

(Tsipras made a list of promises) ∧ (Tsipras broke these promises)
= (Tsipras considered likely events that would cause him to break the promises) ∧ ((Tsipras lied) ∨ (Tsipras faced unexpected change))
= (Tsipras considered likely events) ∧ ((Tsipras lied) ∨ (((Tipras had anticipated all likely events) ∧ (unlikely event occurred)) ∨ (Tsipras had not anticipated all likely events)))
= (Tsipras considered likely events) ∧ ((Tsipras lied) ∨ (((Tipras had anticipated all likely events) ∧ FALSE) ∨ (Tsipras had not anticipated all likely events)))
= (Tsipras considered likely events) ∧ ((Tsipras lied) ∨ ((FALSE) ∨ (Tsipras had not anticipated all likely events))
= (Tsipras considered likely events) ∧ ((Tsipras lied) ∨ (Tsipras had not anticipated all likely events))
= (Tsipras considered likely events) ∨ (Tsipras had not anticipated all likely events)∧ (Tsipras lied)
= TRUE ∧ (Tsipras Lied)
= Tsipras Lied

Okay. So we formally proved that, if we accept that someone with integrity carefully considers what promises he makes, and that failure to do this constitutes lying, then Tsipras lied. But let's take this further:

Tsipras Lied
= (Tsipras is dishonest) ∨ (Tsipras is crazy)
= ((Tsipras is dishonest for selfish reasons) ∨ (Tsipras thinks dishonesty will serve the greater good)) ∨ (Tsipras is crazy)
= ((Tsipras is dishonest for selfish reasons) ∨ ((the greater good increases) ∨ (Tsipras was wrong))) ∨ (Tsipras is crazy)
= ((Tsipras is dishonest for selfish reasons) ∨ (FALSE ∨ (Tsipras was wrong))) ∨ (Tsipras is crazy)
= (Tsipras is dishonest for selfish reasons) ∨ (Tsipras was wrong) ∨ (Tsipras is crazy)

So there you have it. Officially proven: either Tsipras is dishonest because he wanted to gain power and fame, or he was dishonest because he thought this would somehow serve Greece but was disastrously wrong, or he is literally crazy.