Democracy is sometimes harsh on those who defend it, as ballots or opinion polls often produce judgment against those who work to avoid the devastating crises. What is more important than democracy in the entire world is not the results of those ballots, but rather economic democracy. In truth, it wasn't the U.S President who was responsible for the financial and economic crisis that devastated the largest institutions in his country, and forced him to push rescue plans forward that were unfavourable by the taxpayers, and which also detracted from his popular support, the most important foundation of democracy. Nor was the Greek Prime Minister's plan to assume power in a state that has accumulated more than 160 billion dollars in debts, only to beg the countries of the euro zone and the IMF to help him convert this debt from being controlled by international investors, to becoming a siege of conditions set by the new creditors in exchange for forfeiting national sovereignty. On par with this, the new ruling team in Japan was not represented in power when the country's economy collapsed while satisfactory growth is yet to be achieved. Moreover, the same democracy which allows peoples to express their opinion and protest, cannot control the unrest of the rioters who exacerbate the poverty of their countries by burning down its economic institutions, destroying public property and paralyzing all activities as happened in the capital of Mount Olympus. Nor could democracy help voters understand the stances taken by the government in Germany, as it finds itself forced to bail out a country without much conviction, all in order to preserve the role of the unified European currency, and prevent the euro zone from collapse and disintegration. Otherwise, an economic tsunami would result which would not only sweep Greece, but also the entire continent. This is not to mention threatening the entire global economy that is currently in search for a ‘global' currency that preserves the value of financial and commercial transactions. In truth, it was globalization that paved the way for international investors to control countries' sovereign debts: Prior to the expansion of globalization, governments used to resort to their domestic markets by introducing treasury bonds denominated in the local currency, which were then fed by local financial institutions and savers. However, these governments saw in the vast reach of globalization an easily accessible resource. Thus, these governments's satisfaction with the ease of fundraising made it overlook the risks involved, should they default on their debts. As the investors become in control of the sovereign debts, they also become capable of benefiting from these governments' treasury bonds in capital markets for more profit, or by creating methods for their ‘forward sale'. This confuses the bonds- or debt instruments-issuing countries and reduces these bonds' and instruments' value, and subsequently, leads to inflating the debt and ties up the indebted country's treasury. In any case, many governments broadened their development programs towards achieving a more balanced development for the welfare of their peoples. However, these programs did not measure up to these ambitions, as funds garnered through debt expanded the reach of corruption. Before the era of globalization, governments worldwide used to resort to the World Bank and the IMF at the foreign level, as part of a narrow circle that allows these two institutions to extensively intervene in the affairs of the development of the recipient countries. However, this issue pushed these countries away and into the clutches of international capital markets. The ease of access of funds through public offerings aroused the greed of those in power, and this lead to further corruption. And to gain supporters, governments granted their citizens offerings that they cannot fund except through borrowing. Then whenever it became difficult to repay these loans, the governments stopped those offerings, and subsequently, they faced protests from those who inevitably lost their fake prosperity funded by other people's money, and who suffered as a result from financial difficulties and a scarcity of resources. These successive events took place since the beginning of this year, when Athens's debts threatened the euro zone, until the bail out to Greece was approved by the European Commission, the ECB and the euro zone member states. However, the crisis prompted the latter to fortify the rules of their cooperation, while strengthening the rules governing their policies, with the ensuing need to strictly monitor budgets and the possible violations by member states. In truth, the fundamentals set forth by the Stability and Growth pact in the European Union aim at controlling deficits in the budgets of member states, not only in the euro zone, but also in the rest of the European Union, in line with the demands for further cooperation among member countries in order to prevent any country from running excessive deficits in its budget. Furthermore, the pact includes both preventive terms to monitor the fiscal policies of the member states, as well as punitive terms that in principle allow for imposing sanctions that include financial fines, equivalent to small percentages of the GDP of the country found to be in violation. Thus, the terms agreed upon placed Greece's fiscal policy under the scrutiny of the European Commission and the IMF, and this most certainly violates the concept of the sovereign state. But since when were indebted countries able to control [their fiscal policies] while exercising sovereignty? In truth, capital markets and investors are the ones who are otherwise sovereign. As for governments, these became tantamount to financial institutions, in that they are subject to rating agencies and the assessment of specialised consulting firms, which may or may not be accurate, or which may exploit the opportunity to incur extraordinary profits. For this reason, the measures approved by the euro zone (last Saturday) will protect the unified currency and fortify the geo-economic strategic cooperation, while strengthening the interrelationships among the member states. Two more issues must be also mentioned here: first of all, it is evident that the cons of globalization have overshadowed its pros thanks to the economic crisis. And second of all, the countries that adopt economic and social democracy and provide their citizens with their financial needs are much better than prestigious democracies that fail to provide economic protection and social welfare for their citizens.
