The simplified morality play presented by the media and various talking heads features two parties of note: the lazy, willful and undeserving Greeks on the one hand (how dare they call a referendum!), and the righteous – but tough – European creditors (these austerity measures are the only ones which will help Greece) on the other hand has been a remarkable exercise in the collective distribution of ignorance and confusion – in other words, the distribution of policy-making groups’ ‘common sense’.

Stepping, for a moment, outside of what we’ve been told to think I would like to invite you to consider the following. The privatization, liberalization and other structural reform measures which Greece’s previous governments have and the current Syriza government has – under duress – agreed to have thus far resulted in a more than 25% reduction in Greek GDP   as well as massive levels of general unemployment and 50% youth unemployment.   In the meantime suicides have increased dramatically, nearly 1 million people are without access to healthcare   and things are looking to get considerably worse before they get better. How could the Greeks not object to this?

If one were so inclined one could argue that the Greeks brought this on themselves through, for example, financial excesses, early retirement and by voting for corrupt governments. These types of moral condemnation could, of course, also be applied to demonise any other randomly selected country (the Dutch welfare state is too generous! Dutch roads are too well-maintained!). While there may be a truth of sorts in these criticisms, they distract from the main issues, polarise debate and primarily serve to indicate which side is ‘good’ and ‘evil’ for the unfolding morality play. This determination of good and evil by the media almost invariably favours the side with the power and the purse strings (anything else would be bad for media corporations’ profit margins). So how does one look beyond the morality play and come to a sensible solution to the Greek/European crisis?

Fortunately, we have the wisdom of the European Central Bank (ECB), the Commission and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to guide the hapless Greeks through this mess. Their policies draw on dominant economic theories which support labour and capital flexibilisation, private sector growth and the gutting of ‘red tape’ legislation. Aside from reducing Greece to the economic equivalent of a ‘third world’ country, what has been the effect of these policies on Greek debt? It increased from 112% in 2008 to 175% in 2015. The policies have been a failure by any standard, resulting in the ongoing economic and social destruction of an entire country and a growing mountain of debt. If at first the application of ‘quack medicine’ (economic policies) does not succeed, then proceed to blame the ‘patient’ (i.e. Greece) and prescribe additional leeches (austerity)!

But this is hardly the first time. For decades, dozens of countries (including but not limited to: Indonesia, Russia, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Benin, Algeria, Jamaica, Jordan, Mexico, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Venezuela – I could go on) have at some point been subjected to similar structural reform policies advocated by, among others, the IMF and the World Bank (and in the case of Greece supported by the Eurogroup and the ECB). The results have been consistent and well-documented  , rising inequality, a collapse in incomes, consumption and productivity as well as social dislocation and decline.

So why are the ‘leeches of austerity’ so popular with the IMF and European Creditors? Because the purpose of these policies is not to help Greece but to open it for development and exploitation by transnational private capital and corporations. Just like the secret talks on the TTIP   and the TISA  , there is only one way to apply hegemonic economic neoliberal ‘common sense’ and wisdom, and the right way to do this is not to submit it to democratic vote.

Let’s face it, it is a hard sell when you are arguing that the private sector exploitation of a country is its salvation; this is the type of decision that is better made by heavily lobbied, ‘well-educated’ technocrats behind closed doors – in other words the European Institutions’ modus operandi on these matters. The Greek call for a referendum – regardless of its timing and legal validity – was a desperate attempt to re-embed democratic legitimacy in European economic decision-making. The morality play and the corporate media’s subservience to power and money helped the IMF and European institutions gloss over this fact and conceal themselves in a shroud of righteousness from which they could continue to impose their failed economic doctrines.

Greece’s attempt could, of course, hardly go unpunished by the ‘leech-holders’ who favour an ‘ever closer union’ under technocratic rule rather than meaningful democracy. In this regard the European family has been functioning more like the Sopranos than the Brady Bunch – attempts to break with economic orthodoxy and technocratic rule will not be tolerated, regardless of the social and economic consequences. While the European Union could easily afford to treat Greece differently (a small player with less than 2% of European GDP  ), we’re talking about the good old Mafia-style ‘send a message’. Greece needed to be humiliated for their obstinacy since any other option would lead to Spain, Portugal, Italy and numerous other countries and demographics seriously questioning the wisdom of the general application of neoliberal economic policies which favour transnational capital and corporations at the expense of everyone else.

The consequences of disagreeing with the EU’s dominant players are clear, the plot thickens and the morality play continues while the population suffers.