Twenty Years of European Greens 1984 - 2004 edited by Arnold Cassola & Per Gahrton From Coordination to Federation Introduction, by Per Gahrton It has been very inspiring but also somewhat depressing to re-establish contacts with Green Veterans from the early years of the European Green Movement. Some, of course, are still very active and have been easily available in the corridors of the European Parliament or during meetings of the European Federation of Greens Parties. But some were not to be found, others refused to cooperate, others still promised to do so but have not delivered despite innumerable reminders during almost a year. Inevitably, this has made the result somewhat unbalanced. Some parties and countries have no contribution, while others have several. Anyhow I think that altogether the picture given is rather representative of the very different feelings today, about two decades later, among the Green Veterans who created the European Green cooperation. Now when the European Greens are facing a new step in its development, with not only dozens of present and former MEPs and hundreds of present and former MPs, but also tens of present and former government ministers, and are planning to change the Federation (which emerged from the Coordination) into a Party, it might be appropriate to remember that despite the somewhat anarchic traits in early Green structures, there was also close European cooperation and coordinated action from the beginning. Sara Parkin, my close colleague as co-secretary for the Coordination, in her contribution reminds us that already before the European elections 1984 their was a common Green political platform, which has since been the case for every renewal of the European Parliament. The Greens have, I believe, a bright future ahead. Therefore it is so important not to be carried away by too much hybris! In that endeavor we might be helped by some of those who left us. One person who at one time was very active on the European Green level tries to explain the low number of contributions I have managed to get by assuming that “it could have something to do with the fact that most prominent Greens from those days were not always treated well by their parties”. When I proposed to publish the whole of this rather bitter but still informative letter it was unfortunately refused. I regret that, because I think that Greens of today could learn a lot from those who chose to leave us, after having served several years in high positions, as co-secretaries, MEPs or otherwise. That is why I am happy that some of these “drop-outs” have decided to contribute, such as Dirk Janssens, who personified the European Coordination during several important founding years, and Paul Staes, who for ten years acted as a very alternative and Green MEP. Even some of the “veterans” who remain in the Green Movement, or close by, express feelings similar to those of the “drop-outs”. Bruno Boissière, one of my colleages as co-secretary, emphasizes that “the Greens should give priority to saving the planet, not to saving seats in political assemblies”. Apparently quite a few Greens from the first generation have difficulties to recognize the Greens they fell in love with some twenty years ago. I think we must take these signals seriously. We shouldn’t believe that Greens by inherent virtue are immune against the temptations of professional politics. Already about a hundred years ago German sociologist Robert Michels warned that the “iron law of oligarchy” was transforming the then young German socialist party of idealists in quest for a better society into a power machine of professionals in quest for a better living standard for themselves. Greens have traditionally tried to avoid such phenomena through different rules, such as rotation, no combination of public and party office, no more than one political elected position, limits concerning the salary that could be put in the private pocket. In the 80-ies these rules were extremely strong, especially among the German Greens. Today they have been weakened everywhere, if not completely abolished. Sometimes that may have been motivated. The German rule that permitted elected MPs and MEPs to serve only half the period they were elected for, was of course absurd. But is it good to get rid of all these barriers against the temptations of professional politics? Do Greens really want to be just as the others? Is theirs the same way of making politics? Maybe after some time will it even be the same politics? Realism is a tricky concept. Without it you remain powerless. With too much of it you also become powerless because the “change” you obtain is superficial, not representing any real alternative. Maybe the experience of the Green Veterans gives strength to an old Swedish concept, interpreters often find difficult to translate: “lagom”. Which means “not too much, not too little, but just as much as is appropriate in any situation” . Personally, I have drawn the conclusion after all these years with the Greens in Sweden, Europe and the World: Greens are best when they are neither fundi nor realo, but both, when they don’t sacrifice their ideas in order to get power, but also do not stay out of power to remain completely “clean”. As we say in Swedish: “Lagom är bäst”. * Just enough is best