This summer, a group of miners in Albania’s richest chrome mine in Bulqiza staged a spectacular strike. Ten miners barricaded themselves 1400 meters, nearly one mile, underground and refused to eat and drink. The workers’ drastic measure followed earlier protests both at their own mine in the north and in the capital Tirana. After 23 days of underground protest, ten miners replaced the first weakened crew, continuing the hunger strike to express opposition to low wages, unsafe working conditions, poor management, and the lack of investment in the mine in general. The hunger strike was part of a three month long work stoppage by some 700 Albanian miners. But Albania is no Tunisia, Egypt or Libya. While being one of Europe’s poorest and most corrupt countries, it has been dealing with slowing economic growth and weak political leadership beyond the attention of the global media. The miners don’t seem to be the vanguards of a civil rebellion, but rather the players in an act overshadowed by an ongoing fight between two political parties and their leaders. DeliberatelyConsidered asked Ermira Danaj, an Albanian participant in the Transregional Center for Democratic Studies’ Democracy and Diversity Institute, for a report. – Esther Kreider-Verhalle

DC: Were any of the miners’ demands met?

Ermira Danaj: This time, the miners have won, but it is one of the very few victories for workers  fighting for their rights. The owners of the mine promised to continue investments in the mine, in a transparent manner. They also agreed to improve working conditions, to pay a 13 month wage, to pay the workers for half the period they were on strike, and a wage increase of 20%. During the first hunger strike, miners from other regions and workers from other sectors, facing the same problems, had started showing their solidarity with the miners. This was very unusual. After a regional court had decided that the protesters had to leave the mine, the miners left voluntarily, but stubbornly started their hunger strike again in another location not far from the mine.

The history of Albanian mining after 1990 is not a happy story. During the communist regime, the export of chrome was very important for the country. But after 1990, along with the rest of the industrial sector, the mining branch collapsed. The new democratic government – democratic in the sense that it was the first government within a pluralistic political system – aimed to privatize state owned enterprises. The socialists who came to power in 1997 continued the free market reforms. Yet, critically, privatization never focused on the workers’ working conditions, their contracts or wages.

Privatization of the mining sector began in earnest in 1994, largely supported by foreign investors. While the mineral resource of chromium continued to be vital for Albania’s economy, the conditions in the mines deteriorated, with numerous serious injuries and yearly deaths. For a number of years, the US Department of State has lamented the poor working conditions in the Bulqiza mines in its annual Human Rights Reports.

In the past three years, many protests have been organized but with little effect. Conditions have not improved and the struggle for fundamental workers’ rights has not been publicly recognized. Neither had the miners received much support from workers in other sectors or from civil society. The only organization that supported the miners’ protest earlier this year was The Political Organization, a newly founded organization aiming at raising critical debate in the country, while supporting workers and vulnerable people. During earlier protests that lasted several days in front of the government’s building in Tirana, the group brought the miners food, clothes and blankets.

DC: The small city of Bulqiza, about 30 miles north of Tirana is dependent on the mining industry. Investment in the mining sector is crucial both to the economic vitality of the region and the country. Chromium is used to produce steel and aluminum alloys, and is exported to the biggest American steel producers and other foreign companies. The Bulqiza mine has been in foreign hands since 2007. It’s owned by the Austrian corporation Decometal DCM, whose Albanian subsidiary ACR runs it until 2013. Has there been any improvement at all?

Ermira Danaj: In several press conferences and other media appearances ACR representatives have reported their investments not only in the Bulqiza mine but also in other industrial sectors. The miners’ main demand has been an improvement of their working conditions, while their calls for wage increases always came second. The miners argue that their lives and their futures are dependent on the mines. The investments are needed to ensure that they and the city as a whole have a future. Because ACR will run the mine until 2013, the workers worry about what will happen after that, if sufficient investments are not made now. Just to give you an idea of the current working conditions: The miners’ third demand was to have showers in the mine and clothes!

DC: There is a history of tension between the new foreign owner, the Albanian government, and the miners’ union. There have been talks in January 2011 between the Union and the Austrian owners with the Ministry of Labor as mediator. Both sides signed an agreement that there would be no further increases in wages until 2013. Their average wages are more than double the Albanian minimum wage of about 140 Euro per month. Also, the Albanian authorities fined ACR in July 2011 because it was not living up to its investment contract. And, the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Energy suspended part of ACR’s license after two weeks of strikes at the mine. The same Ministry has been said to be in favor of the demands of the miners but to be against the method of striking, and instead prefers a dialogue.

Ermira Danaj: The strike is a legitimate action when workers’ rights are not being respected and workers are exploited. And the word “dialogue” has been one of the most harmful words in Albania, at least during the last years, because any form of oppression and exploitation is depicted and covered up by the word “dialogue.” When the dialogue is not working, and the workers’ conditions remain unchanged, then there are other possible instruments such as protests and strikes. In Albania the hunger strike has been quite delegitimized. And usually, the motifs behind protests are party politics. The three month long miners’ protest has been one of the very rare cases of persistent action. And while it is true that miners in Albania earn about 300 Euro (406 US Dollars), mining is dangerous and most miners suffer from health problems.

DC: Where do Albania’s political leaders stand on the problems?

Ermira Danaj: The miners’ issues are not addressed in political debate. Discussions between the members of the two major parties focus on fights between the leaders, and on gossip. Programmatic and ideological differences are all but ignored. In addition, the workers’ unions are weak and of little help, split as they have been for years according to party affiliation.

DC: Opposition leader Edi Rama did write an opinion piece in a local newspaper supporting the miners, while PM Berisha accused Rama of using the miners for his own political gain.

Ermira Danaj: This is the main issue here, the fact that the miners’ strike is used just as another element to feed the political struggle between the main parties. And in this context, instead of an op-ed piece, one would prefer to hear from the opposition leader an alternative position on the problems in the privatized mining sector. What will the opposition do if they come to power? Or, they could organize any political action in support of the miners. Unfortunately, in Albania there are only meetings and protests before elections, or after them, to protest the results.

Interestingly, because they feel they have nowhere else to turn the protesters asked for support from the American Embassy in Albania. The head of one of the Unions that backed the Bulqiza miners made an appeal to the US Ambassador to support the miners and to visit them to personally observe the working conditions. The miners had no expectation whatsoever that any Albanian politicians would support them. They made their appeal to the US ambassador because he is considered a good friend of the Albanian people and he represents a country where democracy and human rights are respected. The past two years,  the U.S. has been very involved  in Albania’s political crisis and the US Ambassador has stepped in before. This appeal for support to the US Embassy indicates not only a fundamental crisis in the Albanian political system, but also in civil society and in society at large. During their underground strike, the workers saw no other hope than to make an appeal to a foreign embassy.

DC: The story of Albania’s desperate miners was not covered in American media. How was local coverage?

Ermira Danaj: In the absence of any sensational political fight and in the middle of the media’s silly season, the hunger strike received quite some media attention. Yet, by focusing on the wage issue, they were inaccurately reporting the story. The investment issue was not part of the story, while, oddly enough, they did bring up the retirement age of the miners. Under the communist regime, the retirement age was 50 and currently it is 60. But the issue of retirement is up to the government. It has been an election issue, but it wasn’t part of the strikers’ demands that were all directed to the private owners of the mine.

Currently, the workers are in a trap between the private mine operator, the state and the media. The company and the state are not engaging in serious discussions about investment. Political debate is only about personalities and not about pressing issues. During the last two decades, our society has been preaching individual success as the ultimate value; fighting for workers’ rights looks so old-fashioned. So, given that the workers were doing the state’s job and were pushing the issue of investment with the private owners, the miners of Bulqiza scored a great victory. They did it all by themselves, they persisted, and weren’t corrupted. With their sacrifice in the form of a hunger strike 1400 meters underground, they showed others that resistance can work.

The streets of Tehran had turned into free public spaces days before the 2009 Presidential Elections. The vibrant scene of groups of people with antagonistic political ideals arguing and debating with one another was truly amazing and unique. After the elections, in a spontaneous concerted act, three million people walked in silence, protesting the results of the election. Those who walked up from Enghelab (Revolution) Square to Azadi Square experienced a sacred time and space. They experienced for a few hours a power that has been engrained forever in their minds. The actors involved created a story and have “started a chain of events,” as Arendt put it in The Human Condition. While they did not walk the path of revolution to freedom, they did experience freedom when they were debating in public corners.

On the days prior to and after the elections, Iranians experienced the extraordinary, because they challenged the “commonly accepted.” They “acted in concert” and owned the streets of Tehran from which they had always felt alienated. The streets of Tehran, ever since, have gained a different meaning. They are a reminder of a moment of “greatness” that will never lose its new acquired significance. It is “greatness” because it breaks through the commonly accepted and reaches into the extraordinary. Whatever is true in common and everyday life no longer applies because everything that exists in the extraordinary is unique. Following Arendt’s political thought and rejecting the tradition of means and ends, Iranians in those days were obsessively involved in the process of the “living deed” and the “spoken word,” the sheer act of performance. They did not knowingly organize and manage the events; rather they were spontaneously involved in actions and words. It is important to acknowledge the meaning of this experience, because it alludes to the “potentiality” of power that can be realized and in fact, was realized, however briefly, in actuality. For Arendt, the end is not the outcome or the result of political action, but the act itself, the coming together of men and women from all walks of life. The act of protests, as means to an end, which could have been protesting until the collapse of the state, would not be political action as Arendt defines it. For her, the men and women walking together is the end of politics and freedom, “because there is nothing higher to attain than this actuality itself.”

The pure moments of freedom and politics, if and should they occur again, are forever to be cherished in memory but cannot be sustained. This temporality could of course be due to the brute force that Iranians face. Perhaps the temporal can be permanent in another context, although I highly doubt it, as every place has its own brute forces and complexities. … In any case, what is at stake here is that the ideal public sphere that many Iranians experienced was only temporary. This temporality does not reduce from the significance of the phenomenon. Yet the bitter reality is that once their sphere of public was crushed they had to look elsewhere, other places where they had always performed politically. Facebook is one of those places. As people resort to this alternative sphere of publics with newly developed political consciousness as a result of their post elections experience, I think, potentially, there may be better days in the future.

Two Examples

Once word spread around Facebook and opposition news websites that Habibollah Latifi, a Kurdish student, allegedly affiliated with separatist and terrorist organizations in Iran’s Kurdistan, was going to be executed in three days, almost everyone in my social circles was sharing the news. Most news feeds on my Facebook page were related to him. Discussions on how to prevent his execution were going on everywhere. A Facebook campaign page called Save Habibollah Latifi- Do Not Execute Habibollah Latif was created; one hundred people became members of this group in an hour. Members shared updated news on his status, relayed his family members’ anecdotes through personal communication with them, and suggested ways to stop the execution. Members suggested calling the Iranian Department of Justice, Kurdish parliamentary representatives, the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and in general, any organization that could bring this local problem to the international public. It was hoped that international pressure would affect the state’s decision. Dozens of petitions were created and sent to the Supreme Leader (Ayatalloh Khamenei), the Head of the Judiciary (Ayatollah Larijani), the United Nations (Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon), and any so called “important person” that could have influence. The words and actions of the Facebookers spread ever wider. Iranians inside and outside the country were engaged in a single cause: stopping Habilollah Latifi’s execution.

A few hours before his execution, word spread out on Facebook that crowds of people, including Latifi’s extended family, had gathered in front of the Sanandaj prison calling for the execution to stop. While only a couple of hundred people at most demonstrated, it did have an effect. At five in the morning, the head of the prison came out and urged people to leave the scene, insisting that their presence would have no effect,  promising them that the execution will be carried out as planned. The crowd did not budge. Later, the sentence was postponed and Latifi was transferred to another location.

Facebookers were extremely excited; their intense efforts had worked. They could see themselves as part of a movement. It’s not clear that it were Facebook, news websites, news channels (BBC Farsi, VOA and so on), bloggers and the virtual world that had stayed the execution. It is also not clear that the family’s outspokenness had led to the Internet spiral. Yet a contrasting case is suggestive.

A day after the Habilollah Latifi affair, another Iranian citizen was sentenced to death. Ali Saremi was allegedly a member of Mujahedin, an organization infamous for their terrorist activities right after the 1979 revolution. Mujahedin is officially despised by the Islamic Republic. Although word spread and news was shared on Facebook, not much momentum was created. Perhaps it was too late, or maybe it would have had no effect anyway. In any case, Saremi was executed as planned and not much was done to save him.

Of course there is no way to know what would have happened if more action was taken to stop his execution. However, at the time these two stories were compared and many believed if there had been more action, Saremi could have been saved also.  Such action would have had meaning, as has been indicated by the actions preceding and following the last elections.

The future with Humala is uncertain.  Throughout the campaign, he was accused, again and again, of “Chavismo,” of being but a sidekick to Hugo Chavez, bent on applying the obsolete and even ridiculous Chavista template to Peru.  To counter this notion, Humala, dramatically and operatically, swore on the bible to scrupulously follow not Chavez’s but Lula’s steps, promising to actually strengthen the market with private as well as with state-oriented investment, while also building programs to increase redistribution of wealth.

No one realistically expects a Brazilian miracle in Peru within the next five years. But in a deeply polarized country, with an already large and zealous right-wing opposition, Humala has no choice but to fulfill his moderate, market-oriented promises. It is likely, therefore, that the economic growth that Peru has been experiencing in the past decade will continue, perhaps after an initial period of internal market speculation and attendant problems such as devaluation and an increase of investment risk indexes.

A couple of reflections

To be very schematic, two left wings seem to be emerging in Latin America.  On the one hand, there is the old-guard, populist, anti-imperialist, caudillo-dependent, big-government-oriented left wing headed by Chavez (“capitalism may have ended life on Mars”).  On the other hand, there is a socialist in name, but social democratic in practice, left wing, which is clearly market-oriented, pragmatic, generally concerned with redistribution of wealth, and with the environment, education, science and technology.  After Lula, particularly, but also after Ricardo Lagos in Chile, José Mujica in Uruguay, Mauricio Funes in El Salvador, and others –this sort of modern left wing is generally seen as successful, politically and economically, and thus as a viable political alternative.

Keiko Fujimori

Humala’s victory seems to be an indication that, probably on account of the “Lula effect,” this type of left-centrism is gaining ground in Latin America. Often headed by formerly radical Marxists such as José Mujica and Dilma Rousseff, presidents of Uruguay and Brazil respectively, both of whom were actually former guerrilla fighters,  this new left is rising as a clear alternative to both Chavismo as well as to so called “savage neo-liberal capitalism.”

The bad news is that Keiko Fujimori obtained almost half of the votes in Peru. Politics in Latin America have been a very important source of backwardness and violence. The fact that Fujimori almost got elected is a reminder that banana republic populisms and Mafioso political parties are not dead in this part of the world.