The Zoe Konstantopoulou promises Constitution by citizens and permanent referendums, but avoids explaining how they can be implemented.
The debate on Constitutional Review is perhaps one of the most serious parliamentary processes, as it concerns the fundamental rules of operation of Democracy, institutions and the State. However, once again, Zoe Konstantopoulou has chosen to turn a comprehensive institutional debate into a platform for political slogans and easy promises. The president of the Leadership of Freedom presented a model of “direct democracy“, where citizens would co-shape the Constitution, activate legislative initiatives and be frequently called upon to decide through referendums on critical issues. This is an approach that sounds appealing in terms of slogans, but it becomes much more problematic when one attempts to examine it in the light of the institutional functioning of a modern European state.
And this is exactly where the difficult questions begin. For politics is not judged by how catchy the slogans are, but by whether the proposals can be implemented without leading to institutional instability, paralysis of decisions and constant clashes between popular impressions and constitutional guarantees.
“Direct democracy” as a new vehicle for the old populism
Zoe Konstantopoulou appears to propose a political model where almost every crucial issue can go directly back to the popular verdict. Referendums, constituent assemblies, social legislative initiative, expanded popular participation in the judiciary and continuous consultation processes make up a picture that looks more like a political declaration of a kinetic nature than a workable plan of governance. For no one explains how quick and effective decisions will be taken in a state that is called upon to operate on a daily basis in a demanding European and international environment.
Even more striking is that the president of the Electoral Alliance continues to invest in the same political motif that has characterised much of her public presence in recent years: the promise that for every complex problem there is a simple solution if only “the people speak”. But experience has shown that democracy is not strengthened when the representative function of the institutions is replaced by a permanent referendum process. On the contrary, it often creates new tensions, new divisions and greater instability, especially when highly technical or constitutional issues become a field of political polarisation.
The most distinctive feature of her intervention is that she presents as revolutionary ideas proposals that systematically avoid answering the fundamental question of governance: who takes responsibility when decisions turn out to be wrong? ‘Direct democracy’ sounds attractive as a slogan. But when used as a universal answer to every institutional question, it risks becoming yet another form of political populism that promises everything to everyone without explaining exactly how it will work in practice.
