The installation of Euripides Stylianidis regarding the constitutional revision.
“The one and only term of President of the Republic strengthens his independence and frees him from the human anxiety of re-election, so that he may carry out his duties unimpeded as the arbiter of the political system—albeit with reduced powers—and as head of state,” is the view on which the proposal to amend Article 30 of the Constitution was based, as formulated by the rapporteur of New Democracy, Euripides Stylianidis, in the Constitutional Revision Committee.
The President of the Republic
“Undoubtedly, the discussion about the President of the Republic would be more meaningful if we were talking about a president with enhanced powers. However, even now he retains his symbolic, political, and national significance, if we realize that it is one thing for someone to seek to derive value from his office, and quite another for him, as a personality, add value to that position—and this applies to all roles, whether or not they carry extensive responsibilities, because, as our people wisely say: ‘It’s not the robes that make the priest,’ noted the New Democracy party’s general rapporteur.
Mr. Stylianidis also referred to the process for electing the President of the Republic.
“As long as the Constitution required the election of the President of the Republic by a supermajority, it compelled political forces to reach a consensus and endowed the institution with prestige. PASOK has consistently opposed this process—which was a long-standing position of New Democracy—since the 2001 Constitutional Revision, in order to avoid triggering snap elections. Instead, it proposed repeated and unlimited votes. “In the presidential elections of 2010 and 2015, the presidential election process was exploited,” said Mr. Stylianidis, adding:
“In 2010, G. Papandreou declared that he would not vote for Karolos Papoulias before the elections, attempting to corner the Kostas Karamanlis government at a time when it was trying to take bold measures to stem the impending economic crisis that led us to the memoranda. This led to early elections, which only exacerbated the situation. The same thing happened in 2014 at a critical moment when the Samaras-Venizelos government was poised to bring the country out from under the international oversight of the memoranda. Alexis Tsipras’s refusal to support the election of the President of the Republic led to the 2015 elections and the third memorandum. The opposition’s exploitation of the presidential election led us in 2019 to the position that the inability to elect a president with a reinforced majority of 200 or 180 members of parliament should not forcibly interrupt the continuity of a strong,democratically legitimized government. This position, proposed by PASOK, was also based on the argument that the president’s powers had already been curtailed. Therefore, the possibility of electing the president by an absolute majority made sense in order to support the strongly democratically legitimized government in completing its work. Moreover, the Constitution encouraged—though did not require—political parties to reach consensus in the first three rounds of voting, relying on the maturity and capacity of the political system to forge consensus. This expectation was fulfilled during Sakellaropoulou’s first election, but was derailed during the election of the current president, K. Tasoulas, because institutional logic was subordinated to the opposition’s petty partisan expediency.”
“Of course, every party has had and continues to have the right to hold the position it advocates. However, this in no way diminishes the institutional prestige or the influence wielded by the incumbent president. After all, let us not forget that even Prime Minister Konstantinos Karamanlis, although elected by an absolute majority, is identified with the most significant positive moments for our democracy as well as for Greece’s European perspective,” said Euripides Stylianidis.
The dissolution of Parliament
Regarding the revision of Article 41 of the Constitution, the New Democracy party’s general rapporteur stated that his party proposes, in Article 41, paragraphs 2 and 5, the abolition of the often hypocritical invocation of a “serious national issue” for the early dissolution of Parliament and to replace it with a provision that would provide for “Dissolution upon a proposal by the government and a decision by Parliament to renew the popular mandate.” In other words, the self-dissolution of Parliament, which is also more honest.
Parliament has been dissolved 11 times on the grounds of a national issue of exceptional importance pursuant to Article 41, paragraph 2 of the Constitution, in the years 1977, 1985, 1993, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2007, 2009, April 2012, 2019, and April 2023, as Mr. Stylianidis previously noted, adding:
“Usually, the dissolution of Parliament pursuant to Article 41, paragraph 2 of the Constitution takes place after three years have elapsed, and a few months or even weeks before the end of its four-year term, in accordance with Article 53, paragraph 1 of the Constitution. The decision to dissolve Parliament pursuant to Article 41, paragraph 2 of the Constitution is made because if it were dissolved following the resignation of the government, as occurred in August 2015, then a caretaker government must be appointed in its place, in accordance with Article 37, paragraph 3 of the Constitution, as revised in 1986.”
Referendums
Regarding the proposed amendment to Article 44, the New Democracy party’s general rapporteur said that “In a referendum, it matters not only WHO poses the question, but also HOW it is posed.”
The wording of the dilemma can skillfully elicit the consent of the electorate, raising contemporary issues of demagoguery, said Euripides Stylianidis, noting that the use of digital referendums—which are faster, easier, and cheaper to organize—is gradually becoming more widespread.
“They undoubtedly boost citizen participation, but technical measures must be in place to ensure the integrity of the process and the secrecy of the vote,” said the New Democracy MP, explaining: “To protect this right to participation and citizens’ freedom of choice from modern demagogues, New Democracy proposes that Article 44, paragraph 2, of the Constitution guide the legislature so that the question is phrased in a way that is understandable and clear, that is, in a way that citizens can understand. There should be a sufficient interval of at least 20 days between the announcement and the holding of the referendum, so that citizens can be fully and objectively informed before making a decision, so that their decisions and choices are not the product of constitutional populism, but are level-headed and rational, for the benefit of Greece and the Greek people.”
Only under these conditions can the Constitution delegate more powers to society, based on the belief that “the more responsibility you delegate to citizens, the more they are trained to make responsible decisions,” noted the New Democracy party’s general rapporteur.
