Greek constitutional amendment of 1986
First constitutional reform of the Third Hellenic Republic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The amendment of 1986 was a proposed amendment to the Constitution of Greece to limit the powers of the president of the Republic.[1] Eleven articles were amended, primarily targeting the responsibilities of the president of the Republic, transposing the text of the Constitution into demotic Greek, and the removal of the secret ballot for the presidential elections. These amendments transformed the liberal democracy of Greece— based on the constitution of 1975,[2] into a populist democracy with a majoritarian parliamentary system and a prime minister acting as a "parliamentary autocrat."[3][4]
The proposal was a political gamble by Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou, who suddenly withdrew his backing for President Konstantinos Karamanlis's second term and instead promoted his own choice, Christos Sartzetakis. At the same time, Papandreou announced a constitutional revision to remove the powers of the president that acted as checks and balances against an already dominant office of the prime minister.
Despite the political and constitutional crisis that emerged from the unconstitutional procedures in electing Sartzetakis, as later court rulings concluded, the revised Constitution of 1975/1986 was accepted by all political powers after the polarized 1985 Greek parliamentary election.[5]
Background
First stage
.jpg)
_cropped.jpg)
On 6 March 1985, the centre-right New Democracy party announced that it would support Konstantinos Karamanlis's second term as president, while on the same day, the Communist Party of Greece (KKE) declared that it would put forward its candidate. The press anticipated that Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou would also support Karamanlis,[6] since he had assured Karamanlis of his support in person.[7] However, on 9 March, at the meeting of the Central Committe of Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK), Papandreou sided with the left wing of the party, which instead backed Supreme Court justice Christos Sartzetakis. Sartzetakis, known for his handling of the 1963 murder of left-wing deputy Grigoris Lambrakis, was viewed favorably by the left.[6][7] The announcement occurred at the Central Committee of PASOK on 9 March.[6]
The move surprised some of Papanderou's ministers, much of his party's rank-and-file, and Sartzetakis himself, who was not consulted in advance.[6] Journalist Robert McDonald reported that Papandreou claimed that the choice was done without Sartzetakis's knowledge to present his decision as spontaneous, however, Sartzetakis knew in advance in addition to the two senior judicial figures who had refused the nomination.[8] At the same time, Papandreou announced plans for constitutional reform, which rekindled debate on the type of republic Greece should be and damaged the existing consensus between PASOK and New Democracy that had existed since 1981.[9]
Papandreou also argued that it would be illogical for Karamanlis to preside over any constitutional reform since much of the 1974 constitution was influenced by Karamanlis.[10] Mitsotakis accused Papandreou of creating a constitutional crisis in order to remove Karamanlis from office and establish a totalitarian constitution.[11] Papandreou informed Karamanlis of his decision via his deputy, Antonios Livanis, as he could not bring himself to do so in person.[12] In response, Karamanlis resigned from the presidency on 10 March 1985, two weeks before the termination of his term, and was replaced by PASOK's speaker of the Hellenic Parliament, Ioannis Alevras, who served as constitution of 1974.[10]
Parliamentary votes for president & colored ballots
The presidential vote was conducted by the Hellenic Parliament in a tense and confrontational atmosphere due to constitutionally questionable procedures by Papandreou.[13] Mitsotakis accused Papandreou of violating the constitutional principle of secret ballot (Article 32)[14] by forcing his deputies to cast their vote with colored ballots.[13][15] However, Mitsotakis' concern was dismissed because PASOK controlled the majority in the Parliament.[13] Despite vigorous protests from the opposition, PASOK members used colored ballots under strict surveillance to spot potential defectors.[16][15] Sartzetakis received 180 votes, which was the minimum stipulated by the constitution, and Alevras, as president of the Hellenic Parliament, cast the decisive vote.[16] Mitsotakis deemed the vote illegal and threatened to remove Sartzetakis from the presidency if they won the upcoming elections, intensifying the constitutional crisis.[17]
Constitutional proposals & debate
In contrast with the constitutional violations raised during Sartzetakis' election,[18] PASOK's procedure in proposing constitutional amendments was constitutional.[8] However, the surprising announcement of constitutional reform amidst tense political conditions with limited input from constitutional scholars increased the possibility of the crisis intensifying.[19] An additional constitutional amendment was added following the controversial presidential vote: the removal of a secret ballot for president.[20] Papandreou's proposals were designed for easing future changes to the constitution in Article 110, requiring amendments to be approved by a parliamentary majority in one rather than two successive parliaments and reducing the powers of the president.[21] While the former proposal was eventually abandoned due to its controversial nature,[21] he was determined to eliminate presidential powers. His argument was the hypothetical case of an activist president, mimicking the tendency of kings of Greece to intervene in political life since the creation of the modern Greek state.[22] PASOK minister Anastasios Peponis introduced the constitutional amendment package to parliament with the following argument:
Invoking the lack of use of some provisions, their lack of implementation is by no means an argument to keep them in the current constitution. The question is what is our guiding principle? When provisions directly or indirectly contradict the principle of popular sovereignty, we object to them. [...] We support that the president is neither directly appointed by nor elected by the people. We are not a presidential, we are a parliamentary democracy. It is not the president who resorts to the people, so that the people deliver a verdict by majority voting. It is the legitimate government. It is the political parties. If the president resorts to the people, then he inevitably either sides with one party against others or attempts to substitute himself for the parties and impose his own solution. Nevertheless, as soon as he attempts to substitute himself for the parties and impose his own solution, then he embarks upon the formation of his own decisions of governmental nature. Then the government, directly or indirectly, fully or partially, is abolished.[23]
Scholars considered such changes unnecessary since no president had used these powers in the course of the Third Hellenic Republic until Papandreou raised the issue.[24][22] Anna Benaki-Psarouda, New Democracy's rapporteur, presented the following argument against the proposed reforms in parliament:
This is the achievement of the 1975 Constitution: A miraculous balance between the Parliament, the Government and the President of the Republic, namely these state organs which express popular sovereignty and always pose the risk of de facto usurping it. [...] It is also interesting to see where these competencies of the President of the Republic are transferred. They are removed from him, but where do they go? To popular sovereignty and the Parliament, as the parliamentary majority claims? Dear colleagues, all of them go to the government, either directly or indirectly through the parliamentary majority controlled by it. Because the parliament is now subjugated to the parliamentary majority through party discipline. [...] Dear colleagues, the conclusion from the amendments suggested by the government or the parliamentary majority is the following: Power is transferred completely to the government. Hence, we have every reason to be afraid and suspect and mistrust about the future of Greece. [...] I want to stress the following, so that we, the Greek people, understand well: that with the suggested amendments you turn government and government majority into superpowers.[25]
Benaki-Psarouda effectively argued that this type of majoritarianism would damage the quality of Greek democracy.[25] Scholars also noted that the proposed changes would make the prime minister the most powerful, "autocratic," position in the Greek state, as there would not be any constitutional restraints to their authority.[3][4]
Aftermath
Elections of 1985
The confrontation from the presidential election continued into the general election campaigns and polarized Greek society.[26] On one hand, Papandreou invoked memories of the Greek Civil War of 1946 until 1949 and the junta of 1967 until 1974, associating New Democracy with authoritarian right-wingers of the past with the slogan "Vote PASOK to prevent a return of the Right."[27] The communists, persecuted by right-wing parties in the 1950s, protested against Papandreou's rhetoric, pointing out that the 1980s were not the same as the 1950s.[27] Papandreou further characterized the upcoming elections as a fight between light and darkness in his rallies, implying that PASOK represented the "forces of light" since its logo was a rising sun.[28] On the other side, Mitsotakis declared that "in voting, the Greek people will also be voting for a president,"[20] also warning of the danger of sliding towards an authoritarian one-party state.[29]
In the election, PASOK was re-elected with 45.82% of the vote, losing approximately 2.3% from 1981, while New Democracy increased its share of the vote by 4.98% to 40.84%.[30] Papandreou's gamble worked to his benefit because he gained from far-left voting blocs, covering the losses from centrist voters, and appealed to socialist voters who rejected Karamanlis's perceived hindrance of PASOK's policies.[31][8] Papandreou had the upper hand over Mitsotakis in that he argued that a vote for Mitsotakis is a vote for a constitutional anomaly for threatening to remove the president once elected,[32] convincing a significant fraction of Greek voters.[8][32]
After the election results, Mitsotakis accepted Sartzetakis as president and head of the state.[33] Papandreou's constitutional proposals took effect in 14 March 1986.[34]
Court ruling
The case also reached the courts, with the plenary session of the Council of State ruling that the direct judicial review of the election of the president was inadmissible[35] and the Athens One-member Magistrates’ Court ruling in passing that the election of the president was "irregular" and "amounted to an abrogation of popular sovereignty",[a] while it considered that the subsequent political legitimacy assumed by PASOK's victory in the 1985 election did not negate the unconstitutionality of the act.[b] Constitutional scholar Christos Papastylianos noted this as an instance which marked the limits of judicial jurisdiction in Greece: the courts can deem an action as unconstitutional but unable to prevent it.[38]
Scholarly assessment
Scholars generally view the constitutional revision of 1985 as a calculated maneuver which aimed to consolidate power and reshape Greece's democratic institutions, criticized as "unnecessary" and driven by partisan motives rather than genuine institutional reform. Specifically, the constitutional amendments weakened the democraticness of the constitution due to the concentration of power in the prime minister's position along with the emerging statist bureaucracies and technologies aimed at controlling the popular will.[c][40] It marked a shift from a liberal democracy to a "populist democracy," characterized by a more centralized and populist model of governance.[41]
Analysts outlined different motives behind this move. First, the constitutional revision was a pretext for the removal of a respected conservative political figure from the position of head of state that would energize left-wing voters ahead of national elections by reaffirming PASOK's revolutionary roots.[clarification needed][42] Second, the public discourse was dominated by the nature of the constitutional revisions and the dubious conduct of the presidential election, effectively diverting public attention from worsening economic conditions, marked by high inflation, growing trade deficits, and surging unemployment.[43][44][45] Third, scholars also opted that Papandreou had long-term constitutional designs to reinforce his government party against an impotent parliament.[24]
Overall, scholars note that the constitutional revision was not a direct threat to democracy; however, it eroded the long-term legitimacy of the constitutional order.[15][33][46] Scholars have advocated for strengthening individual rights and institutions as a counterweight to the executive branch led by the prime minister.[47] Other constitutional scholars have suggested partially reversing the removal of presidential powers to mitigate the negative effects of majoritarian politics while avoiding potential conflicts between the president and prime minister.[48]