| This article is part ofa series on |
| Politics of Greece |
|---|
 |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|
Prime Minister
| ||
TheGreek constitutional crisis of 1985 was the first constitutional dispute of the newly formedThird Hellenic Republic after the fall of theGreek Junta in 1974. It was initiated as a political gamble ofPrime MinisterAndreas Papandreou by suddenly declaring that he would not support the re-election ofKonstantinos Karamanlis for a second term asPresident of the Republic. Papandreou also proposedconstitutional amendments designed to further increase the power of his position by reducing the presidential powers, which were acting aschecks and balances against the powerfulexecutive branch.
Papandreou instead backedSupreme Court justiceChristos Sartzetakis, who was popular with left-leaning voters for his investigation of the politically motivated murder ofGrigoris Lambrakis in 1963.[1] Sartzetakis was elected president by theHellenic Parliament in a tense and confrontational atmosphere due to constitutionally questionable procedures initiated by Papandreou.[2][3] The opposition,New Democracy led byKonstantinos Mitsotakis and Karamanlis' former party, deemed the vote illegal, with Mitsotakis threatening to remove Sartzetakis from the presidency if they won the upcoming elections, intensifying theconstitutional crisis.[4] The confrontation dominated and polarized the election campaigns. However, Sartzetakis' election helped Papandreou and his socialistPASOK party to secure the1985 Greek parliamentary election despite Papandreou's failure to address Greece's worsening economy. After the elections, all political parties accepted Sartzetakis as president, ending the constitutional crisis, and theconstitutional amendments took effect in 1986. These amendments transformed theliberal democracy of Greece based on the constitution of 1975 into a 'populist democracy' with amajoritarian parliamentary system and a prime minister acting as a "parliamentary autocrat."[5][6]
Soon after the constitutional amendments took effect, Papandreou's premiership was engulfed bycorruption scandals, with theKoskotas scandal standing out as the most significant. With no constitutional restraints, Papandreou abused his position to prevent the Koskotas case from advancing in the courts,[7] and his patronage reached new extremes as he promised to deplete the state's coffers to his loyal supporters.[8][9] After losing the1989 elections, a collaborative government between conservative New Democracy and radical leftSynaspismos parties, despite their ideological opposition and having fought against each other in thecivil war, indicted Papandreou and four of his ministers, as well as breaking state's monopoly on themass media and partially dismantling the state's surveillance capabilities, to prevent any futureomnipotent prime minister from exploiting them for political advantage.[10][11] Since then, 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.[12]
Much of the history of modern Greece since itsindependence in 1821 from theOttoman Empire has been turbulent. Upon the foundation of theFirst Hellenic Republic, the Greek political institutions and economy were underdeveloped and heavily indebted due to the liberation wars.[13] These conditions had two major consequences. First, the lack of political conscience among the Greeks,[i] combined with rivalries among local elites, led to tensions with the country’s first Prime Minister,Ioannis Kapodistrias, culminating in his assassination.[14] Second, the extensive borrowing made Greece subject to creditors, namely the EuropeanGreat Powers, who imposed a foreignroyal family[ii] after the Kapodistrias' death as head of the Greek state, having absolute power.[15]
The political arrangements in 19th century Greece created tension between its people, who sought more inclusive political participation to improve their living conditions, and the elites led by the king, who sought to please the foreign creditors and preserve their positions by actively intervening in political life. The tension eventually led to themilitary to intervene in politics; this lasted in the next century when Greece had eight military coups since World War I.[16]
In early military movements, the military succeeded in securing a constitution from the king and a wide range of reforms, as in the case of3 September 1843 Revolution and theGoudi coup in 1909, respectively.[17] From the Goudi coup,Eleftherios Venizelos became a prime minister with great popular appeal, modernized Greece, and greatly expanded the Greek territory in theBalkan Wars andWorld War I.[18] However, his policies brought him into conflict withKing Constantine I regarding the entry of Greece inWorld War I with theAllies.[19] The disagreement between the two men resulted in theNational Schism, dividing in half the society and the military, and the eventual expulsion of the king. The creation of theSecond Hellenic Republic based on theConstitution of 1927 was, however, short-lived (1924–1935), and the king returned.[20] Later military movements tended to be in favor of the king, as happened with4th of August Regime in 1936, led by GeneralIoannis Metaxas.[21]
TheAxis occupation inWorld War II and immediate1944-49 civil war between theCommunist-led uprising against the establishment led by the King, inflicted economic devastation and deepened cleavages in society.[22] After the lifting of martial law (1947–1950), post-civil-war governments were politically weak and heavily depended on the external patronage of the United States (Marshall Plan), and their primary focus was to contain communism amidCold War.[23] The political dialogue in the following decades revolved around how power would shift from the Right (victors of the civil war) to the Center. However, the politicians delayed due to division on how to approach the necessary social reconciliation with the vanquished in the civil war, many of whom were either captured or exiled.[24] Another thorny issue was the control of the military by the elected government, i.e., politicians, instead of the king.[25]
TheConstitution of 1952 was based on theConstitution of 1911, but it was effectively a new constitution since it violated the revision clause of the Constitution of 1911.[26] It established a parliamentary monarchy with the king as head of state and the army, based on the principle of theseparation of powers.[26] However, the king maintained considerable powers, such as dissolving the government and parliament and calling new elections. Moreover, article 31[27] stated that the king hires and fires ministers (Greek:Ο βασιλεύς διορίζει και παύει τους υπουργούς αυτού). This created confusion as the prime minister was chosen by popular election, but the elected prime minister could not select the government's ministers without the king's approval. Two prime ministers in the 1950s had raised the question as to who governs the state, the king or the prime minister, echoing the disagreements between Venizelos and Constantine I during the National Schism.[28]
From 1955 to 1963, Greece was under the governorship ofKonstantinos Karamanlis, who was widely acknowledged for bringing political andeconomic stability to Greece.[29] Karamanlis wanted to revise the Constitution of 1952 to reduce the king's prerogatives,[30] but failed to gain sufficient political capital to overcome the king's resistance. In the early 1960s, there was a growing awareness that the repressive measures taken due to civil war and its aftermath were no longer needed. This became clear with the death of a left-wing member of parliament (MP)Grigoris Lambrakis, where several high state officials were found to be involved either in the assassination or in its cover-up.[30] While no one, even from the severest of his left-wing critics, blamed Karamanlis for the incident, he resigned and self-exiled toFrance.[31]
Georgios Papandreou and his political party,Center Union, having a moderate reformist platform, gained considerable traction and rose to power inelections of 1963 and later inelections of 1964.[29][32] He advocated for the liberalization of Greek society, which was rapidly urbanizing, resulting in large salary increases for police, judges, and teachers. Papandreou's government also released all thepolitical prisoners as a first step towards healing wounds from the civil war.[33] However, seeds of resentment towards Papandreou from the military grew as they were excluded from salary increases.[34] He also made a faint attempt to gain control of the military, which alarmed many officers without weakening them.[35][36] The latter created friction with theKing Constantine II, who wanted to remain in command of the army and not the elected government.[33]
In the meantime, the son of Georgios Papandreou,Andreas Papandreou, who had joined Greek politics after 23 years in the United States as a prominent academic,[37] was campaigning by having fierce anti-monarchy and anti-American rhetoric, destabilizing the fragile political equilibrium.[38][39] Andreas Papandreou's militant and uncompromising stance made him a target ofconspiratorial accusations from ultra-rightists who feared that following any new elections, which the nearly 80-year-old Georgios Papandreou would likely win, his son would be the actual focus of power in the party.[40] These incidents caused a dispute between Georgios Papandreou and King Constantine II, leading to the resignation of the former.[41]
For the next twenty-two months, there was no elected government, and hundreds ofdemonstrations took place, with many being injured and killed in clashes with the police.[42] The king, potentially[iii] acting within his constitutional rights but politically dubious approach,[41] tried to bring members of the Center Union party to his side and form a government, leading toIouliana of 1965.[43] He temporarily succeeded in getting 45 members, includingKonstantinos Mitsotakis, to his side, who later were called 'apostates' by the side supporting Papandreous.[42][44] To end thepolitical deadlock, Georgios Papandreou attempted a more moderate approach with the king, but Andreas Papandreou publicly rejected his father's effort and attacked the whole establishment, attracting the support of 41 members of the Center Union in an effort designed to gain the party's leadership and preventing any compromise.[38][45]
The prolonged political instability between the politicians and the king in finding a solution led a group ofColonels to intervene and rule Greece for seven years. The junta regime expelled prominent political figures, including Andreas Papandreou, Mitsotakis, and the king. Nearly universally, the political world blamed Andreas Papandreou, even his father disowned him,[iv] as the person primarily responsible for the fall of Greek democracy.[39][46] In exile, Papandreou was a pariah, cut off from democratic and political forces working for the restoration of democracy in Greece. During this time, he developed and spread to the public ananti-Americanconspiratorial[v] narrative of past events in which he was a victim of larger forces.[47] Following the junta's collapse, caused by its failure to handle theTurkish invasion of Cyprus,[48] the dominant political figure, Karamanlis, returned to restore democratic institutions in Greece.[49]
With the return of civilian rule under Karamanlis, the new government, acting under extraordinary circumstances, issued a "Constituting Act" which voided the junta'sConstitution of 1973.[50] Pending areferendum on a new constitution, the 1952 constitution was temporarily restored, "except for the articles dealing with the form of the State"; the last phrase referred to whether the monarchy would be restored.[50] In the meantime, the functions of the king were to be discharged by the incumbent PresidentPhaedon Gizikis, who was appointed by the junta's regime as a nominalfigurehead.[51]
In November of1974 Greek parliamentary election, Karamanlis received 56% of the vote and a mandate to set the foundations of the new state. In the December1974 Greek republic referendum,[vi] 76% of voters chose aparliamentary republic with a president as head of state and commander-in-chief of the armed forces,[52] effectively voiding 150 years of tradition of monarchical rule.[53] This led to the foundation of theThird Hellenic Republic with the newConstitution of 1975, which reinforced the executive branch's power, represented by theprime minister, while thepresident would act as the head of state with sufficientreserve powers, the right to call elections, appoint a government, dissolve Parliament, and call referendums on important national questions. Moreover, the president couldveto any legislation that did not reflect the popular will that could only be overcome with three fifth parliamentary majority.[52][54] The presidential powers, which overall exceeded those of the monarch under the 1952 Constitution, were drawn inspiration from the recentGaullism reforms in theFrance where Karamanlis spent time (1963–1974).[52]
Despite vocal resistance from the leftist parties, which wanted a purely parliamentary system with a ceremonial president, Karamanlis insisted that these powers would act aschecks and balances to prevent an omnipotent prime minister who could accumulate executive and legislative powers without any restraint.[55] Parliament adopted the new constitution and it waspromulgated on 11 June 1975. Andreas Papandreou, along with the communists, boycotted the promulgation of the constitution, and he publicly described it as "totalitarian," advocating instead for a "socialist" constitution without further elaborating on what he meant.[56][52]
From 1975 until 1980, Karamanlis and his close associateKonstantinos Tsatsos governed Greece as prime minister and president of Greece, respectively. The healing of the wounds caused by the civil war was pressing since the junta had only exacerbated them. Towards this direction, Karamanlis had legitimized theCommunist Party (KKE),[vii][57] which was outlawed since November 1947 during the civil war, re-ratified the European Convention onHuman Rights,[58] and opened the borders to exiled Greeks who had fled the junta and civil war to return home, includingMelina Merkouri,Mikis Theodorakis, andCornelius Castoriadis.[59] Approximately 25,000 returned after passing strict security screening from 1974 to 1981.[60] However, Karamanlis' governments maintained the post-civil war state's anticommunist stance, i.e., it was challenging to get a civil service job as a communist. Minister of InteriorKonstantinos Stefanopoulos explained the conservative viewpoint as "Greeks would never forgive those who had taken up arms against the Nation."[61]
In the meantime, Papandreou and his newly formed political party (PASOK) rose in popularity due to the rising pressure from the1973 and1979 oil crisis on the Greek economy and Papandreou's radical rhetoric, mostlyanti-American andanti-EEC. In 1980, after Karamanlis secured the entry of Greece intoEuropean Economic Community (EEC), he became president, handing over the premiership toGeorgios Rallis, which created a power vacuum that contributed to Andreas Papandreou winning the1981 Greek parliamentary election and becoming prime minister.[62] In the eyes of Greece's allies, Karamanlis, as president, would act as a restraining factor on radical departures in foreign and domestic affairs if Papandreou realized his campaign promises.[63][64]
Papandreou took further steps in achieving social reconciliation by allowing the return of another potential 22,000 returnees by dropping the security screening; the most notable wasMarkos Vafiadis at age 77.[60] In 1985, Papandreou introduced a law for civil servants dismissed for political reasons to restore their pension.[60] All formal Civil War commemorations were abolished, including ceremonies commemoratingDekemvriana.[65] The first law recognizing the Greek Resistance was passed in 1949, which excluded left-leaning partisan groups that fought against the Greek State in the Greek Civil War. On 20 September 1982, Papandreou's government passed a law that abolished this exception, allowingEAM/ELAS members the war veteran status and pension rights.[60]
Papandreou, unlike Karamanlis's inclusive approach, instrumentalized the painful and divided past by regularly invoking the memories of the civil war ("right the wrongs of the past") and "revenge of the losers [of the Civil War]" (Greek:"η ρεβάνς των ηττημένων") to maintain the support of the left-leaning faithful by demonstrating to them that PASOK remained true to its campaign promises and left-wing roots.[60][66] For Papandreou, polarization was necessary to distract his supporters from his mishandling of the chronicstagflation state of the Greek economy despite the influx of economic aid from EEC.[67] Nevertheless, thecohabitation of the two men in the 1981–1985 period was successful since Papandreou governed in a more pragmatic approach compared to his radical polarizing rhetoric, by reversing many of his campaign promises.[68]
.jpg)
_cropped.jpg)
On 6 March 1985,New Democracy announced that they would support Karamanlis' second Presidency term, while on the same day, the KKE party declared that they would put forward their candidate. The press anticipated that Papandreou would also support Karamanlis,[69] since he had assured Karamanlis his support in person.[70] However, Papandreou changed his mind at the last moment, siding with the Left-wing of PASOK, which did not want Karamanlis, and instead backedChristos Sartzetakis (aSupreme Court of Greece judge known for his principled handling of the 1963 murder of Left-wing deputyGrigoris Lambrakis and viewed favorably by the Left, and a protagonist inCostas Gavras'1969 movie "Z" based on the novel ofVassilis Vassilikos).[69][70] The announcement occurred at the Central Committee of PASOK on 9 March.[69] This move surprised some of Papanderou's ministers, much of his party's rank-and-file, and even Sartzetakis himself, who was not consulted in advance.[69] Later on, it was revealed that the supposedly spontaneous change of mind was to camouflage Papandreou's long-held constitutional designs since Sartzetakis not only knew about it well in advance but also that there had been two other judicial figures who rejected Papandreou's offer.[71] At the same time, Papandreou announced plans for a constitutional reform, which rekindled the debate about the form of the republic and further polarized the political environment by damaging the consensus between the two dominant political parties, PASOK and New Democracy, that existed between 1981 and 1985.[72]
Papandreou also argued that it would be illogical for Karamanlis to preside over any constitutional reform since much of the constitution of 1974 was heavily influenced by Karamanlis himself.[56] Mitsotakis accused Papandreou of creating a constitutional crisis to remove Karamanlis from office to establish a totalitarian constitution.[73] Papandreou informed Karamanlis of his decision via his deputy,Antonios Livanis [el], as he could not bring himself to do so in person.[74] In response, Karamanlis resigned from the Presidency on 10 March 1985, two weeks before the termination of his term, and was replaced by PASOK'sSpeaker of the Hellenic Parliament,Ioannis Alevras, asacting president.[56]
The opposition raised the issue of whether Alevras could participate in the parliamentary vote for his successor, requesting to be precluded from the presidential vote and his deputy rights while acting president.[75] Specifically, the Constitution of 1975 states that the president's office is incompatible with any other office (Article 30). Constitutional scholars supported this viewpoint.[75] Specifically, academic Nikolaos Saripolos believed that only the Constituent Assembly could determine whether Alevras could vote.[75] PASOK argued that there was no explicit provision in the constitution, so this issue should be resolved in the Parliament; an opinion fromGrigorios Kasimatis [el] and friend of Papandreou.[75] Ultimately, the PASOK-dominated parliament decided to allow it, with New Democracy deputies leaving the chamber.[76] PASOK deputyAgamemnon Koutsogiorgas later argued in Parliament that the issue raised by constitutional scholars on Alevras' ineligibility to vote due to Article 30 in the Constitution applies only to elected presidents and therefore does not apply to Alevras.[76]
According to the Constitution of 1975, up to three rounds of a parliamentary vote were permitted for presidential candidates; the first two rounds required more than 200 votes out of 300 members of parliament, and in the third round, 180 votes out of 300.[77] If all three rounds failed, then new elections would be held. Papandreou could only rely upon approximately 164 MPs (he had expelled six PASOK MPs for criticizing him since 1981), 13 MPs from the KKE, and five independent MPs (about 182).[3] The first two rounds failed to elect Sartzetakis as president, which took place on 17 and 23 March. The elections were carried out in conditions of high political tension; at one point, a New Democracy deputy momentarily grabbed theballot box.[3]
Like in the previous rounds, in the third round on 29 March, colored ballots (in blue color for Sartzetakis) and semi-transparent envelopes were used.[2][3][78] New Democracy chairman Mitsotakis accused Papandreou of violating constitutional principle ofsecret ballot (Article 32),[77] by forcing his deputies to cast their vote with colored ballots.[viii][3][79] However, Mitsotakis' concern was dismissed because PASOK controlled the majority in the Parliament.[3] Mitsotakis and Papandreou ended up having a verbal confrontation. Mitsotakis claimed Papandreou had no respect for the Parliament, and Papandreou responded, with Mitsotakis' role in theIouliana in mind, that the latter was the last person entitled to speak about respect.[ix][3] Despite vigorous protests from the opposition, PASOK members used colored ballots under strict surveillance to spot potential defectors.[80][79] Outside the building of the Parliament, PASOK supporters were chanting.[80]
Sartzetakis was voted president with a decisive vote from Alevras since Papandreou's party suffered the defection of two MPs, who Papandreou accused of taking bribes from Mitsotakis' party.[80] Mitsotakis considered the vote illegal and claimed that if New Democracy won the elections, Sartzetakis would not be president by bringing the legality of the process toCouncil of State (Greek:Συμβούλιο Επικρατείας), further deepening theconstitutional crisis.[4][79]
Foreign observers were worried that Papandreou unleashed a high-stakes gamble with potentially dire consequences for Greece and its allies. McDonald asserts that a victory for Mitsotakis in the upcoming elections would destabilize Greece over the presidency question.[81] On the other hand, an electoral weakened Papandreou might lead to a collaboration with the communist party to form a government, which according to John C. Loulis, a conservative Greek political analyst, stated that such a coalition "raised a potential danger to the balance of power in the Mediterranean" due to the possibility of communists shaping Greece's foreign policy and disrupting the communications inNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization.[82]
With Sartzetakis as president, Papandreou could formally submit the proposals for constitutional amendments by adding to the previous one the removal of a secret ballot for president.[83] In contrast with constitution violations raised in Sartzetakis's election,[84] PASOK's procedure in proposing constitutional amendments was under the constitution.[71] However, the surprising announcement of constitutional reform under already tense political conditions and the limited input from constitutional scholars on the nature of amendments increased the possibility of the crisis becoming widespread.[85] Papandreou's proposals were designed to ease future changes to the constitution in Article 110 to require amendments to be approved by a parliamentary majority in one rather than two successive parliaments and reducing the powers of the President.[86] While the former proposal was eventually abandoned due to its controversial nature,[86] Papandreou was determined to eliminate the presidential powers. His argument was the hypothetical case of an activist president, mimicking the tendency of kings of Greece to intervene in the political life since the creation of the modern Greek state.[87] PASOK ministerAnastasios Peponis introduced the constitutional amendment package to the 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.[88]
Scholars considered such constitutional changes "unnecessary" since no president had utilized these powers in the course of theThird Hellenic Republic until the time Papandreou raised the issue.[89][87] Moreover,Anna Benaki-Psarouda, New Democracy'srapporteur, presented in the parliament the following argument against the proposed reforms:
And 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.[90]
Psarouda-Benaki effectively argued that this type ofmajoritarianism would damage the quality of Greek democracy.[90] Scholars also noted that the proposed changes would make the prime minister the most powerful ("autocratic") position in the Greek state since there would not be any constitutional restraints.[5][6]
Both parties continued their confrontations in the campaigns for theJune 1985 parliamentary election, where the political polarization reached new heights. Mitsotakis declared, "In voting, the Greek people will also be voting for a president"[83] and also warned that there is a danger of sliding towards an authoritarian one-party state.[91] The president's office responded, "The president of the republic will remain the vigilant guardian of the constitution."[92] From PASOK,Agamemnon Koutsogiorgas described what was at stake not as "oranges and tomatoes but the confrontation between two worlds."[93] Papandreou followed this by characterizing the upcoming elections as a fight betweenlight and darkness in his rallies, implying that PASOK represented the "forces of light" since its logo was a rising sun.[93] Papandreou further argued that every vote against PASOK was a vote for the return of the Right with the slogan "Vote PASOK to prevent a return of the Right."[94] The communists, persecuted by the Right in the 1950s, protested against Papandreou's dwelling on the past, pointing out that the 1980s were not the same as the 1950s.[94]The Economist magazine described Greece as a "country divided," tearing itself apart and opening the wounds of civil war.[95] Two days before the elections, Karamanlis broke his silence and urged the Greeks to be cautious with their vote (without explicitly advising who to vote), commenting that PASOK had brought "confusion and uncertainty."[96] However, Karamanlis' statement was not broadcast on TV and radio, which were controlled by the state and governing party, i.e., PASOK.[96]
In the event, 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%.[97] Papandreou's gamble worked to his benefit because he gained from far-left voting blocks covering the losses from the centrist voters, and appealed to socialist voters who rejected Karamanlis's perceived hindrance of PASOK's policies.[98][71] Papandreou had the upper hand over Mitsotakis in which he argued that a vote for Mitsotakis is a vote for a constitutional anomaly,[99] convincing a significant fraction of Greek voters.[71][99] Richard Clogg states that the large-scale rally by Mitsotakis on 2 June atSyntagma Square may have panicked communists to vote for PASOK;[100] the communist parties lost a significant share of the vote.[101]
After the election results, Mitsotakis accepted Sartzetakis as president and the head of the state.[102] Papandreou'sconstitutional proposals took effect in 1986.[103]
The case also reached the courts, with the plenary session of theCouncil of State ruling that the direct judicial review of the election of the President was inadmissible[104] and the Athens One-member Magistrates’ Court ruling in passing that the election of the President wasirregular andamounted to an abrogation ofpopular sovereignty,[105] while it considered that the subsequent political legitimacy (following the victory of PASOK in the 1985 election) did not negate the unconstitutionality of the act.[106]
Papandreou began his second administration with a comfortable majority in parliament and increased powers based on the amended constitution. However, his premiership was soon mired in numerous financial and corruption scandals;Koskotas scandal was an extensive corruption andmoney-laundering operation threatening the PASOK government since it implicated many senior PASOK ministers and Papandreou.[107] At the same time, the Greek economy rapidly deteriorated as Papandreou, shaken by PASOK's waning popularity, reversed theausterity measures imposed by theEuropean Economic Community (EEC) for a loan to save the Greek economy from bankruptcy.[101][9][108] Moreover, choices made in the early 1980s on repealing anti-terrorism legislation and controversial foreign policy decisions led to a significant rise interrorist incidents in Greece.[109][110]
Despite the rising public frustration with the state of affairs, Papandreou abused his position to remain in power since there were no constitutional restraints. Notable actions include but are not limited to the following:
Papandreou lost the June 1989 election, mainly due to the Koskotas scandal.[120] Mitsotakis' party got 43%, but it was insufficient to form a government; Papandreou's last-minute change of the electoral vote law required a party to win 50% of the vote to govern alone. Papandreou hoped that while PASOK might come second in electoral votes, it could form a government with the support of the other leftist parties, but he was rejected.[121] Instead, the right-wing New Democracy collaborated with the radical leftSynaspismos party, led byCharilaos Florakis, to form a government. The two parties, while belonging to opposite ideological camps (as well as having battled one another in theGreek Civil War), both sought a "catharsis," i.e., an investigation and trial of PASOK's corruption.[107][114][122] The new government indicted Papandreou and four of his ministers. Moreover, to avoid political exploitation from any future omnipotent prime minister, they dismantled some of the junta's surveillance infrastructure and granted the first private televisionbroadcast license to publishers critical to PASOK as a counterbalance to state media.[10][11]
In theelections of April 1990, Mitsotakis received sufficient (by one seat above the threshold) support to form a government, and Papandreou became the opposition leader,[107] marking the end of PASOK's political dominance in its first era.[123]
Scholars examined Greek electoral preferences during the catharsis era and found that the Greek people perceive political corruption differently from other Western countries, placing greater importance on personality and charisma over morality.[124] One scholar noted, "This refusal to distinguish between party loyalty on the one hand, and political corruption and constitutional violence on the other, is another sad reflection of contemporary Greek life."[124]
Contemporary constitutional scholarAristovoulos Manesis [el] provided in 1989 a detailed assessment of the constitutional crisis as follows.[125] While the constitutional revision of 1985 did not lead to or be the result of a violent confrontation as it happened in therevisions of 1911 with theGoudi coup, in1952 after thecivil war, and in1975 after theJunta, the commonality between all these constitutional revisions was that they were imposed by the political party in power without the participation or consent of the minority.[xi][126] He also argued that the manner in which the presidential election was announced and conducted and the nature of the constitutional amendments had the potential of political rupture, while the latter also decreased the Constitution's democratic character due to the concentration of power in the prime minister's position along with the emergingstatistbureaucracies and technologies aimed at controlling thepopular will.[xii][125] At the end of his criticism, he advocated for strengtheningindividual rights and institutions as a counterweight to the executive branch led by the prime minister.[127]
Nikos Alivizatos, a constitutional scholar, considered the methods employed by PASOK to elect Sartzetakis in 1985 as "unacceptable," and while he did not blame the change in the presidency in 1985 as the source of "corruption and moral crisis" that became apparent in the following years, he acknowledged that the removal of constitutional restraints caused PASOK "to neglect the rules of the parliamentary game,"[128] and signaled that it "would not hesitate to overcome any obstacle in its aim to retain power."[129] In similar lines,Stathis Kalyvas, a political scientist, andRichard Clogg, a historian, note that while the actions by Papandreou did not directly threaten the democratic form of the Constitution, however, they undermined its long-termlegitimacy.[79][102] Political scientist Dimitrios Katsoudas wrote that the constitutional revision was unnecessary and damaged the established legality of the Constitution[130] and opined that Papandreou had long-term constitutional designs to reinforce his government party against an impotent parliament.[89]
Takis Pappas, a political scientist, stated that PASOK's general strategy in the 1980s involved three methodsstate grabbing, institution bending, and political polarization.[131] For Pappas, the events surrounding the constitutional crisis, as described above, are placed in one of these methods. Specifically, the constitutional reform was part of state grabbing, while the presidential election was part of bending or even disregardingliberal institutions to the will of popular sovereignty[131] that gradually transformed Greece from aliberal democracy based on the Constitution of 1975 into a "populist democracy."[132] Political polarization became most prominent during elections through political mobilization, which was aided by the press and state-controlled television and radio, creating divisions in social life.[133]
HistoriansJohn Koliopoulos andThanos Veremis [el] suggested that the crisis was motivated by Papandreou's desire to divert the Greek electorate's attention away from the worsening state of the Greek economy (unemployment increased under PASOK from 2.7% in 1980 to 7.8% in 1985,[134] annualinflation of the order of 20%,[135] wideningtrade deficits).[136] According to a public opinion survey byEurobarometer, the number of Greeks who believed that the economic situation worsened increased from 37.7% in 1983 to 70.2% in 1985, while those who believed that the economy improved fall from 31.5% to 12.8% in the same period.[137] Kevin Featherstone, political scientist, also considers that the motive behind Papandreou's actions was to divert public attention from economic policies.[138]
While Papandreou contended that Karamanlis' removal was necessary for the constitutional revision, Manesis argued the reverse: the constitutional revision was a pretext to justify the removal of Karamanlis, which would remind left-leaning voters as the elections were approaching that PASOK remained faithful to its revolutionary left-wing origins.[139] Manesis also points to PASOK's lack of preparation for the constitutional revision, noting that frequent changes to the proposed amendments were made even days before their submission, which he sees as a clear sign ofpartisan politics.[140]
Greek constitutional reformers commonly include in their proposals the return of some prerogatives taken back to the president to reduce the negative effects arising frommajoritarian politics, i.e., 'winner takes all,' while avoiding conflicts between the president and prime minister in the executive branch.[12] In a collaboration headed by former Finance MinisterStefanos Manos involving Alivizatos and others, it was proposed for the president to have the right to dissolve Parliament as a way to counterbalance the omnipotent prime minister.[141] However, the president's term would be six years long and non-renewable.[142]
In 1990, New Democracy, having a slim majority in the Parliament,elected Karamanlis as (second term) president after five rounds of votes with PASOK and Synaspismos supporting their candidates.[143] After this, there has been political consensus that the governing party should choose a candidate for president who is acceptable by the opposition; the exception to this trend was withKonstantinos Tasoulas in2025 presidential elections.[144][145]
Constitutions of Greece
Proposed Constitutions for Greece
Books
Journals
Newspapers and magazines
Web and other sources
