In recent days, the government and SYRIZA have made public their proposals to exclude the “Party of Cassidiaris” from the upcoming elections. What both proposals have in common is that they order the Supreme Court to exclude from elections not only parties whose membership includes persons, even those convicted at first instance for leading or participating in a criminal organization, but also any party whose organization and action does not serve free functioning of a democratic state (Article 29 part 1 of the Constitution). The most important difference between the two proposals is that the SYRIZA proposal requires the criterion of racist and/or Nazi discourse to be met in order for a party to be considered banned, while the ND proposal leaves the case unresolved.

The advantage of referring the above decision to the Supreme Court is obvious: in the future it will be possible to exclude not only the “party of Cassidiaris”, but also the party of the figureheads of Cassidiaris. What will not happen if the amendment is limited to the formal and the only criterion for the participation of convicts in party associations.

The disadvantage, however, of both proposals, in my opinion, is much more important: they allow the Supreme Court to exclude even “innocent” parties from elections without serious evidence. Suffice it to call them “subversive” – ​​or even “racist” or “Nazi” at the suggestion of SYRIZA – the EL.AS report. or EIP. Because according to what criteria would the 1st Division of the Supreme Court, in a suffocating time pressure, exclude Argiri Avgy, whose charter would state that it would respect the Constitution, and not a party – say the KKE – which in the charter still predicts that seeks to impose the dictatorship of the proletariat? Even the criterion of the use of force, which could be applied, is, in my opinion, dangerous if it has not been preceded by a forensic diagnosis. In other words, in order to avoid errors that could be fatal, criteria should be eliminated that would leave the Supreme Court the opportunity, at the stage of announcing combinations, to assess whether a party will be allowed to participate in the elections or not.

On the basis of the above reasoning, let me insist on the simplest possible solution: the declaration of combinations by the Supreme Court should come down to the conclusion that the legal conditions envisaged today (Greek citizenship and the minimum age of candidates) are met, to which a third is simply added, i.e. .e. non-conviction even at first instance for leadership or participation in a criminal organization (articles 187 and 187A of the Criminal Code).

Therefore, it would be sufficient to provide that in the case of article 32 paragraph 1 b of the current Electoral Law (par. 26/2012), in its current application, the words “chairman, general secretary, members of the steering committee member and legal representative were not convicted.. .” are replaced by the words “every deputy candidate who has not been convicted…”.

Mr. Nikos K. Alivisatos is Professor Emeritus of Constitutional Law at the University of Athens.