With the few weeks remaining before next spring’s elections, there is plenty of time to resolve two unacceptable gaps in electoral law that do no credit to the parties of the constitutional arc if they remain:

The first relates to the opportunity under current law for knifemakers and the Golden Dawn’s leadership core to legally become citizens, despite having been convicted of a series of murders and for participating in and leading a criminal organization. I remind you that the law, which was adopted in 2021 at the initiative of the current government, allows Mr. Michaloliakos, Kasidiaris and Lagos and Co. to be candidates in party associations – existing or new – as long as they do not occupy a leading position in it ( article 93 of Law 4804/2021). In other words, they can do politics from prison as “mere mortals”, putting some of their friends outside the prison as leading “straw people”. Some prisoners have been looking for him for a long time, with a good chance of success, at least according to recent polls.

For the above regulation, the government, of course, refers to the Constitution, article 51 of which states that the right to vote and to be elected cannot be deprived except “as a result of an irrevocable conviction for certain crimes.” In other words, it is necessary to exhaust the stage of appeal to the Supreme Court. A point in time that gold rushes are a long way off, given the pace of the appeals process going on at that time. Does this mean that until then they will be able to behave “as if nothing had happened”?

The answer is no. By not needing the increased majority required by the Constitution to immediately change the electoral system, a sitting parliament can prevent evil. It is enough to think sensibly: as G. Sotirelis and other colleagues have long shown, Article 29 of the Constitution, which states that the “organization and activities” of political parties must serve the “free functioning of a democratic state”, is not just wishful thinking, but it leaves many opportunities to take practical action against neo-Nazis and all those who resort to brutal violence. And yes, after the painful experience of the past, it is argued that under the current Constitution, even under the law, a party cannot be outlawed – usually, no matter how absurd it may seem, A.A. it is not dissolved, despite the condemnation of its leadership! – but if it is proved that this party is acting as a front for a criminal organization, Article 29 does not preclude its exclusion from the elections. Is there any better evidence that a party serves such purposes than the inclusion in its composition of persons convicted, at least in the first instance, of leading a criminal organization?

Moreover, Article 51 of the Constitution deals with the political rights of individuals, not parties. As my colleague N. Papaspirov rightly noted, it would be at least an oxymoron to believe that the Constitution allows for a slide into party elections, which “form criminal collective actions that oppose a democratic state.” These parties do not need irrevocable condemnation.

And the last word about the presumption of innocence, which, of course, applies to individuals, and not to bodies of collective action. It is true that the Strasbourg Court ruled that this applies not only to trial in first instance, but also to appeal. However, the presumption of innocence does not mean that a cold-blooded criminal who is arrested on his own initiative, or another person whose case has been carefully considered at first instance, such as AA criminals, should be treated as “innocent pigeons.” “until their sentence is final. This simply means that the Court of Appeal must be upheld to try the case again. Therefore, until the Court of Appeal makes a final decision, the defendant must be treated as innocent in the first place by the Court, who judges him, but also all kinds of officials (ministers, etc.) who, due to their position, can influence the outcome of the trial.

Article 29 of the Constitution, which stipulates that parties must serve the “free functioning of a democratic state”, leaves room for action against neo-Nazis.

I now turn to the second important unresolved issue, the emigrant vote, for which the Constitution requires a majority of at least 200 deputies. The regulation of Law 4648/2019 failed. Because in the absence of passport stamps when entering and leaving the country and other evidence, it is very difficult for an expatriate to prove that he has lived in Greece for a total of two years in the last 25 years. Thus, while 200,000 or even 300,000 expatriates were expected to be registered on the respective electoral rolls, only 3,000 have shown interest to date. I remind you that SYRIZA and the KKE forced this unfortunate arrangement because they fear that the vote, especially of the Greek Americans, will be in favor of the ND.

Apart from the solemn refutation of our claims that 4-5 million Greeks are outside of Greece – something understandably harmful – this spectacle, if left as it is, will lead to the paradox of 3-4 deputies from outside of Greece who are expected to be elected by all parties and represent only 3,000 expatriates. But that would be a direct attack on the principle of equality of votes.

In order to deal with this issue without delay, colleague Dim. Christopoulos recently proposed a practical solution: instead of the “devil’s proof” (probatio diabolica) of at least two years of residence, the fact that they were born in Greece should be considered sufficient indication of the continued connection of our fellow citizens outside of Greece. territories with the motherland. Something that can be proven very easily just by showing an ID that also shows the place of birth.

As flawed as it is, the solution is expected to attract several thousand expats. Because it will make it easier for Greek immigrants from the last wave of emigration to vote, namely those who left Greece mainly because of the economic crisis. The vast majority of them are young scientists, mostly settled in Western Europe, where they continue their careers. On the contrary, immigrants of a certain age will not be employed, and even less the Greeks of America and Australia in the second and third generation. The latter, if they have, of course, taken care of obtaining Greek citizenship, must, if they want to vote, go to Greece. This, of course, is unfair to them, but the sacrifice required of them is not so unbearable.

It is, of course, wrong to change the electoral law on the eve of elections. This, however, does not mean that if accumulated unacceptable disputes such as those mentioned above are identified, they should not be dealt with in a timely manner; it is enough that new mechanisms increase the legitimacy of the electoral process and not in favor of one side at the expense of others (and, obviously, vice versa).

* Mr. Nikos K. Alivisatos is an honorary professor at the University of Athens.