OUR an amendment introduced last night in Parliament by the government of the so-called “Cassidiari Party”. it is not limited to the standard criterion of non-conviction – even at first instance – of one or more candidates for deputies for leading or participating in a criminal organization (Articles 187 and 187A). It goes further and provides that the relative prohibition also extends to parties whose “real leadership” is exercised by such persons. In other words, the proposed arrangement excludes not only the “party of Cassidiaris”, but the party of the “straw man” of Casidiaris or the Golden Dawn in general.

With regard to the government and SYRIZA projects that have been made public in recent days, the second version of the submitted resolution is a step in the right direction. Because the exclusion of a party is no longer based on ideological characteristics, as originally proposed, but on the less arbitrary criterion of “real leadership”. This conclusion is now limited to the decision of the 1st division of the Supreme Court, which will be called upon to establish whether a convicted criminal of at least the first degree is really behind the X “straw man”. Of course, if something like this is backed up in an EEM or EL.AS report, it will be difficult for our supreme judges to judge otherwise, especially under the suffocating pressure of the timing of the electoral law. It is difficult, but not impossible, given that, as it is directly stated, the parties and ordinary citizens will be able to submit a memorandum with evidence “to help” the court.

The positive step of case (b) is unfortunately overruled by case (c) of the proposed regulation, which, repeating the general wording of paragraph 1 of Article 29 of the Constitution, provides that parties whose organization and actions do not serve the “free functioning of a democratic state” may be excluded. . The proposed scheme is dangerous in that, in addition to the objective criterion of a criminal record, it leaves the Supreme Court free to challenge other criteria, such as, for example. non-democratic organization of the party or a simple call for violence not today, but in the distant future (as happens, for example, with the KKE, which constitutionally advocates the dictatorship of the proletariat).

The best solution, in my opinion, would be to rule out case (c) entirely, since the regulation of case (b) covers most cases. As an alternative, one could simply add the adverb “exclusively” to this, meaning that the only and only criterion for recognizing a party as “undemocratic” is the presence of previous convictions, even the first degree, of candidates for deputies.

In a word, since both parties in power decided to exclude not only the Golden Dawn, but also any of its mutations from future elections, the criterion of “real leadership” is the least dangerous. Any other criterion, except for the presence of a criminal record, even of the first degree, would open the way to dangerous arbitrariness.

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