The appearance of a “knight” in the leadership of the Greek National Party in the robes of a former deputy prosecutor of the Supreme Court has an obvious purpose: to protect the party, whose roots go back to Ilias Kasidiaris, from the prohibitions that he introduced into the electoral legislation with the recent law 5019/2023. Following its vote, Supreme Court Department A1, historically responsible for announcing candidate combinations in parliamentary elections, is called upon to investigate two additional potential barriers to elimination. The first focuses on the persons who lead the party: in addition to the president or legal representative, it is also considered who has the “real leadership”, i.e. “administers” in practice, “establishes virtual leadership”, or takes a leading political role in relation to the electorate”. The above-mentioned persons are forbidden to be convicted, even in the first instance, for a number of criminal hellish crimes. The second obstacle is related to the party itself, since among the candidates for deputies or founding members it includes convicts. In this case, the Supreme Court assesses whether “the organization and actions of the party do not serve the free functioning of the state.” Given that Mr. Kasidiaris was found guilty of the offenses listed in the law, the question arises how the appointment of Mr. A. Kanellopoulos at the head of a particular party affects the prospects for the implementation of the new provisions.

Liberal democracy must defend itself against its enemies, but not become like them. He is not allowed to indifferently expose, nor fight against authoritarianism, succumbing to it himself. Therefore, early prevention of party formations that pose a danger to the constitutional order from entering the elections is a particularly difficult task. The drafters of Law 5019/2023 tried to do this cautiously and sparingly, remaining (in my opinion) within the framework of the Constitution. However, setting parameters is a different story. In law, the search for who exercises “real” control outside and outside formulas (business, criminal group or party – it doesn’t matter) requires an assessment of a set of criteria. For political parties, participation in an informal committee or systematic communication and the formulation of proposals may be sufficient. The link between the party’s programmatic positions and those supported by the convicts is, of course, of decisive importance. On the other hand, the accession to the presidency by a person who does not automatically fall into the category of “figures” may reduce the effectiveness of one of the criteria of the law. At the same time, this in itself does not remove the possible “leading political role” of Mr. Kasidiaris in this scheme. Furthermore, Mr. Kanellopoulos’ presidency does not materially change the facts regarding the contribution of the second hurdle, since Mr. Kasidiaris was one of the founders and it is likely that he will be a candidate. However, once again, the onus falls on the executors of the rule to document why a particular party “does not serve the free functioning of the state” in order to rule it out.

The exclusion of even a factional political formation is possible and legally visible, but not given. Those who consider him law-abiding are in danger of being disappointed.

As a result, the exclusion of even a factional political formation is possible and legally visible, but not given. Those who invest in constitutional exceptions run the risk of becoming disillusioned, especially when voting is the norm in democracy. From this point of view, the appearance of the newly minted “dark knight” of the National Party – the Hellenes has one positive moment: it awakens us from the dream of justice. It is necessary to consider and evaluate those elements that document the existence of exclusion criteria, both ex officio by the Supreme Court and by other parties to whom the law provides the opportunity to file a memorandum. The aforementioned effort within a suffocating time frame is necessary not only to achieve a result, but also at least respect for institutions; on the one hand, in relation to the Supreme Court, which is called upon to deal with this particular case inappropriately, as with all others, on the other hand, in relation to democracy itself. The self-referential repetition of “but this is the party of Kasidiaris” is not enough to make it disappear from the political horizon.

Mr. Yorgos Dellis is a professor at the Athens School of Law.