Last Sunday, “K” supported the opinion that the resolutions recently adopted in parliament to exclude the “party of Cassidiari” from the elections are contrary to the “constitutional order” of our country, at least as perceived by the observer.

The latter, drafted to a large extent with the opinions of Mr. Anastasios Kanellopoulos, Honorary Deputy Prosecutor of the Supreme Court and Chairman of the EAN Party, bases his arguments mainly on the “historical” interpretation of Article 29 of the current Constitution, i.e. the intentions of a legislator-editor, as they were expressed in post-colonial times, in 1975.

I recall that Article 29, which enshrines the right to form political parties, while stipulating that “their organization and activities must serve the free functioning of a democratic state”, ultimately does not provide for any sanctions for those parties that violate this requirement.

I think your browser’s argument is untenable for the following main reasons:

1. Because, firstly, he overlooks the fact that the Golden Dawn is not a political party, but a “criminal organization.” At least that’s how the three-member Court of Appeal of Athens described him after an exhaustive trial that lasted more than five years.

Here is the verbatim wording of the relevant court opinion: “The main characteristic of the criminal organization that originated in the bowels of a political formation, and then a political party called Laikos Syndesmos Chrysi Avgi and operated under its cover, was its hierarchical structure” (pp. 11.059-11.060) .

And below: “His operationally structured continuous criminal activity aimed at combating violence against dissidents, foreigners, as well as those who were considered his serious ideological enemies, and, as a result, the violent imposition of his political ideas, was manifested through local organizations and always under the leadership of higher in the hierarchy, on the basis of an organized plan, which was carried out by members of the shock groups, called “assault battalions”. […] whose members had special physical training and related training […]» (p. 11 536).

In other words, the element that mattered, according to the court’s reasoning, was not so much the Golden Lady’s ideology, but the use of violence with a hierarchically structured paramilitary apparatus.

Who thinks that jewelers as “party” leaders (and not as Kumburophores) need to be protected, because by their actions they ensure the free flow of ideas?

The least that could be expected from a former judge was, if not to read the entire twelve-odd thousand pages of the Court of Appeal decision, as would be required out of respect for the work of his colleagues, then at least to distinguish between a political party and a paramilitary organization. Something that rightly reminded of “K” last Sunday by fellow professor Mon. Fundedakis. I remind you that in France more than two hundred milices privées were outlawed under a law of 1936, which remains in force to this day, and the Conseil d’Etat rejected all appeals as unfounded. Like the Strasbourg court.

2. But even if, contrary to logic, it was believed that the Golden Dawn was a political party protected by Article 29 of the Constitution, it is difficult to understand how an experienced lawyer loses sight of the fact that the Constitution places “under the guarantee of all its statesmen”, which means , and the legislator, “a free and genuine manifestation of the people’s will” (Article 52). Unless, of course, he himself believes that as “party” officials (and not as cumburophores, as they really were), jewelers should be protected, because in this way they ensure pluralism of opinions and free movement of ideas. I don’t want to believe it. Thus, the House had to intervene to prevent a certain atrocity that the republic’s sworn enemies were willing to commit on its behalf, rather than wait for another revision of the constitution.

3. Obviously correct, given Article 51 of the Constitution, that no one can be disenfranchised until the conviction against him has become final. But it’s not about that. Because political rights have not been taken away from Kasidiaris and Michaloliakos, and no one prevents them from claiming electoral votes as independents. However, no principle, no constitutional norm obliges the state to facilitate the entry into parliament of formations that allow the use of brute force – already today, and not in the distant future – as a means of political struggle.

4. A persuasive reference is made to the decision of the Department A1 of the Supreme Court of 2014, which rejected the objection to the participation of the Golden Dawn in the European elections of that year. Because at that time, the trial of the organization had not even begun, which ended with the sentence of its leading core to long terms of imprisonment in October 2020 and its characterization as a criminal organization.

5. The last remark about the appeal to the views of Ilias Helios. In December 1974, shortly after the abolition of the famous A.N. 509/1947 and the legalization of the communist party, the Karamanli government, in the draft constitution they issued on Christmas Eve, brought back the old idea of ​​the pre-dictatorial ERE that “subversive” parties could be outlawed by the decision of a quasi-constitutional court. The reaction to this proposal was universal. Ilias Iliou took the lead by publishing three articles in “Avgi”. With the pragmatism that always distinguished him, Konstantinos Karamanlis retreated, and, finally, Article 29 of the Constitution did not provide, as we have seen, for any sanctions.

I leave it to the reader to decide what the historic leader of the Greek Left’s 1974 denunciation of an obsolete Cold War-era measure, which some were trying to bring back then, has to do with the arguments of Sunday Columnist K. I just want to remind you that when, in 1965, Ilias Ilios blew up another Council of State judge, apparently the author of the famous three royal letters to George Papandreou, from the House of Parliament, he uttered the ever-historic “Zero to the Constitutional Law.”

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