|
Kathimerini
July 28,
2003
Editorial suggests political
motivations behind the Greek PASOK party’Äôs attention to possible
changes in the electoral law. The PASOK party controls a majority of
the seats in the Greek Parliament.
Kathimerini
Editorial
An old favorite
July 28, 2003. The prime minister’Äôs rejuvenation of the Executive
Bureau and replacement of PASOK’Äôs general secretary was ostensibly
carried out within the framework of an initiative for governmental
and party awakening ’Äî an awakening which, although undermined by the
minor government reshuffle, appeared to be Costas Simitis’Äôs chief
goal. However, the government’Äôs decision to raise the issue of
changes to the electoral law ’Äî after careful preparation ’Äî suggests
that party expediency continues to take precedence over initiatives
of substance. Indeed, why the urgency for changing the electoral
law now, especially if the new legislation will not yet apply by the
time of the expected elections in 2005? Unfortunately, the only
available explanations have little connection to speculation about
the extent to which existing electoral legislation is fair,
representative and functional. On the contrary, in the raising of
the issue, one can discern an attempt to create a new point of
conflict with opposition New Democracy and to set aside criticism of
alleged corruption within the government’Äôs ranks. One can also
discern certain party interests that are fueling the search for a
more proportional electoral system ’Äî chiefly a system which makes it
easier for a party leader to send select deputies to Parliament. If
the exploitation of the issue of electoral legislation for public
relations purposes can be interpreted as a show of political
pettiness, then the party interests behind this exploitation are
even more worrying. The existing electoral law, despite its
imperfections, has served the country well. Speculation about
whether it limits the proportional representation of smaller
political parties more than is necessary for the existence of stable
government is too serious a matter for debate during an extended
pre-election period. As for the dependence of parliamentary
deputies on their supporters and the party itself, this is an even
more awkward matter, which is further aggravated in the case of MPs
elected via party lists. Finally, if anyone wanted to regard as
’Äúnew’Äù Simitis’Äôs basically unchanged government, they could not deny
that, by choosing electoral legislation as its chief focus, it has
proven how dated it actually is. |
