The Greek Constitution is a hybrid text, both political and legal in nature. It is not to be assessed through narrow technical-legal criteria. However, since it enshrines the fundamental rules of law, any amendment is justified only if the proposed changes represent the best possible solution. The same lens applies to the prime minister’s ambitious revision proposal for a “forward leap,” which, in total, affects no less than one quarter of the current Constitution.
Such an extensive amendment must first be examined in terms of necessity. How necessary are certain changes when a bold and timely application of existing provisions would suffice? I am thinking, for example, of the proposals concerning civil service permanency and climate change.
Perhaps articles 103 and 24 of the Constitution already suffice for that purpose. Conversely, should we not first take a more refreshed look at other provisions, such as Article 110 on the revision procedure, or the long-neglected articles 106 and 107 on the role of the state in the economy? If the National Transparency Authority is to be constitutionally enshrined, does the competent commission not deserve similar treatment? Of course, many of these gaps are already addressed by EU law. But then, should we not also refrain from inserting into Article 79 a prohibition of budget deficits that European treaties already mandate? For a non-“targeted” revision such as the one proposed to have a genuinely positive impact, it must be consistent and comprehensive, aligning the constitutional framework as a whole with the future. At the same time, the Constitution may also need a diet – a kind of Ozempic-style slimming of the constitutional text. I found the idea concerning Article 17 particularly appealing: to make it more concise and extend protection to all forms of property.
