Cry of Desperation from Members of Parliament
Five Greek MPs critique the “managerial state” for sidelining lawmakers in policy-making, while advocating mixed electoral reforms to strengthen democracy and political accountability.
The article by five New Democracy (ND) Members of Parliament, which raises concerns about the effectiveness of the so-called “command state” and the substantial marginalization of MPs—especially those of the majority—from shaping policy and developing ideological reflections and directions, is of exceptional interest.
I have often expressed similar views. An MP must express political concerns about the future of society and participate in the formulation of related policies. Of course, this should be done with decorum and discipline in articulating opinions and delivering political discourse. If an MP becomes merely an executor and approver of central political decisions, it negates their political role and erodes the essence of democracy.
However, where I do not fully agree with the text of the five ND MPs is their unhidden aim to defend the existing system of MP elections (preferential voting by crossing out) and to maintain the current electoral system (multi-member constituencies with preferential voting).
The single-member system, or the so-called “mixed” system, strengthens democracy and elevates the MP as a bearer of politics and as an expression of ideological identity. Moreover, it neuters the dominance of party centers by imposing the direct election of the leader and, in cases of disagreement between an MP and the leadership, mandatory repeat elections.
Of course, I also disagree with the government official’s response. “The command state is a collaborative state that works as a team and does not operate in fiefdoms or estates where each minister does whatever they please,” said Akis Skertsos.
In the British Conservative Party, there is indeed the so-called Central Policy Review Staff, a creation of Margaret Thatcher, where policy positions are developed by specialized personnel and undergo the rigor of political analysis by responsible parliamentarians before being formulated as policy.
What, as far as I understand, applies here is the imposition of policy by some “enlightened” (without responsibility and of unknown validity) center, imposed as a line downward “so that there are no fiefdoms and no one—including ministers—does whatever they want!”
In other words, a communist-style centralization, without Marxism as a point of reference, and without being at all “democratic”!
