For the entry of the Spartans into the Parliament and also for the role that PASOK can play after the elections, the Evangelos Venizelos speaking to Paul Tsima and to 100.3.

Regarding the Spartans, he said: “The truth is that this relationship with Ilias Kasidiaris of the Spartans party is officially highlighted with statements, I think that the thanks from both sides and political enthusiasm for this identification were expressed with great warmth. This indeed shows that the ban on the participation of combinations linked to persons falling within the prohibitions of the law was circumvented and this is a legal and institutional failure of the struggling democracy which was expressly accepted as a theory by the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court with these two decisions, the very important that he issued for the exclusion of combinations from the elections.

If you want my scientific opinion, we need to add up some facts, because everyone is talking vaguely and in general terms. In this case, we must remember that in the May elections, the claim that the party of Mr. Kanellopoulos, “EAN” should be banned, was explicitly made. This was raised by PASOK with its memorandum and the Supreme Court explicitly replied that there is no reason to exclude that party,” he added.

On the possibility of an appeal against the “Spartans”

Regarding whether someone can subsequently appeal to the Electoral Court, with the claim that it was revealed that there was a hidden leader convicted of the Golden Dawn, so that the election could be annulled, he answered:

“I would start the other way around, in law everything starts from the procedural framework. The procedural framework in the Supreme Special Court, which also functions as an Electoral Court, is very specific and strict and has been very elaborated jurisprudentially for decades, it is not a new provision and one of the existing procedures like that of the declaration of combinations by the A1 Department of Supreme Court, we have a great wealth of jurisprudence and bibliography around these issues.

» I would start from the reverse question, those excluded from the June elections, that is, those who went to make the combination of independent candidates “Greeks” and finally channeled votes to the Spartans will appeal to the Supreme Special Court, the Electoral Court, or they consider it unnecessary and are they satisfied and represented? This will constitute an indirect, but institutional acknowledgment of the relevance of the two formations. From there on, procedurally, anyone who has a legal interest, in fact, any voter can appeal to the Supreme Special Court, it’s not something that the parties control, it’s not something that the government controls, it’s not something that the Prosecutor’s Office controls.”

Mr. Venizelos also pointed out that “the Supreme Special Court is very often faced with objections that are unexpected and raise issues of great importance. From there, we will see where such an initiative can be established. I would say very simply, two reasons can be put forward, one is the lack of legal qualifications and the other is electoral malpractice, as it is called. We don’t actually have an electoral violation in the sense of distorting the electoral competition, but even if we had that it would lead to a repeat of the elections, this version is sterile.

The other version of the lack of legal qualifications is based on an interpretation of the Constitution of article 58, what does a legal qualification mean, if it means the right to elect and be elected or if it also means participation in a combination that legally participates. But these are based on the fact that elections were held and that there were 250,000 citizens who expressed themselves. This is something that everyone is obviously taking into account, the analysts are taking into account, the citizens who may be suing and the judges who are going to try. So this whole landscape has to be taken into account, which we cannot control neither centrally nor rationally, there are always variables that do not obey any rules”.

What did he say about the election result?

Referring to the election result, he pointed out that “it is the first time not only in the Post-colonial period, I would say in a very long period, such a weak official opposition and a multi-splitting of the party spectrum which has ultimately led to the disintegration of the party system. There is no party system that we knew until the eve of the election, which was a bipolar, in general, party system with an internal logic, so to speak. Now it is doubtful if we can talk about a “one and a half party” system, there is definitely a very strong, dominant as it is scientifically called, party which is New Democracy, with a very high percentage and a large number of seats, with a stable independent government, but not there are the symmetries and counterbalances of a parliamentary system of government.”

For the role that PASOK can play

Commenting on whether PASOK can assume a political role greater than the percentage it received in the elections, Mr. Venizelos underlined: “This is a very big exercise, I would say, for PASOK as well, which has a very optimistic and interesting starting point in which he must make use of by giving answers that also concern his identity, his ideological-political, value-based, I would say better, his characteristics, but also the way he perceives his relationship with power. In other words, it can be a moderate party, which is now starting to become moderate again, but nevertheless it has an institutional memory, a political memory that is too heavy for a party in power, and this is a combination that is interesting.

He must, of course, now take certain decisions which I will not indicate, but which concern the deep belief in liberal democracy, rights, freedom of speech and of course the support of what is called the social rule of law, that is what our Constitution says and this combination is very important, because it is not only democracy, rights, the rule of law, there is also another thing that we must never forget, it is inequalities, it is the growth of inequalities, it is the risk of breaking of social cohesion”.