The selection process for the leadership of Greece’s supreme courts has reignited tensions between PASOK and New Democracy in the Constitutional Review Committee. Euclid Stylianidis (New Democracy) and Evangelia Liakouli (PASOK) exchanged sharp criticisms over which model best safeguards both democratic legitimacy and institutional independence of the judiciary.
A Debate Over Democratic Legitimacy and Judicial Independence
New Democracy, represented by Stylianidis, defended its constitutional amendment proposal—arguing that PASOK consistently defaults to committee-based solutions. Liakouli, speaking for PASOK, countered that the government’s plan fails to insulate judicial leadership appointments from the current parliamentary majority.
“An Ass Designed by a Committee”
Stylianidis dismissed concerns that the proposal merely shifts appointment authority from the executive to the legislature. He stressed the need for democratic legitimacy in selecting judicial leadership—and warned against an autonomous, self-governing judiciary. Drawing on a British parliamentary quip, he remarked that “a camel is an ass designed by a committee,” suggesting multi-member bodies neither guarantee effectiveness nor democratic legitimacy.
He argued that a panel composed of professors, MPs, and judges cannot replace Parliament—the sovereign institution of democratic legitimacy. He also criticized what he called a “fear of democratic majorities,” noting that Parliament must not abdicate responsibility for core state functions—a retreat he linked to public distrust in political institutions.
“You’re Building a Puppet”
Liakouli responded forcefully, accusing New Democracy of having been “backed into a corner” on both Article 86 of the Constitution and broader judicial reform. Referring to the government’s proposal to move appointment authority from the Council of Ministers to a special parliamentary committee, she labeled it a “puppet” of the Council of Ministers.
She pointed out that the proposed committee would be dominated by the governing majority and would exclude legal professionals, academics, and judges themselves—key stakeholders in judicial governance. “We see and approach democracy differently,” she stated, urging the ruling majority to reconsider its position.