Five New Democracy MPs have signed an open letter addressed to the Prime Minister’s Office, targeting the “staff state” and, in essence, Minister of State Akis Skertos, although they do not name him.
In the letter published in “Nea,” Athanasios Zempilis, Andreas Katsaniotis, Xenophon Baraliakos, Giannis Oikonomou, and Ioannis Pappas question the effectiveness of the “staff state” in the current context and express their concern about the concentration of power at the center of governance. According to the lawmakers, this model limits the autonomy of ministries and parliamentary operations and “seeks absolute control, takes credit for successes, but when serious problems arise, responsibility is shifted downward.”
As they note, the exercise of power must bring decision-making centers closer to society.
The full text of the open letter is as follows:
“For a new model of governance that will bring decision-making centers closer to civil society! The resurgence of the OPEKEPE scandal, the resignations of ministers and deputy ministers, and the repeated calls to lift the immunity of New Democracy MPs are, among other things, a reminder.
A reminder to look back at the first piece of legislation passed by the New Democracy’s self-sufficient government, which established a specific model of governance. The “Staff State,” which was ridiculed, served as a political argument for criticism, but it functioned and continues to function. What we are called upon to consider is whether we can improve the Staff State and strengthen the architecture of a modern and functional state that effectively responds to today’s needs. We must reflect on the command-and-control state and how it operates, particularly over the past seven years or so, as the model for the exercise of power in the country.
A key conclusion is that while the executive-led state is effective in times of major crises, it does not prove equally effective in periods of stability. Furthermore, it sometimes raises issues of institutional imbalance that are inconsistent with a mature parliamentary democracy, as it was shaped in the post-dictatorship era, based primarily on the principles and values of our political party.
Law 4622/2019 on the “Executive State” constituted a major administrative reform aimed at coordination, speed, and accountability. It is undeniable, however, that over time it led to an excessive concentration of power in small, tight-knit groups. It shifted more and more weight to the center, strengthened the inner circle around the top of the government, and limited the autonomy of the ministries—and particularly of the parliamentary group—in relation to the scope of their institutional duties.
Theconcentration of power was carried out in the name of efficiency. But today we can say that it is not only what you do that matters, but also how you do it. And in a democracy, the latter is perhaps more important than the former. Institutions must be effective, but in a way that leaves no room for dysfunction and discord. What is most concerning is that, in the big picture, the bureaucratic state has failed to fully control the phenomena of corruption within the state and society.
Herein lies a contradiction. The executive branch claims absolute control and takes credit for successes, but when serious problems arise, responsibility is shifted downward, particularly onto members of parliament.
This practice is not found in leadership manuals. Today, at a time when the government itself is taking corrective measures under pressure from judicial developments, we need to discuss the executive state. A discussion that takes precedence over the dialogue on constitutional revision.
The goal is to gain new momentum, to move even further forward, as society remains convinced that only the New Democracy party and Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis can ensure stability and prosperity.
We must not allow irregularities in the model of governance to affect the parliamentary functioning of the New Democracy Parliamentary Group. In a liberal parliamentary democracy, a government exists as long as it enjoys the confidence of Parliament. The Prime Minister’s prerogatives and the duties of Members of Parliament are institutionally defined and exist in a dialectical relationship. Members of Parliament form the majority that empowers the Prime Minister and keeps him strong.
The solution to mismanagement and corruption is not greater centralization and the marginalization of members of Parliament. The member of parliament—who is the bearer of the people’s mandate, the check on executive power, and the authentic voice of the region—is unjustly branded as a corrupt official and risks being reduced to a mere conveyor of decisions already made. To be informed after the fact, to comply in advance, and to be confined to an ever-shrinking political sphere. Such a development would exacerbate the problems rather than resolve them.
One counterargument is often heard: that non-parliamentary technocrat ministers are not burdened by the wear and tear of the traditional parliamentary office, have not been subjected to the logic of clientelistic pressure, and have not built their careers on small favors. However, it is at the very least unfair to shift the blame onto those whom citizens choose to represent them through their vote, within a system that everyone disapproves of, only for the unelected to then exercise excessive power. No member of parliament wishes to be transformed from a national legislator and watchdog into a manager of requests and services. The solution is not to bypass parliamentary representation through a closed technocratic management center, because such a system is neither effective in times of stability, nor institutionally accountable, nor in daily contact with citizens.
What is needed is a new role for the member of parliament. They should not be viewed as a (favor-granting) service office and intermediary. The member of parliament should be the agent of institutional pressure, parliamentary oversight, policy-making, and the substantive representation of society, especially the region. A member of parliament who does not measure their influence by how many cases they “facilitated,” but by whether they were able to change policies, enforce accountability, and bring the voice of the real country to the center of decision-making.
Because the Greek periphery is not weakened only when it loses ministerial portfolios to the benefit of the Athens-centric state. It is weakened, above all, when it loses its institutional capacity to influence policymaking, when it does not participate equally in the distribution of wealth, when decisions are made further and further away from the people who know the field, when the experience of real production, the local economy of the Region, and living society is treated as “given” data to be processed rather than a living factor in shaping policy.
The country does not simply need a change of personnel. Our Prime Minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, has been insisting on the institutions since 2016. Today, we can jointly reassess the bureaucratic state, which until now has evaluated itself based on quantitative rather than qualitative indicators.
As the New Democracy party and parliamentary group, we need a more decentralized and institutionally balanced architecture, with increased accountability. With strong ministries, enhanced parliamentary oversight, genuine regional participation, clear responsibilities, and real political accountability. Greece does not need a state where a few decide for everyone without being directly accountable to the people. It needs a state that coordinates without stifling and governs without becoming detached from civil society.
Members of Parliament do not exist to serve any particular faction. They exist to defend the national and public interest by legislating and overseeing the executive branch.
ATHANASIOS ZEMBILIS, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR THE PREFECTURE OF EVIA
KATSANIOTIS ANDREAS, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR THE REGION OF ACHAIA
XENOFON BARALIACOS, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR PIERIA
GIANNIS OIKONOMOU, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR THE REGION OF FTHIOTIDA,
Ioannis Pappas, Member of Parliament for the Dodecanese
PASOK: Mitsotakis’s “executive” authoritarianism threatens democracy
Kostas Tsoukalas, Spokesperson for PASOK-Movement for Change, commented on the letter from the five New Democracy MPs in a statement:
“In a letter published in the newspaper ‘Ta Nea,’ New Democracy MPs Athanasios Zempilis, Andreas Katsaniotis, Xenophon Baraliakos, Giannis Oikonomou, and Ioannis Pappas sharply criticize the executive-dominated state, stating that “it sometimes gives rise to issues of institutional imbalance that are incompatible with a mature parliamentary democracy” and that Law 4622/2019 on the executive state has, over time, led to “an excessive concentration of power in small circles.”
When even the majority’s own MPs raise concerns about the functioning of democracy, everyone realizes that the rule of law and the separation of powers are at risk.
Mitsotakis’s “executive” authoritarianism threatens democracy.
Only PASOK can immediately guarantee a democratic renewal of justice, accountability, and transparency in the face of authoritarianism.