Papandreou instead backed Supreme Court justice Christos Sartzetakis, who was popular with left-leaning voting blocks for his investigation of the politically motivated murder of Grigoris Lambrakis in 1963. Sartzetakis was elected president by the Hellenic Parliament in a tense and confrontational atmosphere due to constitutionally questionable procedures by Papandreou. The opposition, New Democracy led by Constantine Mitsotakis and Karamanlis' former party, considered the vote illegal, with Mitsotakis threatening to remove Sartzetakis from the presidency if they won the upcoming elections, further deepening the constitutional crisis. The confrontation dominated and polarized the election campaigns. However, the choice of Sartzetakis as president helped Papandreou and his socialist PASOK party to secure the 1985 Greek parliamentary election despite his inability to handle the deterioration of the economy of Greece. After the elections, all political parties accepted Sartzetakis as president, and the constitutional amendments took effect in 1986. The constitutional amendments transformed the liberal democracy of Greece based on the constitution of 1975 into a "populist democracy" with a majoritarian parliamentary system and a prime minister acting as a "parliamentary autocrat."
Soon after the constitutional amendments took effect, Papandreou's premiership was engulfed by corruption scandals, with Koskotas scandal being the most prominent. Papandreou abused his position, having now no constitutional restraints, to prevent the Koskotas scandal from advancing in courts, and his patronage reached new heights when he promised to empty the state's coffers to his loyal supporters. After losing the 1989 elections, a collaborative government between conservative New Democracy and radical left Synaspismos parties, despite their ideological opposition and having fought against each other in the civil war, indicted Papandreou and three of his ministers, as well as breaking state's monopoly on the mass media and destroying junta's filings, to prevent any omnipotent prime minister from exploiting them for political advantage. Since then, constitutional scholars have proposed a partial reversal of the removal of presidential powers to reduce the ill effects of majoritarian politics while preventing conflicts between the president and prime minister.
Much of the history of modern Greece since its independence in 1821 from the Ottoman Empire has been turbulent. Upon the foundation of the First Hellenic Republic, the Greek political institutions and economy were underdeveloped and heavily indebted due to the liberation wars.[1] The lack of political conscience among the Greeks[i] led to friction between the local prominent families and the first Prime Minister Ioannis Kapodistrias, leading to his assassination.[2] The extensive borrowing made Greece subject to creditors, i.e., the European Great Powers, which imposed a foreign royal family[ii] as head of the Greek state, having absolute power.[3] This created tension between the Greek people, who sought more inclusive political participation to improve their living conditions, and the elites led by the king, who sought to please the foreign creditors and preserve their positions by actively intervening in political life. The tension eventually led to the military to intervene in politics; this lasted in the next century when Greece had eight military coups since World War I.[4] In early military movements, the military succeeded in securing a constitution from the king and a wide range of reforms, as in the case of 3 September 1843 Revolution and the Goudi coup in 1909, respectively.[5] From the Goudi coup, Eleftherios Venizelos became a prime minister with great popular appeal, modernized Greece, and greatly expanded the Greek territory in the Balkan Wars and World War I.[6] However, his policies brought him into conflict with King Constantine I regarding the entry of Greece in World War I with the Allies.[7] The disagreement between the two men resulted in the National Schism, dividing in half the society and the military, and the eventual expulsion of the king. The creation of the Second Hellenic Republic based on the Constitution of 1927 was, however, short-lived (1924-1935), and the king returned.[8] Later military movements tended to be in favor of the king, as happened with 4th of August Regime in 1936, led by General Ioannis Metaxas.[9]
The Axis occupation in World War II and immediate 1944-49 civil war between the Communist-led uprising against the establishment led by the King, inflicted economic devastation and deepened cleavages in society.[10] After the lifting of martial law (1947-1950), post-civil-war governments were politically weak and heavily depended on the external patronage of the United States (Marshall Plan), and their primary focus was to contain communism amid Cold War.[11] The political dialogue of the following decades revolved around how power basis swifts from the Right (victors of the civil war) to the Center. However, the politicians delayed due to division on how to approach the necessary social reconciliation with the vanquished in the civil war, many of whom were either captured or exiled.[12] Another thorny issue was the control of the military by the elected government, i.e., politicians, instead of the king.
The Constitution of 1952 was based on the Constitution of 1911, but it was effectively a new constitution since it was in violation of the revision clause of the Constitution of 1911.[13] It established a parliamentary monarchy with the king as head of state and the army, based on the principle of the separation of powers.[13] However, the king maintained considerable powers, such as dissolving the government and parliament and calling new elections. Moreover, article 31[14] stated that the king hires and fires ministers (Greek: Ο βασιλεύς διορίζει και παύει τους υπουργούς αυτού). This created confusion as the prime minister was chosen by popular election, but the elected prime minister could not select the government's ministers without the king's approval. Two prime ministers in the 1950s had raised the question as to who governs the state, the king or the prime minister,[15] echoing the disagreements between Venizelos and Constantine I during the National Schism.
From 1955 to 1963, Greece was under the governorship of Constantine Karamanlis, who was widely acknowledged for bringing political and economic stability to Greece.[16] Karamanlis wanted to revise the Constitution of 1952 to reduce the king's prerogatives,[17] but failed to gain sufficient political capital to overcome the king's resistance. In the early 1960s, there was a growing awareness that the repressive measures taken due to civil war and its aftermath were no longer needed. This became clear with the death of left-wing member of parliament (MP) Grigoris Lambrakis, where several high state officials were found to be involved either in the assassination or in its cover-up.[17] While no one, even from the severest of his left-wing critics, blamed Karamanlis for the incident, he resigned and self-exiled to France.[18]
Georgios Papandreou and his political party, Center Union, having a moderate reformist platform, gained considerable traction and rose to power in elections of 1963 and later in elections of 1964.[16][19] He advocated for the liberalization of Greek society, which was rapidly urbanizing, resulting in large salary increases for police, judges, and teachers. Papandreou's government also released all the political prisoners as a first step towards healing wounds from the civil war.[20] However, seeds of resentment towards Papandreou from the military grew as they were excluded from salary increases.[21] He also made a faint attempt to gain control of the military, which alarmed many officers without weakening them.[22][23] The latter created friction with the King Constantine II, who wanted to remain in command of the army and not the elected government.[20] In the meantime, the son of Georgios Papandreou, Andreas Papandreou, who had joined Greek politics after 23 years in the United States as a prominent academic,[24] was campaigning by having fierce anti-monarchy and anti-American rhetoric, destabilizing the fragile political equilibrium.[25][26] Andreas Papandreou's militant and uncompromising stance made him a target of conspiratorial accusations from ultra-rightists who feared that following any new elections, which the nearly 80-year-old Georgios Papandreou would likely win, his son would be the actual focus of power in the party.[27] These incidents caused a dispute between Georgios Papandreou and King Constantine II, leading to the resignation of the former.[28]
Andreas Papandeou in exile.
For the next twenty-two months, there was no elected government, and hundreds of demonstrations took place, with many being injured and killed in clashes with the police.[29] The king, potentially[iii] acting within his constitutional rights but politically dubious approach,[28] tried to bring members of the Center Union party to his side and form a government, leading to Apostasia of 1965.[30] He temporarily succeeded in getting 45 members, including Constantine Mitsotakis, to his side, who later were called 'apostates' by the side supporting Papandreous.[29][31] To end the political deadlock, Georgios Papandreou attempted a more moderate approach with the king, but Andreas Papandreou publicly rejected his father's effort and attacked the whole establishment, attracting the support of 41 members of the Center Union in an effort designed to gain the party's leadership and preventing any compromise.[25] The prolonged political instability between the politicians and the king in finding a solution led a group of Colonels to intervene and rule Greece for seven years. The junta regime expelled prominent political figures, including Andreas Papandreou, Constantine Mitsotakis, and the king. Nearly universally, the political world blamed Andreas Papandreou, even his father disowned him,[iv] as the person primarily responsible for the fall of Greek democracy.[26][32] In exile, Papandreou was a pariah, cut off from democratic and political forces working for the restoration of democracy in Greece. Moreover, he developed and spread to the public an anti-Americanconspiratorial[v] narrative of past events in which he was a victim of larger forces.[33] After the junta's fall due to its inability to handle the Turkish invasion of Cyprus,[34] the dominant political figure, Constantine Karamanlis, returned to restore democratic institutions in Greece.
With the return of civilian rule under Karamanlis, the new government, acting under extraordinary circumstances, issued a "Constituting Act" which voided the junta's Constitution of 1973.[35] Pending a referendum on a new constitution, the 1952 constitution was temporarily restored, "except for the articles dealing with the form of the State"; the last phrase referred to whether the monarchy would be restored.[35] In the meantime, the functions of the king were to be discharged by the incumbent President Phaedon Gizikis, who was appointed by the junta's regime as a nominal figurehead.[36]
In November of 1974 Greek parliamentary election, Karamanlis received 56% of the vote and a mandate to set the foundations of the new state. In the December 1974 Greek republic referendum,[vi] 76% of voters chose a parliamentary republic with a president as head of state and commander-in-chief of the armed forces,[37] effectively voiding 150 years of tradition of monarchical rule.[38] This led to the foundation of the Third Hellenic Republic with the new Constitution of 1975, which reinforced the executive branch's power, represented by the prime minister, while the president would act as the head of state with sufficient reserve powers, the right to call elections, appoint a government, dissolve Parliament, and call referendums on important national questions. Moreover, the president could veto any legislation that did not reflect the popular will that could only be overcome with three fifth parliamentary majority.[37][39] The presidential powers, which overall exceeded those of the monarch under the 1952 Constitution, were drawn inspiration from the recent Gaullism reforms in the France where Karamanlis spent time (1963-1974).[37] Despite vocal resistance from the leftist parties, which wanted a purely parliamentary system with a ceremonial president, Karamanlis insisted that these powers would act as checks and balances to prevent an omnipotent prime minister who could accumulate executive and legislative powers without any restraint.[40] Parliament adopted the new constitution and it was promulgated on 11 June 1975. Andreas Papandreou, along with the communists, boycotted the promulgation of the constitution, and he publicly described it as "totalitarian," advocating instead for a "socialist" constitution without further elaborating on what he meant.[41][37]
From 1975 until 1980, Karamanlis and his close associate Konstantinos Tsatsos governed Greece as prime minister and president of Greece, respectively. The healing of the wounds caused by the civil war was pressing since the junta had only exacerbated them. Towards this direction, Karamanlis had legitimized the Communist Party (KKE),[vii][42] which was outlawed since November 1947 during the civil war, re-ratified the European Convention on Human Rights,[43] and opened the borders to exiled Greeks who had fled the junta and civil war to return home, including Melina Merkouri, Mikis Theodorakis, and Cornelius Castoriadis.[44] Approximately 25,000 returned after passing strict security screening from 1974 to 1981.[45] However, Karamanlis' governments maintained the post-civil war state's anticommunist stance, i.e., it was challenging to get a civil service job as a communist. Minister of Interior Konstantinos Stefanopoulos explained the conservative viewpoint as "Greeks would never forgive those who had taken up arms against the Nation."[46]
In the meantime, Papandreou and his newly formed political party (PASOK) rose in popularity due to the rising pressure from the 1973 and 1979 oil crisis on the Greek economy and Papandreou's radical rhetoric, mostly anti-American and anti-EEC. In 1980, after Karamanlis secured the entry of Greece into European Economic Community (EEC), he became president, handing over the premiership to Georgios Rallis, which created a power vacuum that contributed to Andreas Papandreou winning the 1981 Greek parliamentary election and becoming prime minister.[47] In the eyes of Greece's allies, Karamanlis, as President, would act as a restraining factor on radical departures in foreign and domestic affairs if Papandreou realized his campaign promises.[48][49] Papandreou took further steps in achieving social reconciliation by allowing the return of another potential 22,000 returnees by dropping the security screening; the most notable was Markos Vafiadis at age 77.[45] Papandreou also introduced a law in 1985 for civil servants dismissed for political reasons to restore their pension.[45] All formal Civil War commemorations were abolished, including ceremonies commemorating Dekemvriana.[50] The first law recognizing the Greek Resistance was passed in 1949, which excluded left-leaning partisan groups that fought against the Greek State in the Greek Civil War. On 20 September 1982, Papandreou's government passed a law that abolished this exception, allowing EAM/ELAS members the war veteran status and pension rights.[45] However, Papandreou, unlike Karamanlis's inclusive approach, instrumentalized the painful and divided past by regularly invoking the memories of the civil war ("right the wrongs of the past") and "revenge of the losers [of the Civil War]" (Greek: "η ρεβάνς των ηττημένων") to maintain the support of the left-leaning faithful by demonstrating to them that PASOK remained true to its campaign promises and left-wing roots.[45][51] For Papandreou, polarization was necessary to distract his supporters from his mishandling of the chronic stagflation state of the Greek economy despite the influx of economic aid from EEC.[52] Nevertheless, the cohabitation of the two men in the 1981–1985 period was successful since Papandreou governed in a more pragmatic approach compared to his radical polarizing rhetoric, by reversing many of his campaign promises.
Constitutional crisis
Presidents of the Hellenic Republic, Konstantinos Karamanlis (left) and Christos Sartzetakis (right).
First stage
On 6 March 1985, New Democracy announced that they would support Karamanlis' second Presidency term, while on the same day, the KKE party declared that they would put forward their own candidate. The press anticipated that Papandreou would also support Karamanlis,[53] since he had assured Karamanlis his support in person.[54] However, Papandreou changed his mind at the last moment, siding with the left wing of PASOK, which did not want Karamanlis, and instead backed Christos Sartzetakis (a Supreme Court of Greece judge known for his principled handling of the 1963 murder of left-wing deputy Grigoris Lambrakis and viewed favorably by the left, and a protagonist in Costas Gavras' 1969 movie "Z" based on the novel of Vassilis Vassilikos). The announcement took place at the Central Committee of PASOK on 9 March.[53] This move surprised some of Papanderou's ministers, much of the rank-and-file of his party, and even Sartzetakis himself, who was not consulted in advance.[53][54] Later on, it was revealed that the supposedly spontaneous change of mind was to camouflage Papandreou's long-held constitutional designs since Sartzetakis not only knew about it well in advance but also that there had been two other judicial figures who rejected Papandreou's offer.[55] At the same time, Papandreou announced plans for a constitutional reform, which rekindled the debate about the form of the republic and further polarized the political environment by damaging the consensus between the two dominant political parties, PASOK and New Democracy, that existed between 1981 and 1985.[56]
Papandreou also argued that it would be illogical for Karamanlis to preside over any constitutional reform since much of the constitution of 1974 was heavily influenced by Karamanlis himself.[41] Mitsotakis accused Papandreou of creating a constitutional crisis to remove Karamanlis from office to establish a totalitarian constitution.[57] Papandreou informed Karamanlis of his decision via his deputy, Antonios Livanis, as he could not bring himself to do so in person.[58] In response, Karamanlis resigned from the Presidency on 10 March 1985, two weeks before the termination of his term, and was replaced by PASOK's Speaker of the Hellenic Parliament, Ioannis Alevras, as acting president.[41] Constitutional scholars were subsequently divided on whether Alevras, as the acting President, could participate in the parliamentary vote for his successor; in the end, the PASOK-dominated parliament decided to allow it, with New Democracy deputies leaving the chamber.[59]
According to the Constitution of 1975, up to three rounds of a parliamentary vote were permitted for presidential candidates; the first two rounds required more than 200 votes out of 300 members of parliament, and in the third round, 180 votes out of 300.[60] If all three rounds failed, then new elections would be held. Papandreou could only rely upon approximately 164 MPs (he had expelled six PASOK MPs for criticizing him since 1981), 13 MPs from the KKE, and five independent MPs (about 182).[61] The first two rounds failed to elect Sartzetakis as president. The election was carried out in conditions of high political tension; at one point, a New Democracy MP momentarily grabbed the ballot box. New Democracy chairman Mitsotakis accused Papandreou of violating constitutional protocol, which required a secret ballot, by forcing his deputies to cast their vote with colored ballots, but Mitsotakis' concern was dismissed.[61] Mitsotakis and Papandreou ended up having a verbal confrontation, with Mitsotakis claiming Papandreou had no respect for parliament, and Papandreou responding, with Mitsotakis' role in the Apostasia in mind, that the latter was the last person entitled to speak about respect.[viii][61]
In the third round on 29 March, despite vigorous protests from the opposition, PASOK members used colored ballots under strict surveillance.[62] Sartzetakis was voted president with a decisive vote from Alevras since Papandreou's party suffered the defection of two MPs, who Papandreou accused of taking bribes from Mitsotakis' party.[62] Mitsotakis considered the vote illegal and claimed that if New Democracy won the elections, Sartzetakis would not be president by bringing the legality of the process to Council of State, further deepening the constitutional crisis.[63]
With Sartzetakis as president, Papandreou could formally submit the proposals for constitutional amendments by adding to the previous one the removal of a secret ballot for president.[64] Papandreou's proposals were designed to ease future changes to the constitution and reduce the powers of the President. While the former proposal was eventually abandoned, Papandreou was determined to eliminate the presidential powers. His argument was the hypothetical case of an activist president, mimicking the tendency of kings of Greece to intervene in the political life since the creation of the modern Greek state.[65] PASOK minister Anastasios Peponis introduced the constitutional amendment package to the Parliament with the following argument:
Invoking the lack of use of some provisions, their lack of implementation is by no means an argument to keep them in the current constitution. The question is what is our guiding principle? When provisions directly or indirectly contradict the principle of popular sovereignty, we object to them. [...] We support that the president is neither directly appointed by nor elected by the people. We are not a presidential, we are a parliamentary democracy. It is not the president who resorts to the people, so that the people deliver a verdict by majority voting. It is the legitimate government. It is the political parties. If the president resorts to the people, then he inevitably either sides with one party against others or attempts to substitute himself for the parties and impose his own solution. Nevertheless, as soon as he attempts to substitute himself for the parties and impose his own solution, then he embarks upon the formation of his own decisions of governmental nature. Then the government, directly or indirectly, fully or partially, is abolished.[66]
Scholars considered such constitutional changes "unnecessary" since no president had utilized these powers in the course of the Third Hellenic Republic until the time Papandreou raised the issue.[67][65] Moreover, Anna Benaki-Psarouda, New Democracy's rapporteur, presented in the parliament the following argument against the proposed reforms:
And this is the achievement of the 1975 Constitution: A miraculous balance between the Parliament, the Government and the President of the Republic, namely these state organs which express popular sovereignty and always pose the risk of de facto usurping it. [...] It is also interesting to see where these competencies of the President of the Republic are transferred. They are removed from him, but where do they go? To popular sovereignty and the Parliament, as the parliamentary majority claims? Dear colleagues, all of them go to the government, either directly or indirectly through the parliamentary majority controlled by it. Because the parliament is now subjugated to the parliamentary majority through party discipline. [...] Dear colleagues, the conclusion from the amendments suggested by the government or the parliamentary majority is the following: Power is transferred completely to the government. Hence, we have every reason to be afraid and suspect and mistrust about the future of Greece. [...] I want to stress the following, so that we, the Greek people, understand well: that with the suggested amendments you turn government and government majority into superpowers.[68]
Psarouda-Benaki effectively argued that this type of majoritarianism would damage the quality of Greek democracy.[68] Scholars also noted that the proposed changes would make the prime minister the most powerful ("autocratic") position in the Greek state since there would not be any constitutional restraints.[69][70] The constitutional amendments passed along party lines.
The logo of PASOK displaying a rising sun. Papandreou implied in his election campaign in 1985 that PASOK represented the "forces of light" while the opposition the "forces of darkness."
Both parties continued their confrontations in the campaigns for the June 1985 parliamentary election, where the political polarization reached new heights. Mitsotakis declared, "In voting, the Greek people will also be voting for a president"[64] and also warned that there is a danger of sliding towards an authoritarian one-party state.[71] From PASOK, Agamemnon Koutsogiorgas described what was at stake not as "oranges and tomatoes but the confrontation between two worlds." [72] Papandreou followed this by characterizing the upcoming elections as a fight between light and darkness in his rallies, implying that PASOK represented the "forces of light" since its logo was a rising sun.[72]The Economist magazine described Greece as a "country divided," tearing itself apart and opening the wounds of civil war.[73] Just before the elections, Karamanlis broke his silence and urged the Greeks to be cautious with their vote (without explicitly advising who to vote), commenting that PASOK had brought "confusion and uncertainty."[74] However, Karamanlis' statement was not broadcast on TV and radio, which were controlled by the state and governing party, i.e., PASOK.[74]
In the event, PASOK was re-elected with 45.82% of the vote.[72] Papandreou's gamble worked to his benefit because he gained more from far-left voting blocks than the centrist voters lost.[75][55]
Papandreou began his second administration with a comfortable majority in parliament and increased powers based on the amended constitution. However, his premiership was soon mired in numerous financial and corruption scandals, including the Koskotas scandal. The Greek economy rapidly deteriorated as Papandreou, shaken by PASOK's waning popularity, reversed the austerity measures imposed by the European Economic Community for a loan to save the Greek economy from bankruptcy.[77][78][79] Moreover, choices made in the early 1980s on anti-terrorism legislation and controversial foreign policy decisions led to a significant rise in terrorist incidents in Greece.[80]
Despite the rising public frustration with the state of affairs, Papandreou abused his position to remain in power since there were no constitutional restraints. Notable actions include but are not limited to the following:
Bestowing public appointments to about 90,000 people to gain additional votes six months before the 1989 elections.[84] Papandreou's blatant patronage reached the point of giving in one of his rallies a public command to the Minister of Finance Dimitris Tsovolas to "give it all [to them]" (Greek: Τσοβόλα δώσ'τα όλα) and "Tsovolas, empty the coffers [of the state]," and the crowd chanted these back.[85][78]
During the judicial inquiries of the Koskotas scandal, it was revealed that Papandreou continued to use the Junta's surveillance infrastructure (filing and wiretapping) against any Greek citizen who was not loyal to him.[79][86][87]
Judicial independence was damaged when Papandreou passed a law via emergency procedures despite massive backlash from lawyers, judges, and clerks, to prevent the judicial investigation of the Koskotas scandal from advancing to Athens Appeals Court.[88]
Papandreou lost the June 1989 election, mainly due to the Koskotas scandal.[89] Mitsotakis' party got 43%, but it was insufficient to form a government; Papandreou's last-minute change of the electoral vote law required a party to win 50% of the vote to govern alone. Papandreou hoped that while PASOK might come second in electoral votes, it could form a government with the support of the other leftist parties, but he was rejected.[90] Instead, the right-wing New Democracy collaborated with the radical left Synaspismos party, led by Charilaos Florakis, to form a government. The two parties, while belonging to opposite ideological camps (as well as having battled one another in the Greek Civil War), both sought a "catharsis," i.e., an investigation and trial of PASOK's corruption.[91][84][92] The new government not only indicted Papandreou but also dismantled some of the junta's surveillance infrastructure[93] and granted the first private television broadcast licenses to publishers who were critical to PASOK as a counterbalance to state media,[94] to avoid future political exploitation from any future omnipotent prime minister.
Constitutional proposals and political consensus
Nikos Alivizatos, a constitutional scholar, considers the methods employed by PASOK to achieve its goals in 1985 as "unacceptable," and while he does not blame the change in the presidency in 1985 as the source of "corruption and moral crisis" that became apparent in the following years, he acknowledges that the removal of constitutional restraints caused PASOK "to neglect the rules of the parliamentary game,"[95] and signaled that it "would not hesitate to overcome any obstacle in its aim to retain power."[96] Moreover, Greek constitutional reformers commonly include in their proposals the return of some prerogatives taken back to the president to reduce the negative effects arising from majoritarian politics, i.e., 'winner takes all,' while avoiding conflicts between the president and prime minister in the executive branch.[97]
In 1990, New Democracy, having a slim majority in the Parliament, elected Karamanlis as (second term) president after five rounds of votes with PASOK and Synaspismos supporting their candidates. After this, there has been political consensus that the governing party should choose a candidate for president who will be acceptable by the opposition; the exception to this trend was with Konstantinos Tasoulas in 2025.
The integration of the liberated Greek people into the newly formed state was slow, leaving parts of rural Greece outside state control. Of particular concern was the activity of irregular troops, some of whom acted as bandits, e.g., livestock rustling, robbery, and kidnapping of foreigners for ransom;[98] the most notable incident was the Dilessi murders of 1870, which inspired the 1980 movie Alexander the Great by Theo Angelopoulos.
Andreas Papandreou admits that his father, on the night of the Colonels' coup, blamed Andreas for the coup, and Andreas himself wondered whether he had crossed the line with his radical campaign.[101][26]
There is a long-standing debate on whether the Johnson administration gave the green light for the 1967 coup in Greece.[102] Andreas Papandreou and his academic colleagues frequently accused the US administration of being responsible for the coup, and since then, Andreas Papandreou and other Greek elites sold this to the masses as part of nurturing anti-American sentiment, making it a widespread belief among Greeks.[103][104][105] Others are more skeptical due to the lack of "smoking gun" evidence. Louis Klarevas, based on the declassified documents of the US government and extensive literature review, concluded that there was no official action for the coup, however, additional evidence is required to determine any unofficial activities.[102]
The legitimation of the communist party had far-reaching implications.[107] In the following years, a whole range of institutions that were founded for the persecution of Communists that existed since the 1920s disappeared.[107] Police, along with vigilante groups and spies whom they had employed, could no longer threaten everyone's civil rights or stigmatize them on ideological grounds.[107]
While Andreas Papandreou and Constantine Mitsotakis started from the same political party, and both competed for the leadership of the Center Union,[108] Andreas had vilified Mitsotakis for Apostasia of 1965 (siding with the king and in the view of Andreas betraying his father) as a "traitor" and a "nightmare" effectively stigmatizing the life-long career of Mitsotakis in Greek politics.[109][110] In 1984, Mitsotakis became the New Democracy party leader because he was the only active politician (Karamanlis was President at the time) who could rival Andreas Papandreou.[109] From 1984 until 1990, the political conflict between Papandreou and Mitsotakis was both personal and polarized.[108] After winning the elections of 1990, Mitsotakis lacked the political capital and sufficient majority to implement his policies despite his long-term ministerial experience, resulting in Mitsotakis's tenure being short.[111]
While it is frequent in Greek history for the governing party to change the electoral law for its purposes, Papandreou's electoral law change in 1989 was unique as it personally benefited him to avoid an indictment for the Koskotas scandal and be sentenced to life in prison if convicted.[112]
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
