Former minister Dimitris Mardas leaves SYRIZA.
“The procedures followed for some time on behalf of the “Management” of SYRIZA – whose members have been charged with two electoral defeats in 2019 and 2023 – the flagrant violation of the party’s Statute, the destruction of intra-party democracy, the violation of basic principles of the law and finally, what took place in the extraordinary Congress-parody, leads me to be deleted from the party’s registers” he characteristically notes.
“The entire behavior of the “Directorate”, its choices and tactics, unfortunately lead to the discrediting of the radical left in the eyes of the world and, by extension, to the discrediting of the 2015-19 policy and all the positives that were produced then. The first decision of the presidium of the Congress was to abolish the Ethics Committee (ED), the majority of which, as particularly annoying with its obsession in favor of Statutory legitimacy, displeased the “Directorate” of the party. It is our honor to have served, as a majority, this institution” notes the former member of the party.
The letter of Dimitris Mardas to the Secretary of SYRIZA
To
Rania Svigou
Secretary of the SYRIZA Central Committee.
Topic “On the proper functioning of the party’s institutions”
Dear Secretary, dear Rania,
Reading the decision of the Central Committee (CEC) of 5/10/2024, as well as the 3rd circular of the CET of 31/10/2024, you will allow me to express some thoughts and concerns for discussion.
In its first section, the DRAFT DECISION OF THE EMERGENCY CONGRESS (AS APPROVED BY THE EC) states that “The extraordinary Congress sends the message that SYRIZA-PS is moving forward, with unity, responsibility, with coordinated democratic processes and collective decisions. With faithful and unwavering observance of all the prescribed procedures, and with reverent observance of the provisions of the party’s Statute. Above all, in a spirit of camaraderie…”.
Following the course of the party since September 2024 and the decision of the Political Secretariat, which then proposed that the “same criteria that applied in the previous presidential election” apply, while the KE suddenly changed them, the following is noted.
Any policy is not built with messages and declarations. It’s an old-fashioned approach. The organs of the party, especially the Political Secretariat and the K.E. they play a primary role in this, having the obligation to show by their behavior and choices that they respect the party’s Constitution and the practices followed until now, which constitute a rule of law for the party.
In particular, the 3rd circular of the CEEC in an Article concerning the Legalization Committee refers to some terms that are indeed considered unacceptable to be used by members, provided of course that: a) they do not outline reality and that b) the institutions of the party do not cause by their behavior the use of these terms. Let’s look at two definitions, those of entanglement and coup (a legal coup in essence), which the circular refers to.
“Entanglement refers to a system where the various parties involved enter into mutually beneficial relationships, which are however opaque and aimed at securing privileges or exercising influence or power.
Intermingling can lead to unfair practices. Mutual support between the parties involved can work against the public interest and justice, as transparency and objectivity are pushed aside to serve personal or group interests.” (Definition of Chat GPT).
The procedures followed during the K.E. of October do they create the feeling that they are compatible with what the above definition suggests?
In more detail, a system of advantageous relations was built during the meeting of the Council of October in favor of a category of candidates of old and well-known executives (henceforth as preferred) by ostracizing with the sudden amendment of Theocharopoulos those who do not follow the “line” or those who are considered as a foreign body (henceforth as dislikes). Based on which Article of the Statute the K.E. does he have the authority to change the criteria for electing the President by introducing subjective criteria? Therefore, through these decisions of the K.E. (of an idiosyncratic majority) that hardly avoid being characterized as unfair practices unprecedented for the party, the objectivity of the selection criteria for the president was sidelined. The two objective criteria that existed were supplemented with a subjective one, according to which for the candidacy for the election of the president, “respect for the collective decisions of the party bodies…” is required. In this regard, K.E. plays a prominent role in the issue of the judgment of compliance or non-compliance with the highly fluid condition in question. K.E. however, it does not have such authority, which according to Article 13 of our Statute, which refers to the important issues, expressly belongs to the members of the party. The most obvious thing!
Extending the reasoning of this position we are led to the following conclusion: Since so easily K.E. (and part of it in particular) can change the criteria for electing a president today, the same can happen in the future by operating under the influence of a powerful power group or a Directorate or paracentral decision making. The most dangerous thing for the proper functioning of the institutions of a party!
I would ask you to indicate to me from which paragraph of Article 16 on the competences of the K.E. of the Statute or from anywhere else, its above competence is expressly provided for and not based on interpretations. So in order to favor some candidates and to have a mutual support with highly opaque procedures, the concept of subjective judgment is introduced. Thus sui generis new practices work to the detriment of transparency and justice.
And the distinction between likes and dislikes is also discernible in other aspects of the life of our central organs. Can you tell me the reaction of the Political Secretariat to the position of Georgios Tsipras as expressed publicly!!!, when he lost the position he held in the Parliament and during which he declared that, “I spit in everyone’s face”? Did the Political Secretariat initiate any sanctions procedure against him at the Ethics Committee (E.D.)? Of course not. E.D. voluntarily acted in this matter, as expressly provided. Can you also tell me the reaction of the Political Secretariat to the personal positions of Mr. Spirtzis (which violated, apart from the rules of ethics, the provisions of Article 5 par. 1, f.), which has long been its mouthpiece N.D.? No sanctions procedure was initiated as the above probably belong to those who are wanted.
We come to the second term, that of the Coup. Definition:
“What is called a coup (legal in our case): It is called the process through which a group seizes or maintains power in ways that, although formally in accordance with the legal framework, violate the spirit of democracy and justice. Legal coups exploit legal loopholes, ambiguities, or even the provisions of the legislation themselves to impose themselves.
Typically, a legal coup involves the manipulation of institutions so as to exclude political opponents and maintain or strengthen the power of those involved without real popular legitimacy.” (defined by Chat GPT)
Is our party experiencing a legal coup these days when it is claimed that K.E. based on Article 20 par. 5 or Article 52 – On special Regulations – or their interpretations, does it legislate by itself by setting new subjective criteria for the election of the president with the aim of excluding some candidates for the presidency of the party? Also, based on paragraph 5 of Article 20 and an unorthodox interpretation of it, it is argued that K.E. will irrevocably propose the candidate presidents to the Congress without a counter-proposal regardless of whether in this Article or in Article 16 there is not the slightest provision for such a thing. The last paragraph of Article 20 expressly refers to the procedural-organizational issues of the conference/pre-conference dialogue mainly. The same Article in its 2nd paragraph defines the competences of the Conference in an undisputed way. This has the final say in everything regarding the election of the president and NO ONE else.
The issue of the weight of the criteria for electing a president and anything related to this issue is dealt with by Article 22 which gives the exclusive authority to the Congress of the party and to NO ONE else, who exploits legal loopholes, ambiguities, or even the provisions of the Statute itself to impose its own legitimacy.
Finally, a Delegates Legalization Committee has been established which is not provided for by the Party Statute, nor by previous practices. If, of course, it operates in accordance with the clear procedural rules regarding the smooth and consistent conduct of the Congress (e.g. observance of measure/OM, gender quota, confirmation of deletions according to the prescribed procedure) then its existence is not incompatible with the party’s Statute and the applicable practices. But if it functions as a new “Committee of Social Care”, intervening and excluding elected delegates according to the criteria of inappropriate behavior, which the K.E. defined, then we don’t just have a legal coup but a generalized problem of impartial and democratic functioning of the Party. Voters make the mark on who will or will not participate in Congress. Elected officials have power over matters of substance, not nebulous schemes tied to a nondescript bureaucracy.
The right to recommend the penalties and sanctions for inappropriate behavior, the maintenance of party status and any related issue, has ONLY the Ethics Committee made up of elected members and NO ONE else.
In the context of the dialogue imposed by the newly formed conditions, this text is given only to the members of the CET and the Ethics Committee.
DIMITRIS MARDAS
Notification:
– COES Secretary
– Ethics Committee
#Dimitris #Mardas #leaves #SYRIZA #Grievous #violation #Statute
**Interview with Dimitris Mardas, Former Minister and Recent SYRIZA Defector**
**Interviewer**: Thank you for joining us today, Mr. Mardas. You recently announced your decision to leave SYRIZA. Can you elaborate on what prompted this significant move?
**Dimitris Mardas**: Thank you for having me. My decision to leave SYRIZA stems from longstanding procedural issues within the party that have come to a head. For some time, I have been troubled by how SYRIZA’s management has violated the party’s Statute, undermined intra-party democracy, and disregarded fundamental legal principles. This culminated in what I believe was a farcical extraordinary Congress, which compelled me to step away.
**Interviewer**: You mentioned the discrediting of the radical left and the policies of 2015-2019. Can you explain what you believe is the root cause of this discrediting?
**Dimitris Mardas**: The current leadership has made choices and employed tactics that are damaging not only to SYRIZA’s image but also to the legacy of the achievements from 2015 to 2019. The abolition of the Ethics Committee, for instance, was a troubling move. The Committee played a crucial role in maintaining the integrity and accountability of our party. Its removal signals a departure from the values that originally attracted many members to SYRIZA.
**Interviewer**: You also highlighted concerns regarding the recent decisions of the Central Committee. Could you provide more insight into these concerns?
**Dimitris Mardas**: Certainly. The recent decisions reflect a concerning trend where subjective criteria have been introduced for electing a new president. This undermines the objectivity that should guide such important choices. I believe that the leadership is using its power to favor certain candidates while sidelining those who are seen as outsiders or dissenters. Such practices are contrary to both the spirit and the letter of our Statute.
**Interviewer**: In your letter to the Secretary of SYRIZA, you referenced terms like “entanglement” and “legal coup.” How do you view the current political situation within the party?
**Dimitris Mardas**: I genuinely fear we are witnessing a form of legal coup. The manipulation of institutional processes to exclude political opponents while maintaining a façade of legality is alarming. The party’s current engagement with these practices risks alienating the very base that SYRIZA was built upon, potentially sacrificing transparency and justice in favor of a consolidated power structure.
**Interviewer**: Given your extensive experience within the party, what do you believe is the way forward for SYRIZA now?
**Dimitris Mardas**: For SYRIZA to regain its footing, it must return to its core principles of transparency, accountability, and genuine democratic practices. The party needs to foster an environment where diverse voices can contribute to its direction. Only then can SYRIZA hope to recover its credibility and reconnect with the electorate.
**Interviewer**: Thank you, Mr. Mardas, for sharing your perspective. We appreciate your insights during this challenging time for the party.
**Dimitris Mardas**: Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
