By George Koumoulli
“We are slaves to the law so that we can be free”
Roman orator and statesman (106-43 BC)
The Supreme Court’s decision to exclude Ilias Kassidiaris’ party from standing in the May 21 elections puts the treatment of extreme nationalist parties on the table. Kasadiaris, one of Golden Dawn’s leaders, was found guilty in October 2020 of directing a criminal organization and sentenced to 13 years in prison.
He is currently serving his sentence in Domokos prison. In May 2020 he left Golden Dawn and announced its establishment party “Greeks for the Fatherland” via a YouTube video.
However, a few days ago Kasidiaris’ party was excluded from the electoral process by the Supreme Court and thus will not be able to participate in the upcoming elections. The judges ruled that the party of Ilias Kassidiaris is a continuation of the criminal organization “Golden Dawn”. A criminal organization for which its executives and former MPs have been convicted.
What should be our attitude towards far-right formations, such as ESEA (Committee for the Coordination of the Union Struggle) which was active in the period 1971-174, EOKA B and ELAM? First, everyone understands that political parties play a vital role in representing, articulating and bringing together the myriad views and interests that make up a democratic society.
Parties are sometimes seen as divisive, but they reflect rather than create social and political divisions. In a healthy democracy, party politics operates within a consensual political framework characterized by Voltaire’s famous saying: “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” However, the question hangs over whether parties that openly support racial hatred or that aim to overthrow the incumbent government by force should be tolerated.
If there are parties that are clearly undemocratic, hostile to individual freedoms and freedom of the press and open in their desire to replace the parliamentary government, then it is right to ask what measures a government should take to protect the institutions of the RoC.
The paradox is that a government may have to resort to “undemocratic” methods to preserve democratic ends. This is the dilemma the Weimar Republic faced when it failed to take firm action against Hitler’s Nazi party because it had not actually broken the law.
It is difficult to see how any legal party that remains within the law can justifiably be banned.
The law is sufficient to ensure the rights of individual citizens, although no government can protect society from ruthless terrorists. Indeed, banning a party can force it to break the law and become a dangerous terrorist group. In conclusion, if a party does not violate the existing law, there can be no justification for banning it.
This could jeopardise democracy itself. That said, it does not follow that a party with a serious criminal record, such as Golden Dawn, or a party that incites illegality, has the right to stand in elections. In democratic countries, candidates who have even been convicted at first instance for certain offences, including that of criminal organisation, are not allowed to stand in elections, and that is why the brakes have been put on the Kassidiaris party.
And while we can forgive the Weimar Republic, since the Nazi party before Hitler came to power operated according to the provisions of constitutional law, we can in no way forgive the RoC for tolerating illegality in the period before 1974.
ESEA was not a traditional party but a “national movement” as it called itself and was founded at the suggestion of Grivas with the ostensible aim of achieving union.
The attitude of ESEA towards illegality was evident from its first announcement welcoming the secret – i.e. illegal – arrival of Grivas in Cyprus. Throughout her life, she glorified the crimes of EOKA B, while the State was indifferent.
But where the State’s inaction reached its zenith, was the tolerance of the action of the criminal EOKA B’. The government of Makarios did not have the courage either to declare EOKA B illegal (at least from 1972 until the death of Grivas in January 1974), nor to arrest and try its leader and founder who bore full responsibility for the heinous crimes of his organization.
If the government had nipped EOKA II in the bud, the Julian coup would probably not have been possible. Unfortunately, this did not happen, so Grivas murdered dissidents (including members of Unitary, DISY’s ancestor), blew up police stations, etc., paving the way for the coup.
When the government decided to declare EOKA B illegal after Grivas’ death and dissolve it, it was already too late… The snake egg had already hatched.
*Opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of CypriumNews.
