Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis has signalled the start of the parliamentary process to revise Greece's Constitution, announcing that the governing majority intends to propose substantial institutional changes.
New Democracy's parliamentary leadership believes public opinion is ready for initiatives such as non-state universities, employee appraisal, changes to permanent public-sector employment and reform of Article 86 on ministerial responsibility.
It also recognises that limited political cooperation makes the broader consensus needed for extensive constitutional changes difficult to achieve.
With the process needing to begin before the national election, New Democracy is expected to present a broad package by March. Opposition parties will then have to set out positions on issues affecting large sections of society.
The debate is expected to produce sharp ideological confrontation and become an electoral issue. Voters will judge parties' approaches to reform, while some observers see the process as a possible precursor to post-election alliances.
The present Parliament selects the articles to be revised. The next Parliament determines their content, with an election between the two stages so voters can consider party positions.
If an article is approved for revision now by 180 MPs, 151 votes will be required to amend it in the next Parliament. If the three-fifths majority is not achieved now, 180 votes will be needed at the second stage.
The current, proposing Parliament
Written revision proposals are expected by March. Each must be signed by at least 50 MPs, include an explanatory report and identify the constitutional provisions concerned.
Speaker Nikitas Kaklamanis will then invite parties to nominate MPs for the cross-party Constitutional Revision Committee. Names reported as possible rapporteurs include Evripidis Stylianidis for New Democracy, Panagiotis Doudonis for PASOK, and Theofilos Xanthopoulos or Dionysis Kalamatianos for SYRIZA.
The committee will submit its report to the plenary within the allotted period, expected to be two or three months.
Parliament will then debate whether revision is necessary and specify the provisions to be revised.
That decision requires two roll-call votes at least one month apart. These votes concern only which articles may be revised, not their eventual wording, which is the next Parliament's responsibility.
A provision needs at least 151 votes in both ballots to proceed.
The next, revising Parliament
The Speaker elected after the national election will establish a new Constitutional Revision Committee and transmit the previous Parliament's decisions.
Its members will receive the list of provisions and determine proposed new wording.
The final report will go to the plenary for a roll-call vote. Articles supported by at least 180 MPs in the proposing Parliament will require 151 votes for amendment. Those approved at the earlier stage without that enhanced majority will need 180.
Why the majorities matter
Any provision that fails to secure 151 votes in either of the current Parliament's two ballots is rejected.
Where both initial votes secure at least 180 supporters, 151 votes in the next Parliament are sufficient.
If either initial vote produces between 151 and 179 votes, at least 180 will be needed in the revising Parliament.
The possibility of a repeat election
Another issue is whether the next Parliament could be dissolved immediately because no government can be formed.
Some constitutional scholars argue that a so-called one-day Parliament would invalidate the revision process. They cite Article 110(3), which states that, once Parliament decides on revision, the next Parliament decides on the provisions during its first session, by an absolute majority of its total membership.
Government sources responding to that concern invoke Supreme Court case law under which a one-day Parliament does not constitute a parliamentary session.
That ruling arose in a criminal case concerning possible expiry of the limitation period for offences involving former minister Giorgos Papakonstantinou. Government sources argue that the interpretation should apply by analogy to the constitutional revision process now being launched.
