It is commonly held that the Constitutional review is absolutely necessary. One the one hand because the crisis highlighted a series of vulnerable points, which are directly associated with the credibility of the political system and on the other hand because in practice certain provisions turned out to be anachronistic.

For the review process to be meaningful and efficient at the same time, the broadest possible consensus in the political system is necessary.

So far the government and many parties have presented general proposals and ideas which can push the process forward. The government, which has the first move and can set a realistic framework around this discussion, has the responsibility to not miss another opportunity.

The general proposals however presented by the head of the relevant committee, Mr. Provopoulos, give the impression of attempting a rather generalized review process for a slew of matters, without any hierarchy. Should this be adopted, there is a very real danger that the effort will result in a premature failure.

Especially in a period like ours, where time is limited due to the upcoming Presidential election, the goal of a generalized review must be completely ruled out.

The opportunity and possibility though must not be wasted simply because maximalist goals have been set. There are certain parts of the Constitution that need to be reviewed immediately and for which both government and opposition generally agree. This is more so for provisions that aim to restore the credibility of politics and politicians.

Clearly there are other provisions that need to be review, such as the separation of Church and State, private universities, a constitutional court and others, for which there is no possibility of a consensus these days.

It would be a serious mistake to see this process reach a stalemate due to short-term political interests. It is imperative that they set a hierarchy of the provisions that much change and set aside for later any issues for which there is no consensus, while making sure to change the review process itself.

TO VIMA