The advisory council was, unfortunately, exploited in the name of transparency and greater citizen engagement, only to end up being a mere fig leaf for the appointments
Last Friday, one day after the announcement of the composition of the boards of directors of semi-governmental organizations, it was announced that a member of CYTA needed to be replaced, while the first reports also emerged regarding the appointment of individuals who had not applied to the advisory board. This was enough for me to announce that I would submit a motion for the Parliamentary Committee on Institutions to review the Advisory Council, without having any information or even a hint of the magnitude of the backlash that would follow.
Back in 2023, when the government announced the creation of the advisory council with excessive enthusiasm and grandiose statements, I personally stated that it was a step forward and a positive development in terms of transparency and citizen engagement in the process by which the President of the Republic appoints members to the boards of semi-governmental organizations. And I continue to believe this, provided, of course, that certain basic conditions are met first.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
Conditions that, in the second implementation of this system—and perhaps the most critical one, given that it was not widely known in 2024—were not met. How, then, can it be justified that a significant percentage of the appointments—nearly 20%—were made to individuals who did not express interest through the process that the presidency publicized and invested so much in? Moreover, even though it was obligated to justify and publicize the selections that fell outside the advisory council’s recommendations, it failed to do so?
Let’s be clear. Obviously, every appointment is the exclusive authority of the Cabinet, and it can appoint whomever it wants to any position without consulting anyone. These distortions in our state have persisted for six decades; the President of the Republic, whoever holds the office, acts like an emperor, without institutional checks and balances, without the slightest oversight. The President of the Republic claimed that he wanted to correct or reduce these distortions by creating this advisory council. I very much fear, however, that unfortunately it had exactly the opposite effect and reinforced this distorted perception. The advisory council was, unfortunately, exploited in the name of transparency and greater citizen engagement, resulting in a mere token gesture regarding appointments. If this is not the case, then the 20% of appointments made without applications must be justified, and, above all, an explanation must be provided as to why citizens who applied were not considered. There may well be sufficient justification. However, if none is provided, we can draw our own conclusions.
Therefore, as part of parliamentary oversight, the fundamental and logical questions will be raised: how many citizens applied; whether three candidates were recommended per position; whether the council provided explanations for why their recommendations were not adopted, whether they received responses—given that the commitment was to make the decisions public—and, even if the council did provide them, whether they were satisfied, and why they are not demanding that the appointments made without their recommendation be made public in order to safeguard and ensure their work and reputation.
In terms of proposals, I believe the time is ripe to move toward a system of genuine checks and balances, and only the Parliament can fulfill this role. In other words, it should act as a counterweight to the executive branch, and the President’s decisions should require, following a transparent process, the approval of Parliament, as is, after all, the case with the Commissioner for Administration.
As for the political debate, unfortunately, the way the President of the Republic conducts himself politically and makes public statements confirms that practices and reasoning have not improved, and that he operates under a pretense of transparency that he attempts to use as a cover. Instead of covering it up, however, it serves as a fig leaf, with the President himself setting the pace for his own… party.
Parliamentary Spokesperson for the Democratic Alarm | Chair of the Parliamentary Committee on Institutions | @dmdemetriou
