kathimerini.gr
Greek Parliament's December Legislation Criticized for Low Quality
The Center for Liberal Studies (Kefim) found that in December 2024, only one of 65 articles in 11 amendments to a Greek parliamentary bill was directly related to the bill's content, highlighting a trend of low-quality, last-minute legislation.
- What were the key findings of the Kefim study regarding the quality of legislation passed by the Greek Parliament in December 2024, and what are the immediate implications?
- In December 2024, the Greek Parliament saw 11 amendments with 65 articles added to a bill, with only one article directly related to the bill's content, according to the Center for Liberal Studies (Kefim). This highlights a trend of last-minute legislative additions, particularly in December and August, often attributed to year-end deadlines or pre-election periods. The December 2024 legislative quality index scored 54.9 out of 100, making it the second-worst month of the decade.
- What are the underlying causes for the high number of unrelated amendments added to bills in December, and how do these relate to broader political or institutional factors?
- The Kefim study reveals a pattern of low-quality legislation in December, with a significant portion of amendments unrelated to the main bill. This practice, exacerbated in December and August, reflects a systemic issue where time constraints and political pressures compromise legislative scrutiny. The low scores indicate a need for reform to ensure better quality and transparency in the legislative process.
- What specific policy recommendations does Kefim propose to address the issues identified regarding the quality and transparency of the December legislative process, and what are their potential long-term effects?
- The trend of rushed, low-quality legislation in December and August suggests a need for structural reforms in the Greek Parliament. Extending the public consultation period to four weeks, with an additional week during holidays, could improve the quality of laws and promote greater transparency and accountability. The publication of annual statistics by the Parliament on key legislative data is also crucial.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing of the analysis is heavily negative, focusing on the perceived inefficiencies and lack of transparency in the fast-track legislative process. The use of terms such as "second worst month" and "last-minute amendments" contributes to this negative framing. The headline (if there was one) would likely reinforce this negative perspective.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral, but terms like "second worst month" and descriptions of amendments as having "little relation" to the main law carry a negative connotation. More neutral language could be used, such as 'below-average efficiency' instead of 'second worst' and 'limited connection' instead of 'little relation'.
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses heavily on the quantity of amendments and their relation to the main laws, but lacks information on the content and impact of these amendments. It also omits discussion of potential benefits or justifications for the fast-track legislative process, presenting only negative aspects. The perspectives of those who support this process are absent.
False Dichotomy
The analysis doesn't explicitly present a false dichotomy, but it implicitly frames the fast-track legislation as inherently negative by highlighting only its flaws and omitting any potential counterarguments or positive aspects. The focus is solely on the negative consequences without acknowledging any possible benefits.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a recurring trend of fast-track legislation in December, resulting in low-quality laws and insufficient public consultation. This undermines the principles of good governance, transparency, and accountability, thus negatively impacting the SDG's goal of promoting just and peaceful societies.