The change of government in October 1981 was important for the consolidation of democracy in Greece, because then political and administrative institutions were tested and worked successfully under a new governing “elite”. Institutions also adapted to major shifts in various public policy areas. Changing parties in power does not necessarily bring about dramatic changes in all areas. However, the public administration sector belonged to those in which PASOK wanted to bring about substantial changes, even if it had not precisely planned them.
Over time, the abolition of institutions without a plan damaged the effectiveness of the measures.
The reason for this was the perception that PASOK, as well as other opposition parties, had formed after the 1974 Post-colonization of the state in general and of the public administration in particular, which is summed up by the term “the state of the Right”. The governments of N.D. in the period 1974-1981 they had taken a few steps to free the administration from the suffocating embrace of the ruling party. They were hesitant steps, for example, in the country’s culture policy and European policy (with the hiring of technocrats who did not belong to the ND for the preparation of entry into the then European Communities). Overall, however, as they have shown, among others, N.K. Alivizatos, A. Makridimitris, Kalliopi Spanou and M. Samatas, the administration was under the control of N.D. The control was stricter especially in bodies with a disciplinary or ideological mission, such as the Ministries of Public Order, Education, as well as public radio and television. The selection of civil service chiefs was largely partisan. The same goes for the recruitment of new employees per ministry. The old client system was huge.
The double dilemma
Understandably, the new government did not trust the public administration, which it was called upon to lead. Thus, PASOK sought to change the balance of power within the fairly, if not fully, partisan public administration it took over. Moreover, in the more radical part of PASOK at the time, the neo-Marxist theory of the state was popular, according to which the state in general and the public administration objectively facilitate the reproduction of capitalism, even if they do not consciously serve the interests of the capitalist class. In addition, PASOK wanted to implement redistributive and other reform policies, as other European socialist parties did in the 1980s. Obstacles to these new public policy options could have been the administration’s inertia and conscious indifference to implement public policies. which were foreign to her. In this way, a classic dilemma of political change and another, specifically Greek, dilemma of Postcolonialism emerge.
Regarding the first dilemma, each new government oscillates between two concerns. One concern is the continuity of the state which is necessary for the functioning of the economy and society, but also for the implementation of any public policy shift (eg, redistribution of income). Another concern is the reform of the state apparatus called upon to implement the shift. The dilemma is acute if one government is succeeded by another with an antidiametric political program (eg, in France, with the formation of the Popular Front government, in 1936-1938). PASOK resolved the dilemma with sharp moves. In 1982 he abolished the posts of general managers from the civil service hierarchy altogether (the posts were re-established in 1991). On the initiative of St. Koutsoyorgas, he also abolished the State Legal Council (NSK) creating in its place individual legal services in the ministries. These movements are interpreted in the context of the above theoretical approach, but they proved to be administratively problematic. In the ministries, an organizational gap was created between the political staff and the now headless administrative hierarchy. This was covered by the swelling of ministerial offices with party officials and the subsequent establishment of many posts of deputized officials (general and special secretaries of ministries). The abolition of the NSK was followed by the issuance of nine Ministerial Decisions between 1982-1989, in order for the administration to continue to have legal representatives in the courts. Finally, the NSK was re-established in 1990.
Between “democratization” and professionalism
The second dilemma concerns incompatible administrative policy goals. Already before the elections, PASOK had set two goals, that is, on the one hand, the “democratization” of the state, on the other hand, its modernization in the direction of strengthening the professionalism of public servants. The first objective essentially meant “opening up” the civil service either by recruiting employees to new positions or by promoting those already serving in higher positions from which, before 1981, they were excluded for political reasons. The second goal, however, was the reform of the state with criteria of meritocracy and efficiency, in order to facilitate a more socially just economic development. Serving the first objective would lead to the recruitment of voters in the Public Service without the possibility of any other offer, other than support to the then government. Serving the second objective would lead to the recruitment of experts with knowledge of the subject of the reforms. The first objective was based on political criteria, while the second on technocratic ones. The contradiction did not take long to be seen in practice.
Indeed, in 1982, a few months after its electoral victory, PASOK proceeded to introduce new measures, some of which served to fulfill the first objective. Public enterprises swelled with many new hires. The gendarmerie, which in the countryside represented, after the end of the Civil War, the “state of the Right”, was merged with the then City Police. The Armed Forces Information Service (YENED), which was under military control, was abolished, while ET2 was established in its place. In 1982, the institution of the country’s school inspectors was abolished. It was an institution that had been in force since 1895, but in its evolution it combined the advisory role with the disciplinary role, often with an emphasis on the latter. Thus it was replaced by the institution of the school counselor, who, after 1982, had very useful advisory, but not controlling, tasks. As with the abolition of the position of general managers, here too the pendulum of reform has swung from one end to the other. Such movements must be seen in the context of the political conditions of the time: suspicion towards whoever represented the post-gender state and acute political polarization in the party system and the electorate, between N.D. and PASOK, in 1974-1981. However, over time, the abolition of institutions without a plan damaged the political legitimacy of PASOK, as well as the effectiveness of its policy measures. Thus the administrative decentralization, with strengthening of local self-government, which PASOK started in 1982 (laws 1235 and 1270), was not implemented until a decade later.
On the other hand, the second goal, of technocratic improvement, was served by a now-forgotten measure: the construction of a prototype of the staff state as early as 1982 (law 1299). Andr. Papandreou established the Politburo of the Prime Minister, which consisted of individual “bureaus”, i.e. the legal, economic and diplomatic offices, as well as the security office and the special office (secretariat) of the prime minister. It was a new structure, which would, on the one hand, support the prime minister on a staff basis, with the long-term planning of public policy measures, and, on the other hand, allow him to control the choices of his ministers. Inevitably, however, the new structure did not deliver as much as it could, because it either ran afoul of Andr’s centralized management style. Papandreou or because ministers of his government faced the Prime Minister’s Office competitively. Ultimately, 1982 was a year in which the first nuggets of future contradictory trends coalesced: elimination of old political blockades and new politicization of management staffing, decentralization and centralization of decision-making, unstable mix of political and technocratic options, enactment of new measures and omission or inability to apply them.
*Mr. Dimitris A. Sotiropoulos is a professor of Political Science at the Department of Political Science and Public Administration of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens and researcher at ELIAMEP.
*Editor: Evanthis Chatzivasiliou