THE ROLE OF RELIGION IN STATE ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC SYSTEM: THE GREECE EXAMPLE

Guest Writer
12–18 minutes
, , , , ,

Written by Agâh Oktay Acar

Agah Oktay Acar is currently a final-year LLB student at Ankara Social Science University, Faculty of Law. He is eager to focus on International Humanitarian Law, International Criminal Law, and MENA Region Policy.

Throughout history, different systems have been used in state administration and public governance. The changing world order has given rise to different needs and problems, leading legislators to make fundamental changes to government systems. In this context, state and public administration are shaped according to the requirements of a particular group, sometimes a single individual, and sometimes a religion to which the majority of society belongs. Furthermore, religion has been included in the constitutional texts of countries throughout history, and even today, some countries’ current constitutions declare that the state adheres to an official religion.1 Greece, which we will discuss in this article, has generally been a theocratic state from the 1832 Istanbul Agreement, when it was officially established, to the current 1975 Greek Constitution. Indeed, when considering the constitutions used between the 1822 Epidaurus Constitution, considered the beginning of Greek constitutional history, and the 1975 Greek Constitution (153 years), one of the few unchanging articles is the dominance of Orthodox Christianity as the country’s religion. Furthermore, according to the first paragraph of Article 3 in the first section of the 1975 Greek Constitution, under the subheading “State and Church,” the dominant religion in Greece is Orthodox Christianity, and the Greek Orthodox Church considers Jesus Christ as God. On the other hand, in the 1952 Greek Royal Constitution, which was in effect before the 1975 Constitution, Articles forty-nine, fifty-one, and fifty-two stated that… An additional religious requirement was established, stating that the King of Greece and the Crown Prince of Greece must be Orthodox Christians.2  However, it can be said that the 1975 Constitution positions Orthodox Christianity differently from other faiths. For example, in the first paragraph of Article 14, which regulates freedom of the press and publication, it is stated that the confiscation of newspapers and other publications before or after distribution is prohibited, while in the first clause of the third paragraph of the same article, it is stated that if any element constituting a crime against the Orthodox Christian faith is found in the aforementioned publications, they may be confiscated by order of the competent public prosecutor.

The Reflections of Religion-Based Expressions in the Oaths of the Prime Minister and Members of Parliament
On the other hand, the procedure for the Prime Minister’s oath, as stipulated in the second paragraph of Article 33 of the 1975 Greek Constitution, needs to be examined. According to this article, the constitution mandates that the Prime Minister of Greece swear an oath in the name of the Holy, Consubstantial, and Indivisible Trinity, protecting the constitution, the country’s independence, and its territorial integrity. Furthermore, it is stated that those who will become Prime Minister must swear an oath by placing their hand on the Bible. However, although the Prime Minister is elected by the people, the procedures and principles governing the oath give the impression that the duties and obligations imposed on the Prime Minister by the constitution or other laws must be fulfilled in the name of religion and the sacred. In this regard, Alexis Tsipras, who served as Prime Minister of Greece from 2015 to 2018 and identifies himself as an atheist, omitted the religiously based statements in the Prime Minister’s oath during the official swearing-in ceremony before assuming office, and did not swear an oath by placing his hand on the Bible.3 Similarly, the content of the oath of office for members of parliament is specified in the first and second paragraphs of Article 59 of the 1975 Constitution. However, the aforementioned article does not explicitly state that members of parliament shall swear an oath upon the sacred, the Holy Spirit, or God to uphold the requirements of the constitution and laws during the performance of their duties. It is noted that members of parliament belonging to a different religion are required to repeat the same oath within the framework of their respective religion and beliefs. 4

Compulsory Religious Education and its Scope in Greece
Examining the scope and quality of religious education within the current Greek education system, the statement in the first paragraph of Article 3 of the 1975 Constitution, “the dominant religion is Orthodox Christianity,” helps us to have some preliminary understanding of the nature of religious education. In Greece, compulsory education is mandatory for every child aged 6 to 15, regardless of whether they attend private or public schools.5 In this regard, compulsory religious education in the Greek education system begins in the 3rd grade with the course “God in Our Lives” and ends in the 12th grade with the course “Topics of Christian Morality”. Compulsory religious education is given for 2 hours a week from the 3rd to the 6th grade, 2 hours a week throughout the 3 years of middle school, and 2 hours a week throughout the 3 years of high school.6 On the other hand, when examining the first and second paragraphs of Article 16 of the 1975 Constitution, it is stated that education is not only a fundamental duty of the state but also obligated to aim at the development of national and religious consciousness. In this context, Article 1 of Law No. 1566 on education states that one of the fundamental aims of both primary and secondary education is “to believe in the country and the true elements of the Orthodox Christian tradition,” while Article 6 mentions that the fundamental aim of education is “to grasp the deeper meaning of Orthodox Christian morality.7

The Status and Binding Nature of Religious Oaths in the Greek Legal System

The Orthodox Christian faith, designated as the dominant religion by the Constitution, has had several implications for the current Greek Criminal Law and Code of Criminal Procedure. These are expressed in Articles 194 (expert oath), 217 (verification of witness identity), 218 (witness oath), 220, 236 (interpreter oath), and 398 (jury oath) of the Greek Code of Criminal Procedure. Witnesses are obligated to clearly state their religious affiliation, if any, or to state this explicitly, verbally or in writing, before the testimony and questioning phase. After the testimony and questioning of witnesses and parties (plaintiff, defendant, victim), the person is observed to swear an oath by placing their right hand on the Bible. However, witnesses and parties who do not identify themselves as Orthodox Christians, or who belong to other religions, or who do not identify themselves as belonging to any religion, must explicitly state this to the court during the taking of testimony or questioning. In practice, in some cases, Greek citizens who do not belong to any religion have to convince the judge that they do not need to take a religious oath. On the other hand, considering Article 48 of the current Greek Code of Civil Procedure concerning witness oaths, in private law disputes, a witness is granted the right to take two different oaths: an oath specified in civil law and an oath related to their religion.8 However, in practice, it is inevitable that certain problems will arise regarding the exercise of this right. For example, the type of oath under which a witness’s testimony is taken may lead to prejudice in the eyes of the judge. This, in some cases, may negatively affect the course of the trial. A case of the European Court of Human Rights (the case of Dimitras and Others v. Greece) can be cited as an example of this.9 The event forming the basis of the decision in question occurred when the applicants, who identified themselves as atheist and Jewish, were summoned to court as witnesses and complainants in a criminal trial in 2006 and 2007. Although the applicants explicitly stated verbally that they did not adhere to the Orthodox Christian faith, the court record recorded them as if they were Orthodox Christians, and it was noted that they had sworn on the Bible. The Supreme Court defined this event as an interference with freedom of religion under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and unanimously ruled that there was a violation. As can be seen from this incident, principles such as freedom of religion and equality before the law should not be merely constitutional provisions; their practical implementation by the judicial organs is also an obligation of the state. Furthermore, amending the articles in the Greek Code of Criminal Procedure regulating matters such as the verification of witness identity, expert oath, and jury oath would not be so difficult.

The Place and Binding Nature of Islamic Law in the Greek Legal System

Greece is the only country among the twenty-seven members of the European Union whose domestic legal systems have been examined to find that decisions based on Islamic Law (Sharia Law, das Islamische Recht, الانسان حقوق) are legally binding in terms of substantive law.10 Because, in the Western Thrace region (a region in northeastern Greece with a predominantly Muslim population), where over one hundred thousand minorities, mostly Turks, reside, it has been accepted that the provisions of Islamic Law regarding marriage contracts, divorce proceedings, and inheritance divisions are also valid under Greek civil law. The source of Islamic Law, which is practiced in the Western Thrace region and can now be considered institutional, actually stems from the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. Indeed, considering the first paragraph of Article 42 and Article 45 of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, it is seen that the educational rights of minorities living in both Türkiye and Greece, bilingual schools, the protection of common property (waqf-waki-wakufia), the protection of places of worship in connection with religious freedom, and the freedom of religious figures (imams and muftis) to practice their profession are guaranteed.11 In this context, the muftis serving in the region have been specifically authorized to resolve potential private law disputes arising among the Muslim minority currently residing in the Western Thrace region, such as those related to engagement, marriage, divorce, and inheritance. However, it should be noted that, in accordance with the provisions of the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, muftis were elected by members of the Turkish minority until 1985. Since 1985, the Greek authorities have no longer recognized the Islamic religious leaders democratically appointed by the Turkish minority in Western Thrace. In 1990, the Greek Parliament, upon the proposal of the Minister of National Education, enacted a law stipulating that the authority to appoint muftis would be reserved for the President. The religious autonomy of the Turkish minority has been effectively eliminated by the state’s appointment of muftis.12 On the other hand, while all religious groups in Greece are granted the right to freely choose their own religious leaders, the termination of the practice of appointing Muslim religious leaders (muftis) based on their free will in Muslim-populated areas raises suspicions that the Greek state views the Muslim minority in its country as a threat. However, the parliament passed Law No. 3536/2007, which stipulates the appointment of imams alongside muftis in mosques located in the Western Thrace region. Appointments have begun in Western Thrace, primarily in the Komotini, Xanthi, and Didymoteicho regions, under this law. According to the aforementioned law, a five-person commission authorized to appoint imams from the central administration has been established.

Although the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne clearly specified the procedures and principles for the selection of Muslim religious leaders, it is observed that Greece is attempting to invalidate international agreements through its legally unfounded practices and the enactment of new legislation. The 1913 Athens Agreement, signed between the Ottoman Empire and Greece following the First Balkan War, can be cited as an example of this.13 The demographic changes that occurred between 1912 and 1913 resulted in the formation of a significant Muslim minority along the Greek land borders. According to the sixth paragraph of the eleventh article of the 1913 Athens Treaty, Greece was obligated to respect the “life, property, honor, religion, and customs” of the population under its sovereignty. Within this framework, it is concluded that the Muslim minority residing in Greece has, above all, the right to freely practice their religion. In this context, it is observed that Greece systematically restricts or completely abolishes the rights of the Muslim minority, which are guaranteed by international agreements, through laws and administrative regulations lacking a legal basis. This situation leads to a public administration approach that disregards the principle of “equality before the law,” a fundamental rule of international law. On the other hand, the lack of a unified legal system has negative consequences. For example, the simultaneous application of both Islamic and Greek Civil Law provisions in inheritance law disputes creates hardship for some individuals. An example of this is the European Court of Human Rights’ decision of December 19, 2018 (MS v. Greece, Application No. 20452/14). In that decision, the high court ruled that the Greek local court, by applying the provisions of Islamic law relating to inheritance law in an inheritance dispute, had violated the applicant’s right to property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) and the right to protection of property under the prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 of the ECHR).14 In the specific case at hand, the applicant’s deceased spouse had drawn up a will in accordance with Greek civil law, leaving all their assets to the applicant. However, the competent Greek court, considering that the applicant belonged to the Muslim minority in Western Thrace, did not base its judgment on the will. Consequently, the competent Greek court ruled that the applicable law in this case was the inheritance law provisions of Islamic law, stemming from the 1920 Treaty of Lausanne. As a result of the division made under the provisions of Islamic inheritance law, the amount received by the applicant’s spouse was considerably reduced. As can be seen from this specific case, the lack of uniformity in law means that it would be more appropriate to not base the judgment on a way that would result in an unfavorable outcome for either party.

Conclusion

Based on current legal systems, different criteria are used in state administration. While some states prioritize religion, others have sharp distinctions between religion and state governance. In this regard, the constitutions of Denmark and Greece recognize Christianity as the dominant religion, while Saudi Arabia defines Islam as the official state religion. In France, the church has no influence on state administration. This article focuses on the influence of religion on the three fundamental branches of state administration: legislative, executive, and judicial. As explicitly stated in the current 1975 Greek Constitution, the dominant religion is Orthodox Christianity. Furthermore, compulsory religious education is mandatory for ten years in Greece, and in the judicial sphere, it is presumed that individuals are originally Orthodox Christians; however, parties who do not adhere to Orthodox Christianity are obligated to explicitly declare this to the court. At the same time, in Western Thrace, where the Muslim minority predominantly lives, Islamic law is applied.

Discover more from Reymonta

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a comment

Discover more from Reymonta

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading