Akritas Kaidatzis
@akritaskaidatzis.bsky.social
Ass. professor, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Law School
Constitutional law; Constitutional History; Law and Politics; Courts and Politics; Judicial Review of Legislation
Constitutional law; Constitutional History; Law and Politics; Courts and Politics; Judicial Review of Legislation
Pinned
Our edited volume
"The People's Constitution: The Populist Transformation of Constitutional Law"
link.springer.com/book/9783031...
Forthcoming in December
"The People's Constitution: The Populist Transformation of Constitutional Law"
link.springer.com/book/9783031...
Forthcoming in December
For starters.
But that's not enough.
They can always buy other people to do the work for them.
The only reasonable thing to do is to make their money illegal in politics
But that's not enough.
They can always buy other people to do the work for them.
The only reasonable thing to do is to make their money illegal in politics
We have to get wealthy people out of elected office.
November 11, 2025 at 8:37 AM
For starters.
But that's not enough.
They can always buy other people to do the work for them.
The only reasonable thing to do is to make their money illegal in politics
But that's not enough.
They can always buy other people to do the work for them.
The only reasonable thing to do is to make their money illegal in politics
It is the French that chopped off their king's head.
It is the French that put corrupt PMs in jail.
Peoples in other nations, take notes
It is the French that put corrupt PMs in jail.
Peoples in other nations, take notes
November 11, 2025 at 8:32 AM
It is the French that chopped off their king's head.
It is the French that put corrupt PMs in jail.
Peoples in other nations, take notes
It is the French that put corrupt PMs in jail.
Peoples in other nations, take notes
#RepresentativeDemocracy is when our representatives make decisions on favor of the millions of people, not of the millionaires.
So why don't we call our current system of representatives making decisions in favor of the millionaires, themselves included, by its name?
Representative #plutocracy
So why don't we call our current system of representatives making decisions in favor of the millionaires, themselves included, by its name?
Representative #plutocracy
November 10, 2025 at 6:32 AM
#RepresentativeDemocracy is when our representatives make decisions on favor of the millions of people, not of the millionaires.
So why don't we call our current system of representatives making decisions in favor of the millionaires, themselves included, by its name?
Representative #plutocracy
So why don't we call our current system of representatives making decisions in favor of the millionaires, themselves included, by its name?
Representative #plutocracy
Five-year-old asked how was the *first* human born without parents, and that's the hardest question I've ever been asked
November 8, 2025 at 5:21 PM
Five-year-old asked how was the *first* human born without parents, and that's the hardest question I've ever been asked
Corruption is not a bug; it's a feature of contemporary representative democracy.
It's how the rich make the people vote against their own interests.
The rich pour loads of money to their preferred candidates. Once elected, they pour public money to the rich.
Repeat endlessly.
There you have it
It's how the rich make the people vote against their own interests.
The rich pour loads of money to their preferred candidates. Once elected, they pour public money to the rich.
Repeat endlessly.
There you have it
November 6, 2025 at 9:49 PM
Corruption is not a bug; it's a feature of contemporary representative democracy.
It's how the rich make the people vote against their own interests.
The rich pour loads of money to their preferred candidates. Once elected, they pour public money to the rich.
Repeat endlessly.
There you have it
It's how the rich make the people vote against their own interests.
The rich pour loads of money to their preferred candidates. Once elected, they pour public money to the rich.
Repeat endlessly.
There you have it
Disenfranchise the rich.
Make their money illegal in politics.
That's the way if you want the plutocratic system know (and disguised) as "representative democracy" to become even minimally democratic and representative
Make their money illegal in politics.
That's the way if you want the plutocratic system know (and disguised) as "representative democracy" to become even minimally democratic and representative
November 6, 2025 at 7:49 AM
Disenfranchise the rich.
Make their money illegal in politics.
That's the way if you want the plutocratic system know (and disguised) as "representative democracy" to become even minimally democratic and representative
Make their money illegal in politics.
That's the way if you want the plutocratic system know (and disguised) as "representative democracy" to become even minimally democratic and representative
I'm pretty sure there must be some "legal" way to overturn the New York election that SCOTUS would be willing to at least seriously consider.
If you're reading, Andrew, contact me; I've got some ideas 😉
If you're reading, Andrew, contact me; I've got some ideas 😉
November 5, 2025 at 3:38 PM
I'm pretty sure there must be some "legal" way to overturn the New York election that SCOTUS would be willing to at least seriously consider.
If you're reading, Andrew, contact me; I've got some ideas 😉
If you're reading, Andrew, contact me; I've got some ideas 😉
Reposted by Akritas Kaidatzis
Legal theorists and friends should come clean and admit that the suspension of the rule of law is *not* a matter of law but of an authoritative political decision - it cannot, therefore, be reversed by relying on ... the rule of law. Schmitt articulated it first but everyone knows it.
October 31, 2025 at 2:22 PM
Legal theorists and friends should come clean and admit that the suspension of the rule of law is *not* a matter of law but of an authoritative political decision - it cannot, therefore, be reversed by relying on ... the rule of law. Schmitt articulated it first but everyone knows it.
Reverse originalism and neoliberalism
The 🇬🇷 Council of State said in a recent opinion that the 🇬🇷 Constitution contains clauses that we should not take literally because they were shaped by the special circumstances of democratic transition after the military dictatorship that no longer apply. >
1/2
The 🇬🇷 Council of State said in a recent opinion that the 🇬🇷 Constitution contains clauses that we should not take literally because they were shaped by the special circumstances of democratic transition after the military dictatorship that no longer apply. >
1/2
October 28, 2025 at 6:24 AM
Reverse originalism and neoliberalism
The 🇬🇷 Council of State said in a recent opinion that the 🇬🇷 Constitution contains clauses that we should not take literally because they were shaped by the special circumstances of democratic transition after the military dictatorship that no longer apply. >
1/2
The 🇬🇷 Council of State said in a recent opinion that the 🇬🇷 Constitution contains clauses that we should not take literally because they were shaped by the special circumstances of democratic transition after the military dictatorship that no longer apply. >
1/2
Apparently, the Republic of #Ireland will continue to spare (comparative) constitutional lawyers the embarassement of not knowing something meaningful to answer to the dreadful question: What does a president of the republic *actually* do in a parliamentary democracy?
Well done, folks!
Well done, folks!
October 26, 2025 at 3:26 PM
Apparently, the Republic of #Ireland will continue to spare (comparative) constitutional lawyers the embarassement of not knowing something meaningful to answer to the dreadful question: What does a president of the republic *actually* do in a parliamentary democracy?
Well done, folks!
Well done, folks!
Constitutionalists keep saying that the constitution *protects*, *guarantes*, *prohibits* this or that.
No it doesn't. It's but a piece of paper. It cannot act.
It is always a person or body of persons or, ultimately, the people that act in the name of it.
It's useful to bear the distinction in mind
No it doesn't. It's but a piece of paper. It cannot act.
It is always a person or body of persons or, ultimately, the people that act in the name of it.
It's useful to bear the distinction in mind
October 23, 2025 at 6:21 PM
Constitutionalists keep saying that the constitution *protects*, *guarantes*, *prohibits* this or that.
No it doesn't. It's but a piece of paper. It cannot act.
It is always a person or body of persons or, ultimately, the people that act in the name of it.
It's useful to bear the distinction in mind
No it doesn't. It's but a piece of paper. It cannot act.
It is always a person or body of persons or, ultimately, the people that act in the name of it.
It's useful to bear the distinction in mind
Reposted by Akritas Kaidatzis
“Increasing numbers of political leaders and citizens are now willing to tolerate authoritarian practices in exchange for better protection of their security, social benefits, and political status. It’s this support for creeping autocracy … that must be addressed.”
Can Judicial Resistance Last?
The law can protect democracy—but only up to a certain point. After that, it’s up to the people. And there’s the challenge.
bit.ly
October 20, 2025 at 12:14 AM
“Increasing numbers of political leaders and citizens are now willing to tolerate authoritarian practices in exchange for better protection of their security, social benefits, and political status. It’s this support for creeping autocracy … that must be addressed.”
No kings!
(OK, maybe one exception)
(OK, maybe one exception)
October 19, 2025 at 2:20 PM
No kings!
(OK, maybe one exception)
(OK, maybe one exception)
#HousingCrisis affects an unprecedented number (& percentage) of people.
Governments doing close to nothing about it --when they don't actively promote it-- is one of the reasons why people are turning to right-wing populists, the far right, or whatever liberal centrists deem as "irrational". >
Governments doing close to nothing about it --when they don't actively promote it-- is one of the reasons why people are turning to right-wing populists, the far right, or whatever liberal centrists deem as "irrational". >
October 16, 2025 at 6:23 PM
#HousingCrisis affects an unprecedented number (& percentage) of people.
Governments doing close to nothing about it --when they don't actively promote it-- is one of the reasons why people are turning to right-wing populists, the far right, or whatever liberal centrists deem as "irrational". >
Governments doing close to nothing about it --when they don't actively promote it-- is one of the reasons why people are turning to right-wing populists, the far right, or whatever liberal centrists deem as "irrational". >
No kings
(OK, with one exception)
(OK, with one exception)
October 14, 2025 at 6:39 AM
No kings
(OK, with one exception)
(OK, with one exception)
Centrists have a disproportionate influence on public opinion making.
Problem is not they totally miss the point about the causes of democratic decline -after all, that's just my opinion- but that they're so sure about being right that they become fanatic.
Liberal fanatic: oxymoron but, sadly, true
Problem is not they totally miss the point about the causes of democratic decline -after all, that's just my opinion- but that they're so sure about being right that they become fanatic.
Liberal fanatic: oxymoron but, sadly, true
October 13, 2025 at 10:07 AM
Centrists have a disproportionate influence on public opinion making.
Problem is not they totally miss the point about the causes of democratic decline -after all, that's just my opinion- but that they're so sure about being right that they become fanatic.
Liberal fanatic: oxymoron but, sadly, true
Problem is not they totally miss the point about the causes of democratic decline -after all, that's just my opinion- but that they're so sure about being right that they become fanatic.
Liberal fanatic: oxymoron but, sadly, true
It says something about the state of representative democracy when a party membership of 100,000 is considered massive in countries the size of UK (or England)
Green party reaches 100,000 members for first time after Polanski becomes leader
Green party reaches 100,000 members for first time after Polanski becomes leader
Green party in England and Wales has had near-50% rise in membership since Zack Polanski took over last month
The Greens in England and Wales have more than 100,000 members for the first time, the party has announced, a near-50% rise since Zack Polanski took over as leader last month.
It puts them on a potential course to overtake the Conservatives and comes little more than a week after the Greens announced they had moved past the Liberal Democrats in membership numbers, getting to 83,500. Continue reading...
www.theguardian.com
October 13, 2025 at 9:54 AM
It says something about the state of representative democracy when a party membership of 100,000 is considered massive in countries the size of UK (or England)
While I consider myself a (left-)populist, I have to admit this is a valid and most thought-provoking critique.
It's super difficult (not impossible, though, I hope) to forego one's own privilege (class, race, gender, education etc.) even when talking against those very privileges.
Well said.
It's super difficult (not impossible, though, I hope) to forego one's own privilege (class, race, gender, education etc.) even when talking against those very privileges.
Well said.
I'm not quite eloquently putting this right, but one of the problems with people on the left/populists is that the very class structures they opposed shaped and defined them in terms of quests for invidious distinctions. So you get a lot of replication of the dominant hierarchical structure.
October 13, 2025 at 4:56 AM
While I consider myself a (left-)populist, I have to admit this is a valid and most thought-provoking critique.
It's super difficult (not impossible, though, I hope) to forego one's own privilege (class, race, gender, education etc.) even when talking against those very privileges.
Well said.
It's super difficult (not impossible, though, I hope) to forego one's own privilege (class, race, gender, education etc.) even when talking against those very privileges.
Well said.
Seriously, now:
How different is the US from Venezuela?
And is it a difference in kind or in degree?
How different is the US from Venezuela?
And is it a difference in kind or in degree?
October 12, 2025 at 12:05 PM
Seriously, now:
How different is the US from Venezuela?
And is it a difference in kind or in degree?
How different is the US from Venezuela?
And is it a difference in kind or in degree?
Extreme cases of autocratization or democratic backsliding should not distract us from relatively "lighter" ones.
Same with judicial politicization and usurpation of political power.
#Juristocracy *is* a global trend.
That the US pose a grotesque extreme doesn't mean it's not happening elsewhere
Same with judicial politicization and usurpation of political power.
#Juristocracy *is* a global trend.
That the US pose a grotesque extreme doesn't mean it's not happening elsewhere
October 12, 2025 at 6:42 AM
Extreme cases of autocratization or democratic backsliding should not distract us from relatively "lighter" ones.
Same with judicial politicization and usurpation of political power.
#Juristocracy *is* a global trend.
That the US pose a grotesque extreme doesn't mean it's not happening elsewhere
Same with judicial politicization and usurpation of political power.
#Juristocracy *is* a global trend.
That the US pose a grotesque extreme doesn't mean it's not happening elsewhere
My own private Idaho.
Qatari style
Qatari style
Hegseth: "I'm also proud that today we're signing a letter of acceptance to build a Qatari Emeri air force facility at the Mountain Home Airbase in Idaho."
October 11, 2025 at 9:50 AM
My own private Idaho.
Qatari style
Qatari style
For us non-native speakers, the association between con artists and con law begins to become apparent
October 11, 2025 at 9:43 AM
For us non-native speakers, the association between con artists and con law begins to become apparent
Reposted by Akritas Kaidatzis
🌹 "Democratic socialism and the law" is the topic of my inaugural lecture - next Wednesday 6.30pm, Great Hall, King's College, London.
➡️ Come along! There's even a reception afterwards. Check out the abstract, and register free here: www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/inaugural-...
➡️ Come along! There's even a reception afterwards. Check out the abstract, and register free here: www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/inaugural-...
October 10, 2025 at 8:28 AM
🌹 "Democratic socialism and the law" is the topic of my inaugural lecture - next Wednesday 6.30pm, Great Hall, King's College, London.
➡️ Come along! There's even a reception afterwards. Check out the abstract, and register free here: www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/inaugural-...
➡️ Come along! There's even a reception afterwards. Check out the abstract, and register free here: www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/inaugural-...
For context:
www.academia.edu/22225287/Dem...
www.academia.edu/22225287/Dem...
October 10, 2025 at 8:23 AM
For context:
www.academia.edu/22225287/Dem...
www.academia.edu/22225287/Dem...
It's funny how people believe that *more courts* will protect us from authoritarianism.
What we need is *less rich people* instead.
Liberal democracies would operate best if we could kill the rich. Since we cannot, we should strip them off of any political right.
Make their money illegal in politics
What we need is *less rich people* instead.
Liberal democracies would operate best if we could kill the rich. Since we cannot, we should strip them off of any political right.
Make their money illegal in politics
October 10, 2025 at 8:21 AM
It's funny how people believe that *more courts* will protect us from authoritarianism.
What we need is *less rich people* instead.
Liberal democracies would operate best if we could kill the rich. Since we cannot, we should strip them off of any political right.
Make their money illegal in politics
What we need is *less rich people* instead.
Liberal democracies would operate best if we could kill the rich. Since we cannot, we should strip them off of any political right.
Make their money illegal in politics