Political Science in Greece
George Contogeorgis
The recent emergence of political science in the modern world confirms that the scientific approach to the political phenomenon depends directly on the place that the political praxis occupies in time and in the context of society. In European societies, the transformation of the political phenomenon from a private (feudal society) to a public affair was not in itself sufficient to pro-mote the process of development of political science. Politics continued to be identified with the concept of the state power, which embodied the political system. The social body is restricted to a role of simple legitimization of the political personnel. To reach the point where the political phenomenon be-gins slowly to be treated as the subject of a distinct science that refers to it, it was necessary to break with the traditional framework of the public space through the substantial broadening of the sphere of politics in the direction of society. Society did not cease to be seen as a private space with no direct representative relevance in politics. The broadening of the political sphere of politics may be attributed on the one hand to the profound change that the communication system underwent at the end of the 20th century, which resulted in the creation of the conditions for a more active participation of the social body in the political process, and on the other hand, to the relevant social emancipation of the individual.
In this respect, the case of Greece is an exemplary laboratory, due to its uniqueness, since it refers to a society with a profound political development that corresponds to the era of (direct) democracy and the ecumenical consti-tution of the anthropocentric cosmosystem. This was precisely the political reality of Hellenic society during the pre-ethnocentric age, that is, until the 19th century.
1 The Historical Foundations of Political Science
1.1 From the Ecumenical Cosmosystem to the Ethnocentric Cosmosystem
Perhaps it has not been sufficiently noticed that political thought and proba-bly political science is a product not generally of human societies but of the anthropocentric society. Political ideas are indeed found in despotic societies too, particularly in the stage when they are being constituted in the form of state despotism; not, however, political thought, philosophy or political sci-ence.
At the same time, within the anthropocentric cosmosystem, political thought evolves concurrently with the changes of its societies. In the proto-genetic stage of anthropocentric societies, political thinking, itself the subject of political science, focuses on the actions of the state, which exclusively embodies the political system and politics. In the integrated anthropocentric phase, society absorbs the political process and is transformed into the politi-cal system. The state deprived of the political system is transformed into a simple servant of the politically constituted society.
Political thought and the science of politics were born in the Hellenic world precisely because it was here that anthropocentric societies appeared for the first time.
By the Cretomycenean period the Hellenic societies had already estab-lished an anthropocentric cosmosystem that was based on the “chrematistic” economy and the politeia of the city. To the degree to which the Hellenic societies have not known, since that time, the feudal (cosmo-)system, the political phenomenon constitutes their dominant characteristic throughout history until their entrance into the modern ethnocentric era.
Hellenic political thought in this context presents an extraordinary differ-entiation that is consistent with the typological spectrum of development of the Hellenic cosmosystem. In the early age, politics as a concept is initially defined as a “force” or as a “power” in which the simple (political) right (e.g., during the pre-democratic period) flourishes, either as (social or collective) autonomy, in which the individual goes through the stage of political, or more correctly, of universal (individual, social and political) freedom. Politics as a field of exercising universal freedom made its appearance after the establish-ment of the political society and of the democratic system in the context of the city.
The merit of Hellenic political thought consists additionally in that the political vehicle of the Hellenic cosmosystem, that is, the city, as well as the so-called direct democracy which it served, go far beyond the classical pe-riod and its slave system. They would constitute the fundamental constants of its societies during its ecumenical phase, until the 19th century.
The intellectual approach to the political phenomenon was to accompany the political praxis within the Hellenic cosmosystem, even in the “dark” periods: at the beginning of Roman despotism (2nd century B.C.-1st century A.D.), during the period of consolidation of Christianity in Byzantium (7th-8th centuries) and particularly at the beginning of the period of Ottoman despotism (15th-17th centuries). For finally, because the anthropocentric foundations of the Hellenic cosmosystem (especially the “chrematistic” economy and the autonomous city) remained untouched, the despotic logic of central power or the reorientation of intellectual interest (during the period of the development of Christian doctrine) basically influenced the originality of political thought, but not the political praxis or the philosophical concern with politics.
The great turning point for the re-launching of Hellenic humanism was the victory of iconolatry in Byzantium (8th-9th centuries) . Political philoso-phy, and more generally the approach to the political phenomenon, reap-peared dynamically in the proscenium and became a privileged field of intel-lectual interest. This would give a boost to the content of the studies at the public University of Constantinople, as well as to the Schools or to the intel-lectual circles from which the functionaries of the State and of the society emerged. The great representatives of knowledge in this period are not theo-rists of law, judges and lawyers, theologists or philosophers, as in the first Byzantine period, nor mainly theologists as in the middle years. They are basically political thinkers and specialists in political life. Photius, Michael Psellos, Plethon Gemistos, Vissarion, Anne Comnini, and many others are the authentic representatives of this movement. The political dimension of law (e.g., Constantin Armenopoulos, 15th century) is also worth noting.
The mass exodus of the representatives of Hellenic humanism in Europe during the 15th century contributed gradually to the transition of the conti-nent to an intellectual creation inherent in the anthropocentric cosmosystem. However, the Ottoman domination deprived the vital space of the Hellenic cosmosystem of the production of original political thought for over a cen-tury. During this first period of Ottomanocracy, the most significant part of the Hellenic intellectual class maintained as its principal basis the “other” Byzantium, that is, the cities of Italy . Yet, the impressive number of transla-tions of classical texts, including political texts, in the Hellenic areas, just after the conquest, shows in fact that the reality of the political praxis domi-nated everywhere in the Hellenic societies. This did not cease to stir intellec-tual curiosity and political inquiry.
A new movement developed during the 17th century and reached its apo-gee during the 18th and 19th centuries within the context of the cities. An original intellectual production, comparable to that of the largest European countries, reappeared in the vital space of the Hellenic cosmosystem. An impressive number of political works were published just when, in the big schools of the cities of Hellenism, the teaching of political philosophy, of ideas and of the political phenomenon occupied a significant place.
From the ideological, social and political point of view, the Hellenic in-tellectual class of the period was substantially involved within the ecumeni-cal and cosmopolitean orbit of the Hellenic cosmosystem. The profound osmosis between the Greek intelligentsia and that of the “anthropocentrically reborn” Europe would not push the former to choose the pro-ecumenical project of the state-nation. The system of the autonomous city – in the sense of the politeia that defines, produces and articulates the political phenomenon – and of the cosmopolis constitutes the starting point and the basis of its logic.
It is of vital importance to acknowledge that the Hellenic societies ex-perienced the status of the city until the 19th century, i.e., the city-state and its politeias of the classical period as they adapted to the ecumenical phase of Hellenic cosmosystem. Indeed, just when the European world was thinking about the “be” and the “how” of the new (free) man, the Hellenic world was living in the context of the city in a regime of freedom which cumulatively covered the individual, social (in the labour field) and political sphere of the person.
Politics, far from being perceived as a simple (pre-democratic) right, is in reality the component element of universal autonomy, the essence of which is the political freedom of the social body. The political space surpasses the public space, the common interest the general interest. The sovereign politi-cal power that it invests in its legitimization in the “social contract” comes in contrast with the autonomy of the social body, i.e., its political self-government. Therefore, the society of the city is not defined as a private society. It composes the main political parameter of the politeia, the demos. That is why in the cities where politics is structured in terms of direct repre-sentational power, the system is classified as pre-democratic. Within the framework of the democratic politeia, the agent of representational authority is limited to short-term functions (it is elected for six months to one year), it is directly and constantly controlled by the social body, it is freely revocable and its function is necessarily collective. The principle of the majority applies to the assembly (ecclesia) of the social body, that is, for the politically sover-eign demos, but not for the representatives for the deliberation of whom the principle of unanimity is applied.
The fundamental problem of Hellenic political thought and the ruling class of the Ottomanocracy was substitution on the level of the central sys-tem, of the “Asian” type of Ottoman power by the Hellenic cosmopoliteia in its ecumenical environment . A typical example is the project of Rigas Feraios (1757-1798) on “Hellenic Democracy.”
This orientation of Greek political thought would undergo a serious trial following the great revolution of 1821, which, from another point of view, represents the most significant upheaval that Hellenism and its cosmosystem have ever known. The birth of a neo-Hellenic state which asphyxiated within its borders, in the margin of the Hellenic cosmosystem and the Hellenic so-cieties, would be accompanied by a series of measures that would lead to the undeniable, even institutional, control of the state and, at the same time, of the overall society by the great powers. The transition from the profoundly democratic and “republican” political system, introduced from the beginning of the revolution, to the Bavarian absolute monarchy (1832-1843), imposed by the Holy Alliance, would mark the definite classification of the state in the perspective of ethnocentrism. Hellenic society was called upon to experience a political system that was suited to societies that had just come out of feudalism and not to its post-statocentric or ecumenical nature.
Compared to the European societies, the Hellenic society is the only one that illustrates a different way of transition to the state-nation (see Contogeor-gis 1995: 88-102). In the case of Western Europe, it is the state that forges the nation and ultimately the progress to an early anthropocentric society. In its exit from the feudal age, the political project inevitably focuses on individual freedom and on a body of rights that it actualizes or protects. Therefore, politics has a simply operational content. Social and political freedoms are absent altogether from the thinking of the social body. In the case of the Hellenic society, the nation, on the contrary, creates the state. That is, it un-dertakes, first of all, to be redefined from “nation cosmosystem” to “nation state”; secondly, in its new version, to legitimize the catalysis of the funda-mental attainment of the Hellenic cosmosystem – the ecumenical character of the economy or the partner relationship of capital with labour – and mainly the political freedom of society, in order to adapt to the proto-anthropocentric political system that the new state professes.
This precedent of the Hellenic society explains a series of “deviations” in its political system, which ultimately confers on it, despite opposing views, the role of a kind of precursor in relation to the European “rule”: the intro-duction of universal suffrage (in the sense of a right and not of political free-dom) from the very start of the Revolution (Constitutional Assembly of Epi-daurus, December 1821-January 1822), just when in Great Britain, in 1832, this right covered only 7 percent of the electorate . The establishment, from the outset, of a stratified party system within the context of a parliamentary regime, with a loose republican central power, in contrast with the class or ideological parties and the social movements that dominated the modern world until recently . And many more.
Life in the immediately pre-ethnocentric past of the “direct” democratic politeia explains the profound politicization of Greek society, a politicization that specializes as political individualism and certainly not as mass behaviour or an adherence to the political power. The political behaviour of the Greek citizen may be evaluated bearing in mind the total time he dedicates daily to politics and not based on his adherence to the forces of mediation. The citi-zen approaches the politician as a mandate and not as an individual. His in-tense politicization prevented the political forces from assuming roles of “liberators” and “protectors” or the wealth of ideologies (such as statocentric socialism or liberalism) that belong to the proto-anthropocentric period. The exceptional politicization (that is, political emancipation) of the social body explains simultaneously the entire absence from modern-Greek society of phenomena that restrict the political field, such as personality cults or totali-tarianism. The modern-Greek state demonstrates the parliamentary and party system with the longest history under conditions of universal suffrage, and, most of all, with the broadest field of politics .
1.2 The Period of the State-nation
The transition of the Hellenic societies from the system of the ecumenical cities to the territorial state, which defines itself by the element of the ethnos, radically altered the socio-political environment and the direction of political thought in Greece. The concept of the political phenomenon adapted to the specifications of the new system, which aspired to delimit it as a tautology of the state. Henceforth politics is perceived not as a function of its particular nature (as a phenomenon), but according to its structural expression (as a power and as a force), within the framework of the state-nation. This very quality of the citizen is defined by his national origin or by his belonging to the state. This suggests that the political determinant is the nation and the state, and not the people and the political system. The policies of the state (e.g., foreign policy) reflect national aspirations or policies; the inter-state system is defined as an international system; the general interest is equiva-lent to the national interest.
The political system, in its turn, subjected and even identified with the state – the servant of the “national interest” and of the “public domain” – is recorded as being under the responsibility of public law. The sciences of politics are the sciences of the state. Works of political science that negotiate the earlier political system (of the age of the ecumenical cities) or the new Hellenic state are entitled as if they belonged to public law. The history of Hellenism and of its cosmosystem is ultimately reconstituted through an ethnocentric prism. The criterion for the Hellenic continuity is no longer its anthropocentric and cultural background, but racial origin. The history of the Hellenic cosmosystem is reduced to the history of Greece.
This choice corresponds to the demands of this period and particularly to the need of the neo-Hellenic state nation to justify not only the anthropo-centric reversion that it imposed upon the Hellenic society but also its inabil-ity to lead it to national integration. However, this choice proves to be de-forming from every aspect of the Hellenic past and more importantly de-prives modern social science of an unprecedented wealth of knowledge (i.e., of social and political systems of the anthropocentric type). Social science has continued to ignore this fact until today and, therefore, does not include it among its issues.
Despite this, the modern-Greek state came close to the creation, in 1829, of a Higher School of Political Sciences, intended to train diplomats, admin-istrators, judges and legislators, by the first President of the Hellenic Repub-lic, Ioannis Kapodistrias, former Foreign Minister of Russia. The idea, which actually belonged to Alexander Stourtzas, then member of the Russian Coun-cil of State, was abandoned after the assassination of Kapodistrias and the establishment of the absolute monarchy.
The project would be taken up again by Prime Minister Charilaos Tri-coupis (1832-1896), but would not succeed because, in the meantime, his government would lose its majority in the Parliament. Thus, with the excep-tion mainly of history, folklore and linguistics, whose presence was uninter-rupted, social science, and by extension political science, was represented from then on by law, with the prevalence of the fields of constitutional law and administrative law. Public law made an invaluable contribution to the monarchy and to the party system: firstly, in the construction and legitimiza-tion of the institutional and ideological arsenal of the new State, and sec-ondly, in the effort to completely abolish the foundations and the resistances of the previous cosmosystem (i.e., of the autonomous city, its democratic regime). Moreover, the consequences of the profound lack of correspondence of the political system of the state (which reserved for society the status of a private partner) with the high political development of the citizen (who meant to behave as mandator) is basically liable for a series of features of the Hellenic political environment: the meeting of the citizen with the politician under conditions of political individuality, the “multi-collective” and not class structure of the party system, the constant inability of the public domain to delimit and absorb the political dynamic that produces the social body, the legitimization of the political class in a context of perpetual contestation . This tendency continues and is even accentuated , particularly during the period between the two wars, or even later, until today.
The period which opens in the second half of the 19th century is charac-terized by the manifest failure of the national type of state to create in the Ottoman territories a vital space for Hellenism, according to its economic, sociological, cultural and political dimension. This failure would weigh heav-ily on the political life of the country, particularly after the 1860s, with the emergence in the Balkans of the Slavic nationalisms. These nationalisms not only disputed the Greek monopoly on the heritage of the collapsing Ottoman Empire, but also the Greek society’s claim on participation in its distribution. The inability of the Greek political class to impose the application of the treaty of Sevres (1922) in Asia Minor and in eastern Thrace constitutes in this respect a major turning point. The defeat of Greece, which led to the mass exodus of nearly the entire Greek population from its centuries-old homes, brought about a final solution to the question of national integration, as well as to the presence of the last bases of the system of the city (1922).
The liberal reform that started in 1909 by the government majority of E. Venizelos led, among other things, to the drafting of a law and its submission to the Parliament in 1911 regarding the introduction of a Higher School of Political Sciences, which, however, did not pass. In the meantime, foreign ventures and the violent interference of the throne on the political life of the country would cause serious injury to the process of domestic reconstruc-tion, the consequences of which would leave their mark up to the present time.
These developments on the political scene reinforce the tendency that had already manifested itself during the 19th century, and which marks the appearance of numerous works of political theory and research on Greek political life. Their distinctive feature was that their authors developed an intense sociopolitical action . This movement intensified at the beginning of the 20th century, and would take on significant political dimensions, whose objective would be the contestation of the sociopolitical and intellectual life of the country.
In 1916, the Social and Political Sciences Society was founded, which for many years published the scientific journal “Archives of Economic and Social Sciences” and organized lectures and other events. In this Society, a host of intellectuals presented their works on, among others, political science, such as that of Evangelos Lembesis in 1929 (“Review of Public Opinion”) and in 1931 (“The Problem of Capitalist Accumulation in the Agricultural Economy”), among others. In 1925, the director of the “Archives,” Dimitri Kalitsounakis, published his work, “Political Science.”
This general movement resulted in the creation, finally in 1927, of the project of a Higher School of Political Sciences, intended to promote the study and teaching of the political phenomenon, the political institutions and the state . From the beginning, this School, which after 1930 joined the project of another supporter of this idea, Alexandros Pantos, and adopting his name , was divided in two departments: a) political science and history, and b) economics and sociology. It is noted that “the studies of the School differ substantially from the instruction given by university institutions. Although it contains subjects equivalent to those of the Higher Institutions, its mission is different … in accordance with the modern concepts of the educational sys-tem recommended by the political and social sciences.” The curricula of the Panteios School thus broke with the tradition of the science of Law while at the same time approached the political phenomenon from a rather multidisci-plinary point of view, whose previous position fell to what is nowadays called political sociology. In 1925, with the law founding the University of Thessaloniki, two departments were formed within the School of Law and Economic Sciences: (a) law and (b) economics and political sciences. A little later, in 1930, the Law School of the University of Athens established a pro-gramme of specialization in the fourth year, which led to a diploma in politi-cal and economic sciences. Towards the middle of the 1930s, the first sociol-ogy chair was created at the same university, but dealt more with the history of sociopolitical ideas.
In 1937, the royal dictatorship (1936-1940), conscious of the catalytic role of the Panteios School of Political Sciences in the ideological “promo-tion” of society and the training of managers, converted it into a public uni-versity institution, while preserving its two initial departments. This initiative is of particular interest in the case of Greece, because it reveals the reaction of the powers-that-be with respect to an innovative academic experiment, in a country where, for reasons that we have cited, the tide of fascism that shook Europe did not find practically any response in society, in political life or even among intellectuals.
It is precisely this deep political rooting of Greek society and the inher-ent democratic emancipation that are behind the intense questioning of doc-trine of sovereignty of power. This persistence, which links citizenship with the quality of the mandatory, also led the Communist Party – marginal before – and its allies, to attempt during the Occupation a return to the system of the autonomous and self-governing city in the free territories (1941-1944). In 1943, a reform of Panteios Higher School of Political Sciences changed the subjects of its departments, one of which was concentrated in political sci-ence and the other in journalism.
The Civil War (1944-1949) and then the Cold War drew Greece into the democratic deficit of the world order, which restrictively defines the content of political alternance, while at the same time restricting the area of political science. Law and the economy are unconditionally imposed on university institutions. The Panteios Higher School of Political Science and certain circles of teachers in the Faculties of Law, the economy and of the political sciences continued to promote the studies about the state, the political sys-tem, the public policies, the history of the institutions and of international relations (Nicolaos Pantazopoulos, Faedon Vegleris, George Tenekides, Themistocles Tsatsos, George Daskalakis, and many others). At that time history was becoming essentially an accessory of the philological programme in the respective Faculties. In 1951-1952, it was persistently repeated that, as a university institution, the Panteios School was intended to offer a different education from that offered by the other university institutions: initiating young people into the political institutions and political theory, the economic sciences, the various branches of the political and social sciences, in order to promote a critical approach to the political and social phenomena. At the same time, several subjects of the political sciences and of international rela-tions continued to be included in the curricula from 1948 to 1954. In 1952, an Institute of Social Sciences operated within the Panteios School.
Nevertheless, with the announcement of the founding of an Institute of Journalism, whose curriculum was envisaged to last three years, it is empha-sized that “the teaching of the science of journalism be rigorously limited to the theoretical and national context, and any interference in the political issues of the country be strictly forbidden.” Political science, strictly speak-ing, is not included in the syllabus . Thus, handbooks entitled politeiology, public law (constitutional and administrative), public finance, international law, absorb the analysis of the political phenomenon and often try to cover the subject of political science.
Despite this, several professors of constitutional and administrative law developed a somewhat regular contact with the International Political Science Association (IPSA) from its foundation. In 1955 the Hellenic Political Sci-ence Association (HPSA) was created, formed, however, primarily of law-yers, particularly by members of the Council of State. Its scope remained marginal or even insignificant for political science.
This unfavourable climate for political science, which was shaped pro-gressively by the international political circumstances shortly before the Second World War and continued after it during the Cold War, appears to have changed during the 1960s. In the curricula at the Panteios Higher School of Political Sciences in the academic year 1960-1961, political sci-ence already occupied a significant place, while at the same time we see the appearance of comparative studies on contemporary political systems (Brit-ish, French, American, Russian and others), as well as courses in sociology, economic sciences, international studies, including international relations. The tendency to return to political science stricto sensu to the university system had already made a significant step.
In 1963 the Panteios Higher School of Political Sciences was again reor-ganized, the spearhead of which was the reorientation of its two departments: one took on political science and the other public administration. The fol-lowing year, political science stricto sensu acquired a chair, while interna-tional relations was upgraded, re-establishing instructional autonomy. A little later, in 1967, the programme of specialization in the Faculty of Law of the University of Athens became an independent department of political science and economics. In the two last years of study, this department is oriented in two programmes of specialization that lead to two separate diplomas. One of them deals with public law and political science. The creation of a chair of political science stricto sensu in the Faculty of Law, in the mid-1960s, and a relatively autonomous presence of international relations in the curriculum was the result of this development. In the meantime, two events in the field of research marked the end of the 1950s: the creation of the Royal (later National) Research Foundation and of the National Centre for Social Sci-ences (EKKE) (1958). The Byzantine and the Neohellenic Research Centres, created in 1960, as well as the Centre for Hellenic and Roman Antiquity (1977), put forward broad historical aspects which interest political science, such as the history of the institutions, political life and the movement of ideas. The EKKE was to be devoted to the study of contemporary social phenomena, including political phenomena.
At all events, the approach to the political phenomenon as well as to po-litical thought in Greece, continued after the second world war, in the tradi-tional way, that is, it was particularly privileged by a strongly politicized intelligentsia and by literary circles. A rich bibliography relating to the politi-cal phenomenon (studies of the institutions, of political life and the political parties, of ideas, of foreign and international relations, or of public policies) was added to that of the previous period, of which the generation of the 1920s constitutes a point of reference in the ideological and intellectual evo-lution of Hellenic society.
With the dawning of the 1960s, a number of political societies made their appearance in the intellectual and political life of the country, beside the political forces that supported modernizing projects. The publication, in 1961, of the work of Grigoris Dafnis, The Greek Political Parties, and espe-cially, in 1965, of the voluminous work by Jean Meynaud (with the collabo-ration of Gerassimos Notaras and Panayotis Merlopoulos), The Political Forces in Greece, constitute a major phase in the development of political science.
The interlude of the dictatorship (1967-1974) paved the way for the has-tening of political developments, marked by an intense radicalization, both of political life and of the intellectual class. The consequences of this radicaliza-tion became particularly perceptible in the social sciences, mainly in the period after 1974. The most outstanding sign of this situation was the re-establishment, in 1975, of the Hellenic Political Science Association . This association was from the very start a dynamic professional and scientific forum (its members were, as of the first year of its existence, nearly 200), which asserted itself as a significant point of reference in the intellectual and political life of the country. During the period 1975-1981, it organized con-ferences and meetings; it intervened (with reports or publications) in various aspects of political life (e.g., in questions of modernization of the party sys-tem or of university reform), thus contributing greatly to the establishment of political science. In 1978, the Association published “Social and political forces in Greece,” which was an important development in terms of the sci-entific debate about the political system of the country, while the next year the first issue of the Political Science Review was being prepared, with a special feature on the elections. At the same time, the HPSA became a mem-ber of IPSA and established active relationships with other international institutions. During this period, the status of membership in the HPSA was much sought-after by most of the political world, which participated or regu-larly followed its activities.
The university reform of 1982 offered political science new opportuni-ties on an institutional level. The existing curricula in political science at the Panteios Higher School of Political Sciences and at the National University of Athens were reorganized in the context of the new academic units: new departments and sections. Moreover, a section of public law and political science was created in the law department at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Finally, the EKKE opened its doors to political scientists and to political studies stricto sensu.
The great turning point in political science, and generally in the social sciences, is linked to the reform of 1989. This reform was conceived and implemented by the chancellorship of the Panteios School based on the pre-vious action of HPSA and virtually imposed upon the political power. It included the conversion of the five university Schools existing in Athens, Piraeus, and Thessaloniki, into Universities. Four of these specialized in the main branches of the social sciences . In these new universities, in place of each of the Schools, many new departments (approximately eight at each new university) and sections with their own curricula as of the first year, were created, in step with the scientific currents of the times, as well as insti-tutes and university research centres.
The Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences includes a total of eight departments divided in directions and sections (a total of 29), with the subjects of political science (and its various branches) or related disci-plines: Departments of Political Science and International Studies, Urban and Regional Development, Social Policy and Anthropology, Communication and Mass Media, Law, Sociology, and Psychology.
The impact of this reform went far beyond political science and the Pan-teion University. With regard to political science and its branches, new de-partments and sections were created at the Universities of Athens, Thessalo-niki, Macedonia, Thrace, Crete, the Aegean, and Thessaly. Moreover, de-partments of social sciences included political science courses. The integra-tion of the country into the EC (January 1, 1981), gave new impetus to Euro-pean and International Studies, in the context of which political science oc-cupies a not at all negligible place.
This report would be incomplete if it failed to mention the contribution to the social sciences of the phenomenon of the private institutions that oper-ate as annexes of foreign universities in Greece. This phenomenon appeared after the 1980s and responds to the keen demand for university education in Greece, combined with the student selection system (see 2.2) and the consti-tutional prohibition of the establishment of private universities (ecclesiastic or secular). Today it is a reality, felt particularly in the field of the social sciences.
2 The Current State of Teaching and Research
2.1 University Teaching: General Remarks
The Institutions
University education in Greece is provided exclusively by public institu-tions , which are classified in two categories: The Universities and the Tech-nological Institutions (TEI).
There are at present 19 universities and 16 TEI around the country. Added to this is a number of foreign institutions (according to estimates, more than 25), supported by the private sector , which offer university cur-ricula recognized by the universities of origin. Graduates of these institutions, while not formally recognized by the Greek state (they must register in the corresponding department at the Greek university, according to the assess-ment of their studies by DIKATSA), enter the private sector of the economy of the country. They are usually accepted for graduate studies at universities abroad. Most of these institutions have departments or courses in political science or its various branches and related disciplines.
The TEI, for their part, do not have departments of political science. However, many of them offer classes that cover the broader field of political science, from public policy and services to European policy.
Finally, the National Centre for Public Administration (NCPA), created in 1983 to contribute to the modernization of the public sector, includes four principal institutions: the National School of Public Administration, The Institute for Continuing Education (ICE), the Institute for Introductory Ad-ministrative Education (IIAE), and the Regional Institutes for Continuing Education (RICE). Today, the NCPA is comprised of the following basic educational units: the NSPA, the National School of Local Self-Administration (NSLS), the Institute for the Training of Civil Servants (ITCS), and the RICE. The NCPA offers modules of teaching, programmes of specialization or continuing education that belong, by their very nature, to the domain of political science stricto sensu, its various branches and related disciplines. Thirty-three percent of the graduates of the NCPA have political science degrees.
The goal and the limitations of this report oblige us to omit the last cases, either of the public or of the private sector, and to focus on the traditional educational institutions and research centres.
The Structure of University Teaching
The public university in Greece is governed by the law of 1982, which en-sures its autonomy with respect to the state. “Academic freedom” includes “the freedom of movement of ideas and the freedom of teaching and re-search.” The right of asylum “consists in the prohibition of interference by the public power in the university campus without the invitation or the per-mission of the university authorities” (Article 2, 5). The budget of the univer-sities depends essentially on regular funding by the State.
The university authorities are elected by the entire faculty, to which a number of students are added which varies according to the situation (for example, for the election of Chancellors, the number of student representa-tives was initially equal to the number of teachers, but today does not exceed 30 percent of the faculty).
The sovereign body of the University is the Academic Council, which is composed of representatives of the departments and the students. The de-partment constitutes the fundamental academic unit that covers a scientific discipline. It may be divided into areas of specialization and, in the majority of cases, it is articulated in sections (units of teaching and research), which cover a related subject of the respective discipline. The sovereign body of the department and the section is the General Assembly of the teachers and the representatives of the students and the postgraduate candidates (50 percent and 15 percent respectively of the number of teachers). The General Assem-bly decides on all questions relating to the activity of the department, such as the teaching and scientific orientation, the specific objectives and the curricu-lum of the department.
The studies are divided into three cycles, each leading to a diploma. The first cycle extends over at least eight six-month semesters and leads to a de-gree. This is followed by a cycle of four six-month semesters leading to a Diploma of Postgraduate Studies. Lastly, the cycle of studies which leads to a doctorate diploma lasts at least six semesters, and is a continuation of the second cycle. It is reasonable to conclude that the “Bologna process” has had almost no impact as yet on political science in Greece. More generally, in the Greek university system, while the “Bologna process” is often debated, its impact on policy making up to now has been negligible. At present, the “Bo-logna process” awaits legislative reform by the government.
The curricula consist of the syllabus and activities offered by the sections and the departments. They are made up of two cycles, each of which takes four semesters. The programme is, according to the legal framework, the recommended one. Each student can adapt it to his own needs and interests. That is why the syllabus is divided into two categories: the required courses, which make up about a quarter of the total, and the elective courses. The student can also choose courses from another department, Greek or foreign, provided that the department gives its consent. In order to obtain his diploma, a student must have completed at least eight six-month semesters and to have completed the minimum of units required by his department. Methods of student assessment vary, and, in principle, the teacher has the last word. These include the traditional type of examination, supervised projects, short projects, and continuous assessment.
2.2 Political Science as a University Subject
University Units of Political Science
(1) The teaching of political science in public university institutions can be classified, for purposes of systemization, in three categories that correspond to the degree of affiliation of the departments with it:
· Departments of political science stricto sensu, which grant a special diploma in political science in each of the cycles.
· Departments which relate to the various sub-disciplines of political sci-ence or whose curricula are interdisciplinary. These programmes usually combine political science with one or more related subjects, preferably law, communication, economics, sociology, or history.
· Sections of political science stricto sensu (which consequently legitimize the corresponding department to grant a diploma in political science, par-ticularly in the second or third cycle). Sections relating to the various branches of political science or which are interdisciplinary, nevertheless including political science. Finally, departments that offer teaching mod-ules in the field of political science.
(2) The departments of political science stricto sensu are the following seven:
· The Department of Political Science and History at Panteion University. This department grants two special degrees: one degree in political sci-ence and another in history. There are currently six sections: Political Theory and Theory of the State, Political Sociology and Comparative Political Analysis, Political Systems, Hellenic and Balkan Studies, Euro-pean Studies, Modern History;
· The Department of Political Science and Public Administration at the National University of Athens. This department offers three cycles of specialization: Political Analysis, International and European Studies, and Administrative Science. It contains four sections: Political science, Social theory and sociology, International and European studies, Admin-istrative science;
· The Department of International and European Economic and Political Studies at the University of Macedonia. This department grants two spe-cial degrees: in International and European Economy, and in Political Science and Diplomacy. This department has a total of 15 professors;
· The Department of Political Science at the University of Crete;
· The Department of Political Science at the Aristotle University of Thes-saloniki;
· The Department of International and European Studies at the Panteion University;
· The Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of the Peloponnese.
(3) Departments which, because of their subject or the contents of their cur-ricula, can be classified in the category of political science. These depart-ments are as follows:
· Department of Public Administration (Panteion University); Department of Communication and Media (Panteion University); Department of Ur-ban and Regional Development (Panteion University); Department of Social Policy and Anthropology (Panteion University); Department of Communication and the Media (University of Athens); Department of Social Administration (University of Thrace); Department of Journalism and the Media (University of Thessaloniki); Department of International and European Studies (Economics University of Athens); Department of European Studies (University of Piraeus).
(4) Sections of political science stricto sensu, sections of various branches of political science, sections of an interdisciplinary nature, which nevertheless include political science, sections that offer courses in political science.
In this category, there is a large number of faculties and departments (or their sections), such as:
· The School of Humanities (University of Thessaly); the School of Social Sciences (University of the Aegean); the School of Social Sciences (Uni-versity of Crete);
· Departments: Sociology (Panteion University); Law (Panteion Univer-sity); Psychology (Panteion University); Methodology, History and The-ory of Science (University of Athens); Economic Studies (University of Athens); Law (University of Thrace); Law (University of Thessaloniki); Law (University of Athens); Economic, International and European Studies (University of Athens); Philosophy, Education and Psychology (University of Ioannina); Philosophy, Education and Psychology (Uni-versity of Athens); History (Ionian University); History (University of Thessaloniki); Social Administration (University of the Peloponnese); etc.
The Third Cycle
The Diploma of Postgraduate Studies takes, as a rule, four six-month semes-ters and covers the subjects of one or more departments. A department can organize several cycles of postgraduate studies. For example, the Department of political science and public administration of the University of Athens offers three postgraduate programmes: political science and social theory, European organization and diplomacy, and state and national policies. The Department of Political Science and History at the Panteion University offers the following postgraduate programmes: Political Science and Political His-tory.
The common denominator of the third cycle is that is leads to a doctorate degree. There is only one type of doctorate that is granted by the department. A department is in principle legitimized to accept thesis subjects that belong to the discipline(s) that it represents. This means that a doctoral thesis in political science (in the strict sense of the term or one of its branches) can be defended in the departments of political science stricto sensu (and the de-partments which offer political science or in interdisciplinary departments) as well as in departments which offer courses in political science (e.g., in the context of a section). Candidates for the doctorate are selected on the basis of their credentials by the General Assembly of the department. The candidacy is introduced by the relevant section.
A large number of holders of postgraduate (Master, DEA) and doctorate diplomas in the field of political science obtained their degree in one or more foreign universities. This number does not include the Greek diaspora, which maintains institutional links with Greece. For a diploma to be formally rec-ognized in Greece (first of all in the public sector), it is necessary to pass the evaluation of an independent public institution (DIKATSA).
The Faculty
The body of teachers is divided into four levels: Lecturer, Assistant Profes-sor, Associate Professor, and Professor. The law defines the qualifications necessary for acquiring the rank of professor. The responsibility for the entire procedure (from the scientific identity of the position and the proclamation, to the election) belongs to the department. The funding of teaching posts, which is ensured by the State, is done, in principle, within the framework of a three-year programme by the government in cooperation with the universi-ties.
The body of scientific assistants remains practically marginal, owing to the fact that its status was removed after the enforcement of the law of 1982. It therefore includes the personnel that occupied this position before the re-form of 1982.
In its place the status of the Research Fellow was introduced and is re-cruited from among the students of the third cycle. There are also grants for undergraduates who achieve honours.
The evaluation of the number of teachers in political science involves the same difficulties as those mentioned earlier and which is related to the diver-gences concerning the definition of the political phenomenon and the delimi-tation of what the subject covers. This is why we make a point of following the criterion already adopted for the classification of political science at the level of teaching.

Table 1: Political science departments

Institution Professors Assistants
Department of Political Science and History(Panteion University) 32 7
Department of Political Science and Public Administration (University of Athens) 45 7
Department of Political Science (University of Thessaloniki) 12 –
Department of Political Science (University of Crete) 13 –
Department of Political Science and International Relations (University of the Peloponnese) – –
Department of European and International Studies(Panteion University) 37 6
Department of International and National Economics and Political Science (University of Macedonia) 15 –
Other departments (related disciplines) 65 –
Total 233 20

Table 2: Teaching staff – departments: branches of political science and interdisciplinary

Institutions Professors Assistants
Department of Public Administration (Panteion University) 37 13
Department of Communication and Mass Media (Panteion University) 20 4
Department of Communication and Mass Media (University of Athens) 25 3
Department of Journalism and Mass Media (University of Thessaloniki) 17 4
Department of Urban and Regional Development (Panteion Univ.) 32 9
Department of Social Policy & Social Anthropology (Panteion University) 22 4
Department of Social Administration (University of Thrace) 12 –
Department of International and European Studies(Economics University of Athens) 22 –
Department of European Studies (University of Piraeus) 15 –
Total 202 37
The Undergraduates
The selection of students is done by Panhellenic examination of high school seniors. This is one of the reasons why a significant number of candidates who are not accepted go to the private annexes of foreign universities and abroad. Greek undergraduates abroad are estimated to number more than 65,000, while those enrolled at the above annexes are nearly 30,000. Of the students abroad, 23.4 percent are undergraduates and 76.6 percent are pursu-ing postgraduate or doctorate degrees. In any case, Greek students that study at universities in other countries of the European Union represent approxi-mately 15 percent of the students at Greek universities, as opposed to 1.3 percent of the European average.
Actually, the average duration of university studies in political science is five years (eight six-month semesters, plus the diploma). In order to graduate a student is required to pass a foreign language examination. In each univer-sity, there are foreign language departments that the students are required to register in. However, those students who can certify the knowledge of at least one foreign language are exempted. Indeed, during primary (demotic) and secondary (gymnasium and lyceum) education, the pupils are required to learn two foreign languages. In addition, 87 percent of them receive supple-mentary private language instruction. Finally, more than 67.2 percent of secondary school students claim to have a good command of a second for-eign language. Thus, 99.2 percent of secondary school students learn Eng-lish, 67.6 percent French, and 27.3 percent learn German. Following closely are Italian and Spanish. Thus, according to statistics, Greek students place at the highest level within the European Union from the point of view of for-eign language learning.
In the way of a conclusion, it is worth noting that the fundamental char-acteristic feature of university studies of political science in Greece is that the curriculum is focused from the beginning (first semester) on the subject of this discipline. This autonomy makes the case of Greece rather an exception in Europe as in most countries political science is offered as minor courses or as a specialization in the last years of undergraduate study and particularly in the postgraduate cycle.
Students of the Third Cycle (Doctoral Level)
The estimate of the number of students in the third cycle in political science raises the same problems as those mentioned above. However, given the disparity of the related disciplines and the specificity of a doctoral thesis, we shall limit the discussion, just as an indication, to the departments of political science stricto sensu.
At the level of the third cycle, the phenomenon of graduates (DEA, Mas-ters, Doctorates and all their equivalents) of foreign origin presents greater weight to the process of reproduction of Greek scientific personnel. Every department of Political Science (and also departments of related disciplines) has organized postgraduate programmes with more than one direction.
2.3 Research in Political Science
Research in political science is carried out:
(a) in the National Research Centres;
(b) in the Institutes and the University Research Centres;
(c) in the independent Institutes, Foundations and Research Centres.
“National” Research
This is the research carried out at the National Research Foundation (EIE) and at the National Centre for Social Research (EKKE).
The EIE covers certain aspects of the political phenomenon through the research carried out at two of the Centres (now Institutes): the Institute of Byzantine Research and the Institute of Neohellenic Research.
Political research plays a more significant role in the EKKE. It is divided into three institutes: urban and rural sociology, political sociology, and so-cial policy. The EKKE has more than 73 researchers, all of whom are holders of a postgraduate degree (DEA, Masters, Doctorate) and are classified in four ranks. Sixteen of them work at the Institute of Political Sociology.
The political research at the EKKE is currently oriented towards electoral sociology and the study of political personnel. Other research projects relate to social exclusion, xenophobia, the perception of the “other,” immigration, or the flow of information within the State. About 35 percent of its resources come from the European Union.
University Research
This research is carried out either directly by the departments and the sec-tions, or within the context of the institutes, the laboratories and the research centres.
Research at the university is carried out by the faculty and secondarily by external (outside) researchers. Each university has a special budget reserved for research, and a committee that decides at the first stage on requests for funding.
The Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences accommodates the majority of the institutes and all of the research centres in the field of political science and related branches. It includes specifically two institutes and 15 research centres, which are as follows:

· Institute of Regional Development (1975); Institute of International Relations (1989); Hellenic Centre for Political Research (1989); Centre for Social Morphology and Social Policy (1989); Centre for Social Theory and Applied Social Research (1991); Centre for European Affairs (1991); Research Centre for Public Policy (1989); Research Centre for Modern Greek Society (1993); Research Centre for Economic Policy (1991); Centre for Audio-Visual Communication (1991); Centre for Journalism (1991); Centre for Social Psychology (1991) and others.

At the National University of Athens there are nine laboratories of interest to political science: the political communication laboratory, or the audio-visual laboratory. The institute closest to political science is that of Hellenic consti-tutional history and of constitutional science. There is also a European Cen-tre for Public Law.
The University of Thessaly houses a laboratory of political research and surveys.
The University of Thrace has laboratories of European studies, constitu-tional law, comparative and European labour law, etc.
The Ionian University houses laboratories of European history, the re-lated sciences of history, etc.
Finally, there are also institutes and laboratories that deal to some degree with the political phenomenon at other universities.
Independent Institutes, Foundations, and Research Centres
This category includes the principal independent research institutions (public or private). Among them are:

· The Centre for European and International Law (Thessaloniki); The Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP) (Ath-ens); The Foundation of Mediterranean Studies (Athens); The Hellenic Centre for European Studies (Athens); The Foundation for Research of the Balkan Peninsula (Thessaloniki); The Society for Balkan Research (Thessaloniki); The Research Centre for Neohellenic Society (Academy of Athens); The Hellenic Centre for Philosophical Research (Academy of Athens); The Research Centre for Medieval and Modern Hellenism (Academy of Athens); The Institute of Labour (Athens); The D. Kara-georgas Foundation for Public Economy and Policy (Athens); The Maragopoulos Foundation for Human Rights (Athens); The Hellenic So-ciety for Local Development and Self-Government (Athens); The PETA, Information, Training and Local Development (Athens).

The above list is not exhaustive and does not include private institutions (such as party institutes and foundations), which are of a specialized nature, although for many of them the study of the political phenomenon is among their priorities.
Lastly, we should stress that the broadening of the field of politics and the development of new data in the shaping of public opinion have opened up a vast field of study and research for political science. The first opinion poll in Greece was carried out before the elections of 1946. Non-systematic surveys on the political and electoral behaviour of public opinion followed, until 1975. Ever since, the carrying out of surveys is undertaken by survey companies. Some of these companies, which operate in the field of politics, have demonstrated work whose content can be described as scientific. The most important of these are: MRB, AGB, ALCO, PRC, MEDIAPLAN, ICAP GALLUP HELLAS S.A., and KAPPA RESEARCH.
3 Professional Associations, Scientific Journals, Publishing Companies
3.1 Professional Associations
The Hellenic Association of Political Science (formally established in 1955) has been effectively active since 1975 and is the professional and scientific home of political scientists. Today its members number nearly 260. Its activi-ties include conferences, meetings, and publications. The HPSA is a member of IPSA, of epsNet, of ECPR and other European and international organiza-tions.
Apart from HPSA, there are other professional associations of the related disciplines, such as:

· The Association of Greek Constitutionalists, the Association of Greek Sociologists, the Hellenic Association of International Law and Interna-tional Relations, the Hellenic Psychological Association, the Association of Greek Psychologists, the Hellenic University Association of European Studies, the Association of Greek Economists.
3.2 Journals, Publishing Companies and Libraries of Political Science
(a) Political Science Journals (specialized and general, which to a large de-gree cover the political phenomenon):
· Hellenic Review of Political Science (publication of the HPSA), Political Science (Publication of the University of Crete), The Tribune of Social Sciences (University of Thessaly), The Review of Social Research (Pub-lication of the EKKE), The Parliamentary Review, New Sociology, The Constitution (review of constitutional law and political science), Democ-racy and Nature, Administrative Review, Administrative Reform, Levia-than, Deucalion, Historica, Review of the European Communities, De-fense and Diplomacy, Strategy, Balkania (Publication of EKEM), Topos (journal of urban and regional studies), Topica (journal of the Associa-tion of Studies of the Humanities), Utopia (journal of political theory and culture), Contemporary Topics, Neusis (journal of history and philoso-phy of science and technology, issued by the department of methodol-ogy, history and theory of science, University of Athens).
(b) Publishing Companies, University Publications
Each university on its own publishes teaching notes that help in the learning process. Each course is usually accompanied by teaching notes. The univer-sity publications frequently publish scientific directories and other works which are usually distributed outside the market.
The institutes and the research centres as a rule issue collections, the minutes of conferences, research studies, and bulletins.
University publications are edited and distributed mainly by privately owned publishing houses. These private publishers issue the main university textbooks that are distributed to the students. According to this unique sys-tem, all of the students receive all of the course books (usually one or two books per course) recommended by the instructor and approved by the de-partment, free of charge, apart from the course notes. This practice reflects the State’s choice to assume the entire cost of public education on all levels, from primary education to the university. Thus, each university draws up individual contracts with publishers that have published or undertake to pub-lish textbooks recommended by the instructors to support the teaching of their courses or seminars.
To illustrate the breadth of this undertaking, let’s take an example, that of the Panteion University: In 1996, the total number of titles (course notes and books) distributed to the students was on average 1,200; 750 of these titles were books, of which 580 were written by Greek authors, and the rest (170) were translations of foreign books. In 1996 there were 112 publishers that had contracts with Panteion, 24 of which distributed more than five text-book titles, while 17 of them distributed between 10 and 50 titles. In the academic year 2004-2005 the total number of books distributed remained at the same level. However, the number of book titles increased to 830 with a corresponding reduction in the Notes. The example of Panteion University is in this respect representative of all of the university institutions in Greece.
It should be noted that the publications of political science papers oc-cupy a significant place in the sum of the publications in Greece. The major-ity of the publishers offer collections of political works. The number of trans-lations of political works is among the largest in Europe.
(c) Political Science Libraries
University libraries. The libraries that specialize in the social sciences and particularly in political science are found in the universities, the institutes and the research centres. We mention, among others, the libraries of:

· the Panteion University, the National University of Athens, the Univer-sity of Thessaloniki, the University of Crete, the University of Ioannina, the University of Thessaly;

as well as the libraries of:

· the EKKE, the National Centre for Public Administration/EIE, the ELIAMEP, the IPA (Panteion University), the IDIS (Panteion Univer-sity), the Centre for European and International Law.

The “national” and other libraries: We mention just as an indication:

· the National Library, the Library of Parliament, the Library of the Acad-emy of Athens, the Genadeios Library;
· a series of libraries of scientific or cultural institutions whose interest in political science is increasing (e.g., Benakeios Library, the libraries of the French Institute, the Goethe Institute, the British Council, the Bank of Greece).
4 The Social Demand for Political Science
The social demand for political science is uneven. The presence of political science is strongly felt at the level of the political system as well as that of the top functionaries of the public sector and the rationally specialized institu-tions. At the same time, the problem of access to jobs of graduates arises with particular acuteness.
The presence of political science within the framework of the political system can be attributed to the dominant role of politics in Greece. This role has taken on catalytic dimensions since the surge of telemedia and the institu-tional integration of the country in the international system. The dictatorial parenthesis of 1936-1941 showed the central role played by the Panteios School of Political Science in the training of executives of the public sector and in the evolution of ideas. During the Cold War, political science served by priority the criticism of the democratic deficit of the West and the demand for a larger democratic scope; in Greece in about the middle of the 1970s, political science was carried away by the tide of “political change.”
It is generally accepted that political science – and its related disciplines – constitutes a privileged forum of development and exchange of ideas, di-rectly linked to the social and political life of the country. This explains the impact of the Hellenic Association of Political Science in the years 1975-1980, the role of the Panteios School (and later of Panteion University) or of the Faculty of Law and Political Science of the National University of Ath-ens.
Moreover, the institutions of the social sciences provide the state with political and administrative executives (political personnel, leaders of the large public organizations, political advisers). The Panteion University has also provided Presidents of the Republic, prime ministers and other high-ranking personnel.
The development of the phenomenon of the telemedia has led political science to come up against the live daily events, without, however, giving up its traditional presence in the Press. Finally, the integration of the country in the international system (NATO, the Council of Europe, OECD) and, since January 1, 1981, in the European Union, in conjunction with the new world order that arose with the collapse of the Soviet bloc, created a significant demand for specialists in European affairs, as well as in the affairs of the countries of southeast Europe, the former Soviet Union, the Near East, and, in general, in international relations, strategic studies, foreign policy, the European institutions and the broader international issues.
The new role that the state has been called upon to play on the national and international scene has raised the question of its reform. The demand for specialists in the political and administrative institutions as well as in state policies would have effects on the development of a series of disciplines of the social sciences, of which the political phenomenon is a basic parameter. The establishment of the National School of Public Administration is an indication of this new reality.
Despite this opening of the state, the civil services, and the private sector to the social sciences, access to jobs for political science graduates remains a problem. They face, among other things, the irrational aspects of a state, which the political class refuses to abandon or, in the best case, is not in a position to confront. Add to that the plethora of graduates, given that the graduates from abroad and from the private institutions are added to this number. Finally, we cannot ignore the phenomenon of the rejection of work that the transition to the technological age has produced and which raises the general question of re-evaluating the place of work in the economic proc-ess .
Nevertheless, over the last few years, the demand for highly qualified political scientists has increased: in the audiovisual communication media, the survey companies, public and private education, particularly at the sec-ondary level , in continuing education, research centres, offices of research and counselling, special (public and private) services on European affairs, local and regional self-administration. It is obvious that we find ourselves before a demand that requires increasingly complex knowledge, confirming a significant turning point in the aspect of society and the State and, of course, of the country in the new technological order. It is a turning point which still faces the dominant system and the resistance of the reigning, chiefly political and intellectual, class of the country.
5 European and International Co-operation
The participation of Hellenic political science in the international co-operation presents a positive picture. Nevertheless, according to a general trend that is characteristic of Greek society, the individual action in the inter-national arena is stronger by far than that of the institutions, including the Hellenic Political Science Association.
Hellenism, through its diaspora and the mobility that distinguishes it, takes an active part in the international process of production and distribution of modern knowledge in political science: Roy Macridis, Nikos Poulantzas, Cornelius Castoriadis and others are a few representative examples, while particularly in the United States, the Greek university community is among the most active. This diaspora, apart from its presence in host countries, very often has an active role in Greek scientific and intellectual life, so that it often occupies a not at all insignificant place in research and the development of issues relating to Greek political life and history.
Concerning the institutions that are active within the modern Greek state, there is a relatively interesting, though somewhat intermittent, presence in European and international events. HPSA is member of IPSA and it main-tains relationships with a number of international associations. The university institutions (e.g. departments) and those of research (institutes, research cen-tres) appear much more active on the international level. Their initiatives provide quite a rich and constructive result for the social sciences.
Finally, Greece participates in a number of European scientific institu-tions, such as the European University Institute of Florence, the College of Bruges and the Institute of Public Administration of Maastricht. Another dimension which is used as a vehicle for international co-operation is the bilateral agreements of exchange and research that the Greek state signs with other countries.
E-mail addresses of the principal university and research foundations:
University of Athens http://www.uoa.gr/
Economic University of Athens http://www.aueb.gr
Panteion University http://www.panteion.gr
University of Thessaloniki http://www.auth.gr/
University of Macedonia http://www.it.uom.gr/
University of Thrace http://www.duth.gr/
University of Crete http://www.uch.gr/
University of Ioannina http://feidias.cc.uoi.gr:9030/
University of the Aegean http://www.aegean.gr/
Ministry of Education http://www.ypepth.gr/
National Documentation Centre http://www.ekt.org.gr/
ELIAMEP eliamep@leon.nrcps.ariadne-t.gr
IPA ipa01@athena.compulink

The participation of Greece, and in particular of Greek political science, in European exchange programmes, presents a number of distinctive features that are worthy of mention. There is a disproportion that is favourable to the Greek students. This imbalance is due, for the most part, to the limited knowledge of the Greek language in Europe and also to the proficiency of Greek students in foreign languages. It is true that this problem is partially compensated by the fact that the European students that come to Greece often choose to combine their studies with the carrying out of part of their research programme. At the level of teaching mobility, a larger balance is maintained.
6 Qualitative Analysis and Distinctive Features of Greek Political Science
6.1 The Long Road of Transition to the Modern Era. Difficult Harmonization
The scientific approach to the political phenomenon in the Hellenic world is of considerable interest which touches on the core of European development. This is because, on the one hand, its affiliation with the Greek classics has been uninterrupted throughout history, and has been accompanied by a con-tinuous production of political works until the end of the Hellenic cosmosys-tem in the 19th century; on the other hand, because this relationship of the Greek societies with political thinking is linked to the fact that they were indissolubly interwoven with the causal basis of politics, that is, their con-stant anthropocentric nature. Despite this, during the last period of life as societies of cities (15th-19th century), their intellectual life came up against significant hardships due to the turbulence caused by its violent meeting with Asian and European despotism and the new ethnocentric dynamic of the societies resulting from Europe’s exit from feudalism.
The shock of the Ottoman occupation did not, however, prevent Hellen-ism from restructuring itself. The Great (university) School of the “Nation” took the place of the state university of Constantinople, which was the model for the creation of the western European universities. The (secular) educa-tional system of the cities was called upon to fill the vacuum in the whole Greek vital area. During the last period of the Ottomanocracy, until the 19th century, the project of Hellenic societies would continue to be focused on the reconstitution of the ecumenical cosmopolis, with the city as a foundation and not on the creation of a nation- state.
The failure of this project and the creation of a marginal state of the na-tional type produced, at first, a dichotomy between the employing of politics as a phenomenon that can be approached either as power, force or global freedom and in its definition of tautology of the state (i.e., as power or as simple force). The option of the concept of politics to the conditions of the proto-anthropocentric nation state did not end this rivalry. It simply trans-formed the object of rivalry, which was focused around the question of in-compatibility of the modern political system with the political development of society and, furthermore, of the interpretation of this phenomenon. The question of blame – the system or the society – has not ceased to torment Greek political thought until today.
The great demand for politics on behalf of the social body in the context of the state-nation certainly did not prevent the equating of the political phe-nomenon with the state nor the inevitable subjugation of the sciences of poli-tics to the sciences of the state-nation (in public law, in ethnostatocentric history and economics). Thus, despite the strong presence of the citizen in political life, the social sciences and, frequently, the realities of the formal political system, accepted as nearly self-evident the relative doctrine of “modernism.” In this context, it was natural to link the return of political science in Greece with the new dominant views: that in other words its object is the tautological equivalent of the state and, in the best case, of the political power.
Despite this, the legacies of the Hellenic world are largely responsible for the distinctiveness of the relationship between society and politics, the func-tions of the political system but also the science of politics in Greece.
Contemporary Greek political science is characterized by a high level of autonomy in the fields of teaching and research. A university (the Panteion) devoted essentially to the sciences of politics, four other departments and several sections of political science, added to which are a series of depart-ments and sections affiliated with political science, as well as research institutions, giving the overall picture of undeniable pre-eminence in the domain of the social sciences.
It is also undeniable that this reality in Greece increasingly finds its rela-tive parallel in the development of the contemporary world. Indeed, in recent years a substantial widening of the field of politics is observed mainly in European societies, as well as a tendency to un-identify the concept of the so-called public space by the state. This introduced a questioning relative to the embodiment of the political system by the state, and further, the concept that has the political power of the state expressing the nation and the general interest.
There is the prospect of a reconsideration of this position, which suggests the idea of a clear distinction between the concept of the political system and the concept of the state and further of the project for a state that will serve and not embody the political system. This distinction could create the condi-tions for a change of roles in the context of the political process and particu-larly of the political function of the social body. In this context, the “people” acquire a political dimension that it takes from the “nation” as it is trans-formed from a private society into a demos, i.e., an institutional agent of the political system. The political integration of the citizen indeed undermines the principle “one nation, one state, one political system (unified or not).” This principle, which exhausted its role in the transition from the despotic to the anthropocentric cosmosystem, was used at the same time as the starting point or legitimizing basis for significant political “deformations” (national-ism, totalitarianism, political coercion). The loss nowadays of a large portion of the initial dynamism must be attributed precisely to the fact that it finds itself facing the development of the social body in terms of view of freedom. This remark certainly reveals the doubtful character of certain hypotheses which are still considered fundamental, such as that of the cultural or the political minority.
The difference between the formal and the real political system, which appeared clearly at the end of the 20th century, raises a question vaster than that of cultural or political pluralism. In this context, contemporary political science considers that the problem of the deficit of representation can be solved with the accreditation of the civil society (the concept of governance) in the political power in a context of relationships of forces. The social body, however, is in no way regarded as a mandatory and, therefore, as an institu-tion within the political system. From then on, the basic question is that of transition from the dilemma of minority or sovereignty in the concept of political autonomy of the social body and, by extension, with a multi-systematic construction of the State, which would be closely associated with the reconsideration of the bases that govern the relationship between society and politics.
For Greek society, this evolution can be interpreted as the beginning of the end of a parenthesis, which was imposed on the political praxis and was effectively served by political science as the consequence of the inevitable, from a certain moment and on, harmonization of its political system with the ethnocentric system. This harmonization, however, which was qualified as deviating in comparison to the European “rule,” owing to the fact that from the start (from the first 20 years of the 19th century), it directly introduced principles such as: universal suffrage, the system of the “post-class” and, consequently, “post-ideological” parties, political individuality which entails a political behaviour motivated by the status of mandatory, the existence of a broad political space, diffused in the social body and minimally compatible with the identification of the “public” with the state.
6.2 Developments in Contemporary Political Science
As far as the body of teachers and researchers in the social sciences is con-cerned, one notices considerable development before the end of the Cold War. This is reflected in the increase in the number of members of the teach-ing and research staff since the reform of 1982, which released the university dynamic to this day. To return to the example of the Panteion University: whereas in 1982 there were 36 teachers with the status of professor – and really only one department with two directions – in 1990 the number of pro-fessors of all four ranks was 178 – with eight departments and numerous sections – not counting the assistants. Today, there are 218 professors and 10 departments. The example of the Panteion is largely representative of the whole of the Greek university system and of Greek research.
The average age of the teachers and the researchers has decreased appre-ciably. The average age was almost 60 years in 1982, while in l996 it aver-aged around 45, with an upward trend in the last few years. This shows that the social sciences, especially its political science branches, are undeniably in full dynamic evolution. At the same time, a new generation of political scien-tists, which represents a remarkable scientific potential, is already active in the university and in research.
All of the members of the teaching and research staff are proficient in at least one foreign language, while those who command at least two foreign languages come to more than 72 percent. It is noted that 86 percent of the Greek teachers and researchers have completed a part or the whole of their postgraduate studies (DEA, Master, Ph.D.) in one or more foreign universi-ties (mainly European or American). Many of them served as instructors or as researchers in foreign institutions before returning to Greece, or they maintain close scientific communications (instructional or research) with institutions abroad. International mobility is encouraged to a certain extent by university law. Every teacher is entitled to a six-month sabbatical every three years (or one year every six years) of service, while salaries are nearly dou-bled for those who choose a research residency at a university abroad.
Within the halls of Greek political science one observes a tendency to form intra-disciplinary or branch “families.” This testifies to the existence of a relative potential for specialization which responds to the social demand. We are referring to the “families” of electoral sociology and the sociology of public opinion, political life, the media, comparative policy, political theory, political institutions, state policies, political forces (political parties, interest groups, social movements), political culture, public administration, local and regional self-administration, international studies (international organiza-tions and international relations, strategic studies, European, Balkan, Arab studies), methodology and epistemology, political economy, political history.
The political system of the modern Greek state is, of course, the privi-leged field of political research. However, with the notable exception of political ideas, the past that refers to the period of the Hellenic cosmosystem did not particularly attract its attention. The period from antiquity to the Ot-toman period was left essentially to the historians, to the philologists, and secondarily to other disciplines. Modern political science developed in the final analysis as the science of the state-nation. This, moreover, largely ex-plains the absolute view of the history of Hellenism through a narrow ethno-centric prism. It is sufficient to note that the first non-ethnocentric systematic approach to the Hellenic political foundations (of the system of cities) of the Ottoman period would come to light only in 1982, while the global approach to Hellenism from the point of view of cosmosystemic theory would appear ten years later.
The part of the political sciences which deals with political events be-yond Greece is not insignificant: It deals particularly with the movement of ideas from the Western European Renaissance until the modern period, with the social and political case of other countries (for example the countries of southeastern Europe, the Near East), and particularly with the study of the political system of the countries of the European Union. In this respect, it is important to emphasize the significance of the phenomenon of the transla-tion into Greek of a large number of works regarding the social sciences and, in this case, political science. This phenomenon, largely supported by the system of free distribution of textbooks to the students, makes the bibliogra-phy on the subject rich as well as balanced.
6.3 Towards a New “Paradigm” of Political Science
The dynamic return of political science in a country like Greece, which quite painfully lives the reality of the restricted institutional space of politics in the environment of the state-nation, makes the raising of questions as to the con-cept as well as to the method of approach to the political phenomenon almost self-evident. The success of another “paradigm,” beside the dominant “para-digm” of modernity, which projects itself as a unique laboratory of political science that is not subject to comparison with the past, is a natural conse-quence.
This modern “paradigm,” which is served by contemporary political sci-ence, perceives the political phenomenon as a function of its organizational or structural expression within the framework of the state-nation in the proto-anthropocentric phase. Political science has power as an object because only power and the relations of force that are expressed around it are considered to be able to produce policy. As such, any other structural approach to the po-litical phenomenon that does not identify the political system with the state is inconceivable. Moreover, it considers that statocentrism is the only form of structuring the world cosmosystem. This approach itself does not distinguish between political science, whose object is the political system, its structure and functions, and the sciences of politics, which refer to the action of the political system (political economy, international relations).
The new “paradigm” reproaches modern political science for possessing a limited gnosiological and methodological depth, shallow comparative per-spective and a committed logic so that it sets the modern age as a universal model. The ethnocentric approach to the political phenomenon entirely dis-torts the historical horizon, while at the same time it considers the process of the emergence of the nation and of the proto-anthropocentric society in West-ern Europe as a measure of judgment and causality of universal value. On the contrary, this new “paradigm” chooses to conceptualize the phenomena (e.g., politics, democracy, representation, freedom) and then submits the historical and modern cases to scientific control.
This point of view sees the current stage of the anthropocentric cosmo-system not any longer as a model of reference and integration, but as a sim-ple historical incident of the anthropocentric cosmosystem, which we are called upon to approach in terms of comparative analogy.
Compared with the whole anthropocentric cosmosystem our era resem-bles typologically the first statocentric period of the city. The Hellenic or anthropocentric cosmosystem on a small scale also demonstrates, however, apart from its integration within the context of the state, its post-statocentric or ecumenical phase, which is recognized politically at the level of the cos-mopolis. The significance of this finding is multi-faceted because it enriches the conceptual approach to the typology of political systems and the organi-zation of the world. It also informs us that the political systems of the city, such as, for example, democracy, were not recorded, as believed, in a re-stricted period of statocentric antiquity (5th-4th centuries) but were, in fact, a constant in all of the phases of the Hellenic cosmosystem, in the context of the city until the turn of the 20th century.
The challenge which the comparative analogical method addresses to modern political science to disassociate itself from the “synchronic” argu-ment and to invest in the typological space of the whole anthropocentric cosmosystem, essentially reintroduces the question of redefinition of the concept of politics and, by extension, all the concepts or phenomena ascribed to its object.
Thus, democracy for modern theory is the political system which modern societies are experiencing. However, the subjection of the modern political system to the control of the democratic principle classifies it not as a democ-ratic political system, but as a pre-democratic, and in fact a pre-representational, system. In this case, the question is not focused on the feasibility of the Athenian democracy nowadays, but of the democratic principle. As far as politics is concerned, this approach rejects the established approach to poli-tics, which links the concept with its nature and not with its structural type in the era of the anthropocentric proto-genesis. It accepts that the political phe-nomenon as such is intrinsic in society and not power, force, or coercion. The projection of the hypothesis that the political phenomenon does not manifest a unique structural “face” in the whole cosmosystemic process dramatically broadens the gnoseological basis and the space of reference of political sci-ence. In terms of perspective, the question concerns the conditions under which the social body can transcend its constitution in terms of power or, put another way, in terms of private society, which reflects the actual phase of modernity.
To what degree, therefore, can we anticipate the alternative possibility of the transition to a system of direct representation and, furthermore, “political society,” which defines the anthropocentric integration? We are obviously referring to democracy, that is, to the political system whose distinguishing feature is the whole (individual, social, and political) freedom is recognized by the diffusion of politics to the society or, more correctly, by the vesting of the social body with the status of political system instead of the state.
The fundamental hypothesis of the cosmosystemic “paradigm” an-nounces a radical reconsideration of the whole of the conceptual and meth-odological arsenal of modernity, and at the same time, the determinative broadening of the space of political science. In this context, modern political science is charged with the duty of distancing itself from this view of moder-nity so that it can rethink the political phenomenon, not simply on the basis of an intra-systemic critical review of the political praxis, but in terms of the universal character of its manifestations.
With the definite attachment of Greek society to the conditions of the modern cosmosystem, Greek political science was bound inevitably to adapt to the epistemological concessions of the new ethnocentric order. The features of this adaptation, as significant as they were, do not refute the fact that the investigation of the political phenomenon in Greece was recorded, as every-where else, as the responsibility of related scientific branches (law, history, etc.). A science of politics had no reason to exist in the proto-anthropocentric stage of the state-nation. Having been absorbed by the public space or at least by state political power, the political phenomenon – and subsequently the political system – could not hope for a delimitation of its space so that it would cover the area of a distinct discipline. Moreover, to the degree that the social body possessed neither the necessary political maturity nor the status of political partner the political praxis could introduce only indirectly a hy-pothesis of society and, as such, it was rather impossible to claim its own scientific space. Therefore, the delay of political science and the relatively limited progress it has made nowadays, is evaluated in comparison to the precedent of the Hellenic or the small-scale anthropocentric cosmosystem, and not with the realities of our era, with which they are clearly in harmony and which it accurately renders.
On the other hand, the progressive emancipation of political science, which started only a few years ago, did not make it feasible to promote a creative dialogue about its major options as far as the concept of the political phenomenon and its object are concerned, or the most expedient method which would allow it to go beyond the environment that gave birth to it. That is why the redefinition of the concept and the method becomes a major prior-ity for political science at the beginning of the 21st century. It is clear that the science of politics is the only one of the social sciences that persists in defin-ing its object based on the way it is structured in our era (as a tautology of power or state) and not by virtue of its nature as the same order of phenome-non of which the structural manifestations are connected to the type and the developmental expansion of the analogous (despotic or anthropocentric) cosmosystem.
This remark has more than just rhetorical value. As a working hypothesis it allows, on one hand, the investigation of the political phenomenon within the whole historical context, and, on the other hand, the search for the deeper significance of recent developments that the transition to the technological age signals. Therefore, the task of political science no longer focuses on an apologetic function in favour of some form of power or other, or to whatever policies lie behind its short-term options. Political science is called upon, mainly, to rise above the “short history” and to bring its step in harmony with the “rule” that issues from the long history recommended by the cosmosys-temic approach. This confirms the view that political science, much more than any other branch of the social sciences, will not acquire an upward indi-cator of reliability if it does not first acquire a universal conceptual object. In the final analysis, the discussion about the object of political science refers to a fundamental problem of identity.
Generally, political science in Greece presents one of the highest levels of development in Europe. It is historically in the vanguard of institutionali-zation of political science. The first efforts date back to 1828 and to the sec-ond half of the 19th century – long before the creation of the École des Sci-ences Politiques de Paris and the London School of Economics – whereas the Panteios School of Political Sciences numbers among the first schools of its kind (it was created in 1927). The first political sciences society in Greece appeared in 1916, and also publishes a review of social and political sci-ences. Later, when in 1949 UNESCO urged the European countries to estab-lish national political science societies, Greece was among the first. The Hellenic Political Science Association was already established in 1955. Fi-nally, the Departments of Political Science in Greece are among the first in Europe to be emancipated from the sciences of the state and to become insti-tutionally autonomous. From their creation, the curricula of the political science departments included only political science stricto sensu and its re-lated branches from the first to the last semester. The disproportionately large – in relation to the population of the country – production of works of politi-cal science, combined with the translations of foreign works into the Greek language, confirm the picture of a society with a high level of individual politicization and subsequently explain the significant demand for political science. The difficulties concerning the problem of the professional status of graduates does not refute this finding.
Contogeorgis, George (1982): Social Dynamics and Political Autonomy. The Greek “Cities” in the Ottomanocracy, Athens, Nea Synora: 581.
Contogeorgis, George (1985): Political System and Politics, Athens: Polytypo: 187
Contogeorgis, George (1992): History of Greece, Paris: Hatier: 479
Contogeorgis, George (1995): “La politique locale entre la tendance centralisatrice de l’Etat grec et la dynamique communautaire: administration ou autonomie locale (et régionale)?” Pôle Sud 3: 88-102.
Contogeorgis, George (1996): Mass Communication and Democracy. In Laocratis Vassis (ed.), Medias and Culture, Athens, Entelecheia: 251-263.
Contogeorgis, George (1997a): The Unity of Hellenic Humanism. From Byzantium to Modern-Greek Humanism. In Dedication to Antonis Antonakopoulos, Athens, Panteion Univ:83-110.
Contogeorgis, George (1997b): “Foreword,” in Guy Haarscher/Mario Teló: After Communism, Athens: Papazissis (Greek translation):20-23.
Contogeorgis, George (2001): “Samuel Huntington et le choc des civilisations. Civili-sation religieuse ou cosmosystème?” Pôle Sud 14: 107-127.
Contogeorgis, George (2003a): Citizenship and City. Concept and Typology of Citi-zenship, Athens: Papazissis: 240.
Contogeorgis, George (2003b): The Authoritarian Phenomenon. Interpretative Ap-proaches, Athens: Papazissis: 170.
Contogeorgis, George (2003c): “Toward a Cosmosystemic Approach to the Historic Process,” in: D. Koutras (ed.): Philosophy of History and Culture, Αthens:71-90.
Contogeorgis, George (2004): “La démocratie comme liberté”, in: Dominique Da-mamme (ed.): La démocratie en Europe, Paris: L’Harmattan : 9-20.
Diamantouros, Nikiphoros/Michalis Spourdalakis (1991): “Political Science in Greece”, European Journal of Political Research 20: 375-387.
Easton, David/John G. Gunnell/Michael B. Stein (ed.) (1995): Regime and Discipline. Democracy and the Development of Political Science, Ann Arbor: The Univer-sity of Michigan Press.
EKKE (National Centre for Social Research) (1998): On the Opening of the Social Sciences, Athens, Ed. EKKE: 81.
Flogaitis, Spyros (1982): Fundamental Concepts of Administrative Organization, Athens, Sakkoulas: 152 (in Greek).
Goodin, Robert E./Hans-Dieter Klingemann (eds.) (1996): A New Handbook of Po-litical Science, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haarscher, Guy/Mario Teló (1997): After Communism, Athens: Papazissis (Greek translation): 258.
Hatzistratis, Dimitri (1994): La Nouvelle importance du paysage audiovisuel sur le jeu politique grec. Le cas des elections legislatives du 10 octobre, 1993, Athens, Panteion Univ: 96.
Spourdalakis, Michalis (1994): “The Study of Political Parties in Greece”, European Journal of Political Research 25: 499-518.
Tsinisizelis, Michalis (1993): “Recent Political Science Writing in Greece,” European Journal of Political Research 23: 483-501.
UNESCO (1950): Contemporary Political Science, Paris: UNESCO: 740.

- Διατηρείται το δικαίωμα αναδημοσιεύσης του παρόντος άρθρου σε οποιοδήποτε μέσο, με απαραίτητη προϋπόθεση να αναγράφεται η παρούσα ιστοσελίδα και ο συγγραφέας ως πηγή. -