The conviction of Anna-Michelle Asimakopoulou in the case involving the email addresses of expatriate voters has sparked a new round of political controversy.
However, the debate over proportionality, double standards, and the widespread practice of political communication remains open.
The court sentenced the former Member of the European Parliament to a 20-month suspended prison sentence, while convictions were also handed down to other individuals involved. And like any court decision, it must be respected.
The case will continue through the higher courts, as appeals are expected to be filed. The political issue, however, is different. And that is precisely where the big debate begins. Because we are witnessing an effort to portray this particular case as perhaps the greatest institutional aberration of recent years. As if some massive election manipulation ring had been uncovered. As if the democratic process had collapsed.
However, the reality is much more mundane. We’re talking about sending a political message via email to recipients whose information should not have been used in this way. This is a matter of personal data, on which the courts have ruled. However, the picture that certain political opponents are trying to paint is significantly at odds with the actual scope of the case.
A flood of announcements
Let’s be honest. Almost every citizen receives political messages, newsletters, advertising campaigns, and emails from political parties, members of parliament, candidates, ministries, municipalities, agencies, businesses, and organizations.
Journalists are perhaps the most striking example. Their email inboxes are flooded daily with announcements from political parties, press offices, ministers, members of parliament, regional governors, mayors, and all manner of political figures.
How many times has the origin of these lists been investigated? How many times has there been a political outcry? How many times have resignations or expulsions been demanded? The answer is obvious.
This does not mean that data protection laws should not be enforced. It does mean, however, that selective outrage is hardly convincing. The hypocrisy becomes even more apparent when parties that have been using modern political communication tools for years suddenly present themselves as defenders of absolute digital purity.
Inevitably, many also addressed the issue of proportionality. At the very moment that Anna-Michelle Asimakopoulou is sentenced to 20 months in prison for the email case, public opinion observes other cases with tragic consequences for human lives where sentences are being imposed that are causing intense public concern. A prime example is the case of the Penteli resident who was convicted in connection with the fire linked to the tragedy in Mati and sentenced to three years in prison.
Obviously, these are entirely different cases, involving different offenses and different legal circumstances. No one can equate them. But can one ignore the reasonable question that arises in the minds of many citizens when they compare the extent of the social harm with the criminal penalties imposed in different cases? Hardly.
They’re looking for a narrative
The reactions of PASOK and SYRIZA were expected. The two parties attempted to turn the case into a political symbol against the government and New Democracy.
However, exaggeration often backfires. When an email scandal is presented as some sort of major blow to democracy, the average citizen, who faces their own problems every day, finds it difficult to follow the reasoning.
The bottom line is that the justice system did its job, and the case was decided in the court of first instance. Beyond that, the political exploitation and the attempt to morally destroy people over an issue involving the sending of an email in no way helps the public debate. On the contrary, it reinforces the sense that, in certain cases, hypocrisy has truly reached a fever pitch.
