Finally, the case for observations remains on the record and puts an end to the… choreography of allegations of widespread corruption.
Last February, the decision of the Athens Single-Member Plenary Court on the wiretapping case regarding the illegal software was being flagged by the opposition, mainly by PASOK and Nikos Androulakis.
Yesterday, the decision by the Supreme Court prosecutor not to withdraw the case, which had been raised in a finding by former Supreme Court deputy prosecutor, Achilleas Zisis, was almost seen as a demolition of democracy.
Two measures and two weights; At least that is what is clear from what was said and continues to be said about the decision of the Supreme Court prosecutor, Constantinos Tzavellas, who was at the centre of the attacks that were eventually launched and which targeted the top prosecutor himself.
The issue is simple. Tzavella’s decision did not sit well with all those who have built a narrative around the illegal software surveillance, especially as far as the part about the involvement of political figures and the prime minister personally is concerned.
The narrative on which the choreography of allegations has been built and which seeks to create a picture of generalised corruption is failing, regardless of whether ultimately, in the context of extreme polarisation and political confrontation, the institution of Justice is also being attacked.
It is worth mentioning at this point that the attack on the judiciary, more specifically on officials who issue decisions that do not like or serve the opposition’s narrative, comes at a time when the government is accused of attacking the European prosecutor.
The parties appear to be drinking water in the name of the European prosecutor and pointing the finger at the Greek judiciary. In essence,a scene is being set up of a good Justice resulting from the actions of the European Public Prosecutor and a bad – depending on the decisions – Greek Justice.
How dangerous this is for the institution is easy to understand. No one argues that the decisions of the judiciary are not subject to judgment. It is one thing to question the institution when someone, whoever they may be, does not like them. And it is especially another thing to target the officer of justice when he or she does not like the decision and to praise him or her when he or she likes it.
What is certain is that the judiciary should not make decisions based on the surrounding atmosphere, nor should it make decisions to be liked.If that were the case, there should be people’s courts or politicians and tele-judges and tele-prosecutors should take on that role, not only trying but also making… decisions.
Unless some wish or seek to bring back… hangings in Constitution Square. Back when the “up” and “down” squares tried and convicted politicians, with the bouncing being in the foreground. Except that’s not democracy. Certainly not justice.
And references to the rule of law and justice have only one aim: to create a negative image of the country. It was attempted in the past when some people wanted to put the country in the process of freezing the resources of the Recovery Fund by invoking the famous Article 7 of the EU.
In any case, the decisions of the judiciary cannot be treated a la carte. Nor, of course, can its officials.
*This article was published in the print edition of the Manifesto.
