A paradoxical report
The data is not just suspicious; it practically screams out. Whether the authorities are unable or unwilling to turn this outcry into a substantiated accusation is another matter. It is difficult for even the most well-intentioned person to believe that the coincidence of “legal wiretaps” aligning with surveillance via Predator on over 20 individuals is merely random. Moreover, the judiciary’s reluctance to extend its scrutiny to areas and individuals that might displease the ruling conservatives – conducting its investigation with less than the rigorous interest it should – further complicates the situation and raises serious credibility issues.
There is institutional confusion. The role of the independent judiciary is not to monitor only those who request it or to investigate only as deeply as the subjects being examined find comfortable. Instead, the goal should be to persistently challenge, seek the truth, and focus on integrity rather than public relations or political alignments. For example, it does not matter if a minister is so indifferent to their surveillance that they make jokes when questioned about it. Investigations into potential wrongdoing must transcend even the magnanimity of the possible victim.
Culture of distrust
The average Greek may not be particularly concerned about political issues they view as private matters. However, another reason for their indifference is the belief that the chances of resolving such cases are slim
Are we certain that the authorities did everything possible to uncover the truth in the wiretapping scandal? Can judicial review of a political scandal truly exclude political figures? For democratic citizens, the Supreme Court’s conclusion that National Intelligence Service (EYP) surveillance is not related to Predator software poses a significant risk: It could lead to populism, conspiracy theories, or, even worse, disdain for institutions. If we disregard the democratically cherished cliche of “respecting judicial decisions” and express doubts about their validity, we must clarify which decisions we consider valid. If the Supreme Court’s report had been less favorable to the government, and considering the judiciary’s sluggish handling of cases, would we trust it? The judiciary owes us unwavering integrity and legality, not only to protect us from unpunished crimes but also to prevent the real danger of losing faith in it. The wiretapping case undermines not just the rule of law but also the quality of citizenship.
Indifference
But could it be that the worst-case scenario has already occurred? The government’s proverbial calm amid the wiretapping scandal has been based from the start on a cynical rationale: “Citizens don’t care about who was monitoring PASOK chief Nikos Androulakis.” Indeed, the average Greek may not be particularly concerned about political issues they view as private matters. However, another reason for their indifference is the belief that the chances of resolving such cases are slim; they are convinced that “this is how things are in Greece.” The judiciary has conditioned them not to expect much, and perhaps the Supreme Court’s report reflects this premise: a reduced supply of legality stemming from diminished demand.
Beyond the dark synergy among powers, there is also the prior dishonest conduct of the protesting politicians. Public opinion may be complacent, but it is not amnesiac. People remember that EYP did not just appear yesterday and that stories of covert methods and legalized illegalities did not suddenly emerge. Distrust in the rule of law is, in fact, the result of long-term experience. The judiciary understands this: Citizens who are wronged in numerous ways daily have little sympathy left for injustices against those who are far less wronged.
