We live in an era defined by skepticism. And not constructive skepticism, but the kind that tears everything down. And it always follows the logic that “anything that doesn’t suit us is called into question.” In this way, we dismantle institutions and processes, and everyone presents their personal opinion as the absolute truth. We’ve always had this obsession, but these days it has reached a peak.
Over the past week, specific examples of this mindset have been documented.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
Former President of the Republic Nicos Anastasiades published a very lengthy analysis of the Anti-Corruption Authority’s findings on the “Mafia State,” in which he essentially dismantles the Authority, claiming it was swayed by “people’s courts” and the “prevailing atmosphere.” Mr. Anastasiades has every right to defend himself, and he will obviously do so if and when he appears in court. Just as, of course, he has the right to criticize the Authority’s decisions. However, when a former President of the Republic essentially accuses the members of the Authority of “sacrificed the rule of law for the sake of fleeting popularity,” it is obvious that an institution established during his own presidency is being called into question and undermined.
On the other side of the political spectrum, Makarios Drousiotis welcomed the Commission’s findings regarding the “Mafia State”—even though it did not adopt many of his claims—but he also challenged and overturned the police’s findings in the “Santi” case. Mr. Drousiotis also has every right to defend himself before the court where he will stand trial. However, such a defense cannot be based on sweeping generalizations and references to a “corrupt system,” but rather on evidence and persuasive arguments.
Amid all this, the notorious “Santi” has also come forward, offering her own version of events, which aligns with the findings of the police investigation. Nikos Clerides and Makarios Drousiotis, who placed absolute trust in what Santi conveyed to them through that vicious cycle of messages (even though the former claims to have seen her twice and the latter once), now question her credibility and attribute her statements to third parties who are guiding her. A credibility (Santi’s) that will also be judged in court.
And so we end up with the logic that “we adopt whatever suits us and cast whatever doesn’t out into the fire.” Except that for a state to function, its institutions and legal procedures must be accorded at least a minimum of respect. And institutions are not faceless entities. They are made up of people who may make mistakes, may have shortcomings, and may even be proven wrong. That is why the justice system exists—it is where these cases end up or will eventually end up. And there it will become clear whether the conclusion regarding the “Mafia State” was correct or incorrect, just as it will become clear there whether the conclusion regarding “Santi” was also correct or incorrect.
Unless, in the end, each side ends up challenging the justice system itself. Something they cannot do at this point, since they do not know whether the decision “works in their favor or not”…
