The stakes are high. An investigation of this kind, in a country with mature institutions, could bring down the government and even lead to the resignation of the President
Sophistry is an essential skill for any government spokesperson. They must disguise the inevitable lies, relativize, distort, or conceal the truth, and fend off criticism with seemingly logical arguments. It is not an easy job. Plato and Aristotle criticized the sophists of antiquity because they reduced politics to a contest of rhetorical dominance, severing it from truth and the good life. Their observations remain as relevant as ever.
Government spokesperson Mr. Letympiotis eloquently defends his political superior and the actions of his government, covering up politically suspect, strange, or controversial actions with the necessary fig leaf. Most media outlets, content with the apparent logic of his rhetoric and setting low standards for themselves, play into his hands by avoiding tough questions. In an intellectually shallow public sphere, the appearance of logic passes for logic itself, and Aristotelian “deinotys” (utilitarian cleverness) passes for virtue. Appearances are preserved, but public life is debased: common discourse is impoverished, self-serving rhetoric prevails, and the criterion of truth recedes.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
I will skip over Mr. Letympiotis’s sophistical justification for the selection of the Greek lawyer Mr. H. Mylonopoulos to the team of criminal investigators for the “State-Mafia” case. Everyone saw the conflict of interest, except for the government spokesperson. Mr. Mylonopoulos’s voluntary resignation, however, exposed the flimsy justification the government had given for his selection.
How did Mr. Letympiotis countered the criticism regarding the reappointment of former Supreme Court Justice Andreas Paschalidis as head of the Independent Authority for the Investigation of Allegations and Complaints against the Police (AADIPA)?
Before examining his reasoning, let us recall that Mr. Paschalidis, who was selected by the Attorney General—known for his impartiality—is investigating the scandalous “videogate” case. His findings are awaited. Note that the Presidential Office itself is under investigation—the then-director of the President’s Office, his former minister, the First Lady’s Fund, the President’s alleged practices for securing political funds, etc.
The stakes are high. In a country with mature institutions, an investigation of this kind could bring down the government and even lead to the President’s resignation. Don’t worry, though. It is highly unlikely that Mr. Paschalidis will be drawn into “anti-establishment” extremes. Judging by an earlier conversation he had as president of AADIPA (the audit agency) with the then-chief of police, Mr. Kypros Michaelides (the agency being audited) (“Take care, my Kypros, take care… You can catch me however you want…,” Fileleftheros, 9/24/22), which sounded more like a chat between close friends than a conversation between a supervisor and a subordinate, its findings are unlikely to keep the President awake at night.
Mr. Paschalidis has been reappointed, for the third time, as head of AADIPA. God willing, he will have served a total of 15 years as president of the Authority, and by the end of his term, he will be 84 years old. He is likely a highly capable individual; perhaps there are no others suitable for this position, and, in any case, according to the common cliché, it’s not so much your age that matters as how you feel. But let’s set that aside for now.
The major institutional question is another: how independent is someone investigating the President’s inner circle when his reappointment depends on the President?
Mr. Letympiotis countered the criticism regarding a conflict of interest as follows:
“Andreas Paschalidis was already President of AADIPA when he was selected as an independent criminal investigator—and, moreover, not by the Council of Ministers. The attempt, therefore, to portray the renewal of his term today as some sort of deal lacks seriousness and is clearly belated and baseless. The two roles are institutionally distinct, and the renewal of his term at AADIPA neither creates a conflict of interest nor affects the independence of the investigation.”
Why does the criticism “lack seriousness”? The government spokesperson, conveniently, does not explain this. Essentially, his statement is a long tautology. There is no conflict of interest because I say there is no conflict of interest! The aphorism is enough for him. He puts forward a seemingly logical objection to sidestep logical analysis. Since we possess reason and critical thinking has not deserted us, let him forgive us for our skepticism.
It is not reasonable to assume that a benefit desired by the appointee (e.g., a term extension) but is controlled by the appointing authority will become the subject of a trade-off with another benefit desired by the appointing authority but controlled by the appointee (e.g., a favorable ruling from the criminal investigator)? Otherwise: if I want something that only you control and you want something that only I control, doesn’t it make sense for us to engage in a transaction?
Conflict of Interest
What is a conflict of interest? Imagine Official A, who has two roles: role X (e.g., criminal investigator) and role Y (e.g., chair of AADIPA). A conflict of interest arises when, potentially, the performance of one role adversely affects the performance of the other role.
The concept of “interest” is broad. An “interest” constitutes a commitment, obligation, or desire that arises from a role.
Mr. Paschalidis’s role X is that of an independent criminal investigator who is investigating the President’s inner circle. Mr. Paschalidis’s interest (commitment) in role X is to conduct an impartial investigation.
Role Y is that of the president of AADIPA, whose term is about to be renewed. Mr. Paschalidis’s interest in the role of Ψ is of an existential nature: to retain his position.
The renewal of role Ψ is decided by the President, that is, the person being evaluated by role X. While Role X requires impartiality toward the person under investigation, the renewal of Role Y requires the favor of the appointing authority, who happens to be under the control of Role X. Mr. Paschalidis is expected to be both impartial and favored!
Let me put it another way: on the one hand, I am called upon to rule impartially on the possible involvement of the President and people in his inner circle in the “videogate” scandal (an interest and obligation arising from Role X), while, on the other hand, I desire the benefits arising from the renewal of my term in another role (an interest stemming from Role Ψ), a renewal that will be decided by the very person I am investigating. The more I desire the fulfillment of one “interest,” the less able I will be to serve the other “interest.”
If Mr. Paschalidis wanted to fulfill role X (criminal investigator) with integrity, he would have to decline the renewal of role Y (chairman of AADIPA). He would, of course, lose a respectable income…If the government cared about the impartiality of the investigation into the “videogate” scandal, it would have avoided putting Mr. Paschalidis in such a conflict of interest by not renewing his term. It would, however, lose a leverage point…
A conflict of interest is undesirable because it undermines the credibility of the decision-making process: it creates uncertainty regarding the reliability of the individual’s judgment. A conflict of interest does not refer to a subjective state (what I believe about how I fulfill my roles), but to an empirically verifiable reality, which relates to the specific obligations of each role.
In other words, a conflict of interest is objective, not subjective. This means that any observer with whom I share common values can, in principle, identify the conflicting interests that my roles serve. In such a case, we cannot trust the integrity of their judgment. Precisely because their judgment, being partly reflective and intuitive, requires a framework of trust for its effective exercise, that framework of trust is eroded to the extent that we know the official is experiencing a conflict of interest.
The Sophists were highly intelligent people. Mr. Letympiotis is no exception. He is aware of the above. He uses his “cleverness” to defend his superior, showing no regard for the truth or the integrity of public life. He knows he can do so without consequences. This is not the first time this has happened. What consequences did the Deputy Attorney General face after it was revealed that he had halted the criminal prosecution of a former client?
www.htsoukas.com
