Eleni Xenou
The presumption of innocence has become little more than salt water for gargling in the mouths of our politicians, a convenient rinse to wash away their reluctance to rise to the occasion. Instead of taking even a single step toward the political courage a serious public servant ought to have, they cut and tailor this principle to fit their own needs, as if it were fabric meant for sewing their suits. So let’s clear this up once and for all before they drive us completely mad.
The presumption of innocence, as Greek constitutional scholar Nikos Alivizatos writes, “is a principle of criminal law, not a criterion of political suitability, and confusing the two leads to institutional decay, because it nullifies the concept of political accountability as an autonomous field.” Put simply, legal responsibility and political responsibility are not the same, nor do they follow the same rules. Political accountability is an ongoing obligation to society, necessary to maintain public trust in institutions, and it should not wait for a court ruling. The real question is not whether a public official will ultimately be convicted or acquitted. It is whether that official’s conduct, choices, or the shadows surrounding them undermine trust in the institutions they serve.
That is why, when serious suspicions of criminal wrongdoing hang over a politician, invoking the presumption of innocence, whether by the politician or their party, weakens public debate and amounts to political evasion. A politician stepping aside while such allegations are under investigation does not amount to an admission of guilt, nor should it be treated as one. It is an act of institutional protection and political maturity. A politician is not an ordinary citizen. When someone remains in office while under investigation for serious matters, what becomes normalized is irresponsibility, even if no conviction ever comes.
And every time a public figure comes under investigation in cases that touch the core of the moral order, their defenders repeat almost ritualistically that “the presumption of innocence applies” or that the case is still under investigation. All this does is postpone, or even erase, political responsibility by muddying basic concepts. Simply put, when a politician is under investigation, the question is not whether they will be convicted. The question is whether their continued presence in public life damages the credibility of the institution they represent. Anyone who cannot bear that burden is unfit for political office.
In mature democracies, from which we remain far removed, taking political responsibility through resignation or removal is not seen as an admission of guilt. It is seen as an act of respect toward the institution and the public. By contrast, clinging to the chair, the position, the office until the very last judicial word is a symptom of a political culture that diminishes political ethics while hiding behind legal terminology.
In functioning countries, a politician’s duty to answer for their conduct begins long before any courtroom proceeding. Anyone who fails to grasp this, or pretends not to, fails to understand that political responsibility comes earlier and reaches further than legal responsibility. As Cornelius Castoriadis put it, democracy is not merely a regime of laws but a regime of responsibility. That means political accountability cannot be put on hold until a final court decision. It must be judged in the here and now, in one’s conduct, one’s example, and in the degree to which public trust has been shaken.
In the end, our politicians’ selective fixation on the presumption of innocence whenever it suits them reveals nothing more than the immaturity of their political conscience.
