Marina Economides
Something deeper, and far more troubling, than whether Savvas Angelides would resign or not was revealed in the press conference he held last Tuesday as Deputy Attorney General.
It wasn’t just the communication disaster that unfolded during the event. Instead of calming a days-long crisis, the Attorney General’s Office ended up angering even the most well-meaning observers, effectively pushing many into the opposing camp. More importantly, however, were the statements that laid bare the profound disconnect between the representatives of the Attorney General’s Office and society at large.
The sense that those who represent this institution live inside a bubble, cut off from public opinion and social reality, became unavoidable. They appeared indifferent to the fact that their own poor handling of matters has sparked a wave of social outrage and anger that inevitably damages the institution itself. How else can one interpret George Savvidis’s claim of an organized campaign against them? In doing so, he essentially repeated the very tactic he recently criticized Odysseas Michaelides for, an uncritical targeting without evidence, attributing ulterior motives to journalists simply doing their jobs and to political groups calling for their resignation. He brazenly warned that neither public anger nor their low approval ratings affect them, and informed everyone that they intend to carry on just the same.
The sense that those who represent this institution live inside a bubble, cut off from public opinion and social reality, became unavoidable.
“They violate dignity,” Savvas Angelides said, leaving many stunned during the press conference, and confirming, in the minds of many, why the European Court of Human Rights had previously used such harsh language criticizing how he handled the case. His words revealed a lack of empathy, a messianic arrogance, and a cunning attempt to silence anyone daring to criticize his actions. How else can one interpret his claim that anyone calling for his resignation constitutes a direct threat to justice?
This was a move of total identification with the institution, serving as a gag order: disagree with their handling, and you attack the institution itself. But Savvas Angelides is not the institution. He is not justice, despite how conveniently he tried to present himself. Citizens do not question justice itself. And as long as we live in a democracy, people will judge their actions and demand answers for poor handling. And since we’ve reached the point of discussing what should be obvious, it’s worth reinforcing that the independence of the institution does not mean a lack of accountability. On the contrary, it is precisely this lack of accountability that has led to the erosion of the rule of law, the growth of public distrust, and the systematic “contamination” of the democratic process.
Some might ask, “Was the appointment of George Savvidis and Savvas Angelides the main cause of the erosion of the justice system?” Obviously not. The decay happened gradually, with nepotism, conflicts of interest between the judiciary and legal profession, and was reinforced by the former Attorney General’s failure to bring to justice those responsible for the financial crisis. But the appointments of Savvidis and Angelides marked the peak of this crisis. Not only because they were serving ministers before their appointments, but because they were appointed by Nicos Anastasiades, who is widely blamed both for eroding institutions during his tenure and for fostering corruption. Suspicion was inevitable, but it could have been eased if they had delivered results, been transparent, and accountable. Instead, the absence of accountability and their brazen arrogance in controversial cases involving officials and politicians strengthened the perception of cover-ups and conflicts of interest.
The question now is: where do we go from here? “I am not concerned about the institution’s popularity. We must just do our job,” said George Savvidis. Perhaps it’s time for both men to seriously consider what their public discredit means for justice as an institution. And since they often say that serving the public interest is their priority, maybe it’s time to ask whether the public interest is truly served by independent officials who are so arrogant that they see themselves as the institution. Portraying citizens who worry about the country’s decline as populists, toxic, and enemies of democracy, and whose voices should be silenced, is not for the “good” of our democracy.
*This opinion was translated from its Greek original
