By ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ (GREEK) TÜRKÇE (TURKISH)
“I want to apologise to those I met on the street who would tell me, you’re finished, they’re going to eat you alive, and I would assure them don’t worry, we’re not Venezuela. I was sincere. That’s what I believed.” This is what the now former Auditor General told the employees of the [audit] office following the decision to fire him by the Supreme Judicial Council. It was a decision that ended a long institutional crisis. But at the same time, it also confirmed the prolonged crisis the country has been in for years.
Beyond the wording of the decision itself and the huge political implications it carries, as evident from the reactions alone, what stood out was the way in which the decision became part of the public debate. Which confirmed the inability of society and politicians to manage their role in Democracy. Measure was once again lost over a man who never showed to have a sense of measure.
For some, Odysseas Michaelides was the personification of the rule of law. In him, a large part of society found the man who could stand up to the system, the man who was ready to take on the establishment in a country characterised by a lack of good governance and accountability. As such, he also emerged as the only one with the moral stature and ability to lead the country. For them, Odysseas’ dismissal was also the end of our Democracy. The absolute dominance of the system of corruption. A system in which they included – as well as politicians – the entire judiciary. Which was also a facilitating service to free the system from the pain of any checks and balances so that it could continue undisturbed its destruction of everything. Just like for the Auditor General, this decision proved [to a large part of society] that we have become Venezuela.
For others, a smaller section, Odysseas Michaelides was the worst official this country has ever produced. He was not just extreme, unpleasant and problematic for the image of the institution. He was the man who on his own, with his entire behaviour, led the institutions to disrepute and the country to an institutional crisis. For them, his dismissal restored order and the proper functioning of the institutions. Democracy.
But is it possible that an individual or an institution alone can shield or dismantle checks and balances and the rule of law? And if so, or even if this is what a large part of society believes, what does that say about our Democracy?
Despite the accusations against him, Odysseas Michaelides left a positive mark. It is not a coincidence that he was seen by the majority as the man who for a decade protected society from the system’s lack of accountability. For many, he reformed the public service. For others, as for this column, the Auditor General – with all his faults – was a necessary evil in a country where no one shows any inclination to address the bad state of affairs. He was, after all, the man who raised the [Vasiliko] terminal issue, which is now being investigated by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office – when any critique was seen as undermining the country’s interests. It was he who was quick to say that the payment of a few tens of millions more under the contract was not justified when the Attorney General had consented to it. He was the one who brought out the SAPA [Paphos Sewerage Board] scandal. Most importantly, he was the man who made the need for auditing a central part of the public debate.
At the same time, however, he often acted in a manner inconsistent with the institution of the Auditor General. Obsessions such as the one about the transportation of Nikos Christodoulides’ children or the toilets in the Presidential Palace did not just create hostility, but at the end of the day cost the state resources and money. He got into public spats with politicians and citizens, and, often taking advantage of the institution, tried to impose his own political views. As was the case with the Salamis event, when he turned a purely political event aimed at the rapprochement of the communities into a central issue of squandering public funds. And his decision, after his dismissal, to drop clear insinuations against the judiciary too, and to present himself as the only one who can bring about catharsis, partly confirmed what is recorded in the reasoning of the judgement.
It was therefore, at the very least, disproportionate on the part of Parliament to choose to stop work in Odysseas’ honour. And absolutely dangerous populism on the part of MPs to attempt to flatten justice. And they came as a confirmation of the absence of any rationality at a time when a group of citizens were rushing to elevate Odysseas as the man who should be the next President.
Just as out of touch with reality was the attempted total erasure of his work, promptly attempted by the entourage of the Presidential Palace and Anastasiades and supporters of the system. Building an image for him that does not correspond to his term of office. And blaming him for the entire institutional collapse. Because, he may have contributed with his attitude and interventions to the suspicion of society, to the erosion of the institutions but he obviously was not the one driving it. This clearly started during the decade of Anastasiades, which transformed the feeling that had prevailed until then into a conviction that the system served itself. Mainly, though, impunity. Nor was he primarily responsible for the diminishing of the Law Office, for which its leadership has to answer. While carrying the burden of being appointed by the man identified with corruption in the eyes of the public, while having to manage the suspicion of society as to their willingness to uphold the rule of law, due to their relationship with the former President during his decade in power, the [Law Office] leadership did everything to exacerbate it. Through joint public appearances at the bouzoukia, statements such as the one by George Savvides of his close friendship with Nicos Anastasiades, and the Attorney General’s excessive use of the right given to him by the Constitution to suspend cases while sending a message of absolute arbitrariness. Nor was he the one who shaped hostile public opinion. He rode the wave of anger and populism – rather than creating it. He set up – as was said – popular courts, but he also made society more suspicious. He was a voice that – albeit selectively – raised issues and kept confidence in the institutions high.
What should be up for debate today is whether the functioning of the institutions is made better by the dismissal of Odysseas Michaelides. And whether the discrediting of them decreases with his removal. But since these questions are self-explanatory, what we ought to do is, far from turning everything into a game of football, to see as a political system and a society what institutions we want, how the termination of an official can be considered the end of checks and balances by members of an institution that is entrusted with the responsibility of checking executive power, what is the role of Parliament in this country, and whether this Law Office, which we will have, whether we like it or not, for the coming period, can gain the trust of the people. And whether this President, who has once again been a spectator of events – both in the run-up to the climax of the conflict and even after the conclusion of the process – can finally become a President at some point.
Because there is the next day. Which undoubtedly will test the limits and endurance of our Democracy. As problematic as it is that we have already found the next President of the Republic, it is even more insulting that no one can indicate who will assume the burden of oversight from tomorrow. And this is not just typical of a country in crisis. It confirmation of a country falling apart.
