A proper probe or a whole lot of nothing?
Our political system has increasingly activated parliamentary procedures over the past few years to look into issues stemming from various political activities or accusations of financial scandal involving politicians.
Parliament’s investigative committees – which are enshrined in the constitution – have often provided an answer to serious political confrontations on a range of subjects, from defense procurement programs and public contracts to issues of institutional functions, political interventions in the course of justice, etc. Now a committee is being convened to examine claims that the National Intelligence Service (EYP) had orders to surveil citizens and that citizens’ telephones were tapped via software that EYP denies being in possession of.
The subject of surveillance is, by its very nature, a laden one, with serious institutional implications, and there is no doubt that Parliament has a duty to examine these claims. But what, exactly, can such a committee hope to investigate? It can certainly explore whether EYP was acting within the boundaries of the law – which can be opaque in practical terms, not to mention sensitive – and address the activities of other circles carrying out illegal taps for other purposes, which are not obvious but are a blatant violation of the constitution and the rule of law.
It is hard to examine the latter in the absence of specific accusations and tangible evidence, but it is worth ascertaining whether such an investigation is needed. As far as EYP specifically is concerned, there is nothing simple about ascertaining whether its actions broke the law. How can the committee, for example, differentiate between what is actually a matter of national security and what is a tap carried out only in the name of national security? And how can such confidential information be conveyed to a public procedure where leaks are frequent?
Given these facts, convening an investigative committee over the claims made by PASOK chief Nikos Androulakis and journalist Thanasis Koukakis may be essential in terms of Parliamentary procedure, but it is unlikely to yield tangible results. The reason is that this is an issue which is not open to political manipulation, as has been the case with several issues brought to such committees in the past. Therefore, instead of convening an investigative committee just for the sake of it, it would be best if the government, for starters, and all the other parties treat the probe with the seriousness it deserves. Otherwise, it will just be a whole not of nothing, yet again.
