Dear friends, good day!
Almost four years after the first revelations about wiretapping, the country continues to debate not because it knows what happened, but because it still doesn’t know. And as long as answers aren’t provided, the questionskeep coming back. Often, in fact, from places no one expects.
This time they came back via Tal Dillian, founder of Intellexa, the company that markets the Predator spyware.
His statements are clear. He maintains that his company isa technology provider and not a “mercenary,” that it sold systems only to government agencies, that it did not operate these systems itself, and that it had absolutely no involvement in their use in Greece.
Some were quick to believe him. Others were quick to dismiss him. But that is not the point. Because what matters is not whether Mr. Dillian is tellingthe truth or not.What matters is thathis claims require verification.And indeed, exhaustive verification.
If what he says is inaccurate, that must be proven. If what he says is accurate, that must also be proven. In any case, however, “something” must be proven based onevidence.
Because democracy does not function on insinuations, hints, and mutual accusations.It functions on evidence.
That is precisely why the decision not to launch a new parliamentary inquiry into the matter seems even more problematic today than it did a few weeks ago. And for one simple reason.
The government chose to reject the request for an investigative committee,citing reasonsof national security,issues concerning the EYP, and sensitive aspects of the state’s operations. Except that this is where the familiar Greek paradox begins.
Because just a few days earlier, the same state, through the Supreme Court’s prosecutorial ruling, had essentially concluded thatthere was no EYP involvement, nor a case of espionage, nor that major national issue that had been presented for years as a possible scenario.
In other words, the caseis being shelvedbecause there does not appear to be a national security issue, butit cannot beinvestigatedby Parliament because it concerns national security.
If this isn’ta political and institutional farce,then it’s hard to imagine what exactly it could be.
The contradiction is so obvious that it doesn’t even need analysis. Common sense is enough. The issue either concerns private citizens and private citizens alone, or it concerns state mechanisms and matters of national security.Both cannot apply simultaneously, depending on which version serves the political needs of the moment.
But the contradictions do not end there.
Because just a few days before the debate on the inquiry, Makis Voridis, in an attempt to explain why the proposal could not be approved without a specific parliamentary majority, arrived at anadmissionthat should have caused a political earthquake.
He essentially acknowledged that, based on the government’s current interpretation, the investigative committee formed in 2022 was establishedin violation ofconstitutional requirements.
This is a rare instance where the government itself appears to be admitting either that the Constitution was violated at the time or that it interprets it differently today, depending on the circumstances. It is unclear which of the two scenarios is more alarming.
What is certain is that neither one strengthens citizens’trustin institutions.
In short, then, the problem is not Dillian. It is not Intellexa. It is not even Predator. The problem is that a democracy that is confident in its actions does not fear scrutiny.It seeks itout.
It does not fear questions. It answers them. It does not resist scrutiny. It facilitates it. This is the foundation of democratic legitimacy.
That is why the debate over wiretapping will not end with parliamentary maneuvers, procedural acrobatics, or political assurances. It will end only whena convincing answeris giventothe question that has remained unanswered for years: Who was monitoring whom, by what means, under what orders, and for what reason?
Until then, every new revelation, every new testimony, and every new statement will bring the issue back into the spotlight. Not because the opposition wants it, nor because the “media” want it, but because the verylogicof the situation demands it.
That is why the country does not need more evasions, more contradictions, and more attempts to shelve a discussion that is clearly not over. It needs exactly the opposite: investigation, transparency, and accountability.
Because democracy is not threatened by the truth. It is threatened by attempts to hide it. And when a political system insists on burying its head in the sand, it does not convince anyone that it is in control of the situation. It simply resembles an ostrich.