I am deeply saddened and concerned about the institutional dispute that has arisen between the Prosecutor of the Supreme Court, Mr. Isidore Doyack and President of the Office for the Protection of Privacy in Communications, Honorary Vice President Mr. Christ Rammos. Litigation in itself is not reprehensible, especially when it comes to disagreements regarding the interpretation of a particular article of the Constitution. Differing interpretations are very common, as we all know from the constitutionalist press rants. Nor is it reprehensible that the two institutions empowered by the Constitution to protect and guarantee rights, each in its own way and in its own way, disagree on the scope and limitations of an Independent Administrative Body such as ADAE.

What is worrying, however, is that otherwise legitimate dispute is falling outside of responsible institutional dialogue and becoming the target of unsuspecting party exploitation at a time of heightened pre-election divisions. When one or another interpretive position is biased, and those who disagree are considered by public opinion as sycophants of a particular party or as comrades-in-arms of the ruling or opposition faction. Then the dialogue loses its authenticity, it is dispersed by the insatiable media, grouped by football and experienced as a political and ideological event, and not as a dispute between institutional actors.

Obviously, the damage caused by this reason to the prestige of institutions, their institutional reliability and well-coordinated work is irreparable.

In addition to the persons or bodies of institutions, it is important to preserve their prestige and institutional authority at all costs. ADAE and Justice are two independent bodies whose organization and activities are governed by the constitutional principle of the separation of powers. Of course, one body has no right to interfere, hinder or cancel the work of another. It is certain. However, the separation of powers from the moment of its proclamation began to be thought of as a way of rational organization of state power, supporting and organizing their interdependence, their intersection and mutual support, and not their complete separation or alienation. Compensation, intersection and mutual balancing of forces (checks and balances), together with their cooperation and institutional dialogue, is the main task of the Power. This institutional ethos derives from the constitutional principle. In view of the criticality of the circumstances and the gloomy political climate that has developed, I believe that even now, despite the sad and inadmissible precedent, it is time, everyone accepting responsibility, to achieve, no matter how impossible it may seem, institutional dialogue. Demonstrate in practice, with due diligence, that they respect and honor each other’s institutional role. Fortunately, there are institutional solutions. The final judge in any case will be Justice. Relatively soon and the people. Until then, what’s the point of stress?

Since I had the opportunity to personally know, unimaginably appreciate the individual and respect the honesty, impartiality and justice of Christ Rammos, I dare to believe and hope that he will not contribute, at least with his style, to further exacerbate and perpetuate this tragic institutional confrontation. He will show the difference with his word.

The country, finally, today more than ever needs a climate of mutual understanding, consensus, sober dialogue, at least between institutions and between those who do not see enemies in their ideological opponents. The cultivation of a divisive political climate, a disease characteristic of our constitutional history, has been and continues to be costly to the Republic. It seems that this is our political destiny.

* Mr. Antonis Manitakis is an honorary professor at AUTH.