The investigation into the tragic accident at Tempi, and the allotment of blame, is entering its final stages, leaving mixed impressions.
On the one hand, we have a methodical investigative process with thousands of pages of documents, hundreds of witnesses and dozens of defendants.
On the other, we have the total inadequacy of the party-political system when it comes to providing the oversight it should in any serious, impartial and coherent way.
A chaotic free-for-all in the Hellenic Parliament saw the MPs of the majority parliamentary group propose a preliminary investigation, with another two or three proposals coming from the Opposition (if I’ve counted them correctly). From which we should perhaps single out the peculiar constitutional proposition of a peculiar constitutional subject that goes by the name of “family”.
The curious thing about these proposals is that the majority of people agree on what actually happened. Now that the myths, conspiracy theories and conjecture have been discredited, it seems that most people accept the facts.
The difference is that the Opposition has attached a long list of political figures to the known and accepted facts, and is demanding that they be investigated for committing an endless list of unthinkable crimes.
From the Prime Minister himself down to various obscure civil servants and government officials.
The impression given is anything but serious, and appears even less so when juxtaposed against the thorough and methodical way in which the judiciary has handled the same case.
The last twenty-four hours have also seen the legal appeals relating to responsibility for another tragedy that cost large numbers of lives—the Mati fire—reach their end.
Here, the court largely corrected the negative impressions left by the judgements made in the first instance—to the extent that it was able to do so, at least.
Which is to say that, in two landmark cases, justice has shown that it can do its job admirably without the suggestions of unqualified interested parties and without the involvement of bystanders and passers-by.
So, the question is this: can the party system do its job with the same diligence? Given that the system has traditionally failed to excel in the roles of investigator and prosecutor.
Clearly, there is no obvious answer. After all, both cases are unique and do not lend themselves to generalisations.
On the other hand, though, might it not be time—with the next constitutional revision—to let the judiciary do its job and the parties do theirs.
It goes without saying that no one wants to impose a “government of the judges” on the country.
Still, I don’t see why a “justice of the parties” should be an iota more acceptable.
