“It is not foreseen” is the nightmare of every citizen who comes into contact with the State. It is stated in various versions, with the noblest saying “you are absolutely right, but unfortunately the law does not provide for it”.
We thought that this only bothered ordinary citizens, all of us who daily try to reach the Tower of the State, as Franz Kafka would say. Oh no! And the judges, who want to do their job, have the same problem.
The other day, the Minister of Justice was asked why the judicial investigation of the tragic accident in Tempe was delayed so much. “It is not an easy task”, answered Mr. George Floridis. “When I went to the Ministry of Justice in the summer, after a few days I received information that the investigators there could not open the conversations (including the station master, train drivers) to listen to them, because the legislation that existed for them did not allowed. That’s how I agreed with the prime minister, we voted for an urgent regulation in the Parliament”. The minister clarified that it is not expressly prohibited for judges to listen to the conversations of train drivers, but “there is legislation that says in which cases investigators are allowed to listen to conversations. This case was not foreseen. (…) While it had been foreseen for air transport, it had not been foreseen for the railway and the sea…” (SKAI, 25.1.2024).
In the State, even the most reasonable, when not expressly provided for, are prohibited. This explains the endless number of bills and the endless amendments to them.
In other words, the investigators went to the control center to get the conversations and were faced with “not provided, sir.” They probably objected “But for plane crashes with fewer fatalities we can listen to the conversations”, only to get the polite (since it was addressing judges) retort “you’re absolutely right, but unfortunately the law doesn’t provide for it”.
The former Minister of Finance and current professor at the European University of Florence, Mr. Giorgos Papakonstantinou, had said that “In democracies, what is not explicitly prohibited is allowed. In dictatorships, what is not expressly permitted is prohibited.” The same applies to the Tower of D., that is, of the State. Even the most reasonable, when not expressly provided for, are prohibited. This explains the endless number of bills and the endless amendments to them. The lawgiver tries to include and regulate every improbable detail of life, but it backfires. Apparently, when the evidence bill was passed, conversations were only being recorded on air transport. But life moved on and the prime minister, a minister (plus their staffs) and some judges had to deal with an amendment to an unrelated bill to include the perfectly reasonable.
We do not know where this pathogenicity originates. Perhaps it has to do with the highly centralized nature of the state, which wants ministers to decide everything. It may be due to the lack of trust in public administration. Maybe it’s the responsibility-phobia of public officials. Justified, because the two traffic officers who a month ago closed a dangerous pothole in Kos with cement confronted the regional governor of South Aegean, Mr. Giorgos Hatzimarkou, who suggested “it is not planned, gentlemen”. As he said, “these police officers chose self-justification to deal with a problem that, in their opinion, the state had not resolved quickly enough” (Facebook, 11.1.2024).
The icing on the cake in the Tempe case is that the conversations that investigators could not access had already been made public by the media…