There are times when an administrative file carries more weight than a political statement. Not because it contains more information, but because it encapsulates what has been going on in the shadows for years. The new case file of the European Public Prosecutor's Office on OPECEPE is not just another episode of institutional dysfunction. It is a crack. And through this crack, we can see how those in power have become accustomed to treating the public as private.
OPEKEPE was never just an administrative mechanism. It was a meeting place for interests, expectations, and tacit, hidden relationships. It was a place where European money acquired political weight, where aid was transformed into relationships and relationships into obligations. Whoever controlled the flow also controlled the degree of dependence. That is why the problem is not mismanagement, but the normality with which it was reproduced without resistance and became a tool of political dependence.
Agricultural policy, especially in a country with deep regional inequalities, cannot function as a trading post for tolerances. When subsidies cease to support production and begin to create dependencies and commitments, then the countryside is emptied of prospects. Small and medium-sized farmers are left waiting, while those with good networks are left with certainty. This is not a mistake, but a method with an implementation plan and a cover-up plan.
The involvement of the European Public Prosecutor's Office is not a sign of institutional health. It is rather a symptom of a pre-existing void. When accountability comes to light from outside, it means that a long night has preceded it internally. Domestic control mechanisms were not absent; they simply learned to look the other way. And when silence and the right to remain silent are repeated, they cease to be evidence of innocence. .
The government's response follows a familiar path. The issue is translated into a technical matter, a procedural problem, a need for better organization. Political responsibility is sterilized, transformed into an administrative accident. As if it were a mistake in a spreadsheet and not social inequality. As if there were no choices, only missteps.
At the heart of the matter lies an old paradigm: the state as a distributor. Not with loud cries, but with quiet gestures. Not to change the order of things, but to maintain it. So that everyone knows what to expect and what not to question. This is how discipline is built, not through repression, but through dependence.
The shadow of Article 86 of the Constitution hangs over the case like a filter of time. For decades, the criminal liability of politicians was first determined by political considerations and then by the courts. Time acted as an ally of oblivion, and oblivion as an institutional defense. The European Public Prosecutor's Office does not abolish this regime, but it does expose it. It renders it inadequate in the face of a supranational demand for accountability.
There is no need for criminal prosecutions for political responsibility to exist. Ministers and deputy ministers who supervise, executives who make decisions, policies that are implemented, do not disappear behind the word «management.» In a democracy, political responsibility precedes judicial judgment and is engraved in memory before it is recorded in the minutes.
For Kyriakos Mitsotakis, this case represents a crack in the narrative of normality. Not because it proves guilt, but because it reveals dependence. When effective control comes from an external institution, the image of institutional adequacy loses its coherence. Seriousness is tested not in words, but in silence.
Even if political crisis management leads to a de-escalation, even if the polls close the circle, institutional questions remain. Who controls those who manage the public? And with what tools? European law has already established a new field of control, beyond national self-protection mechanisms.
For the Left, the issue at stake is not to celebrate the intervention of a supranational institution. It is to insist that democracy cannot function with exceptions. The abolition of Article 86 and the subjection of politicians to ordinary criminal law is not an act of revenge, but a condition of equality before the law.
The OPEC case is not just a court case. It is a mirror. And the question is not whether we will break it or remove it. It is whether we can bear to stand in front of it for a while, while the light is still shining, and then break it.
