Corruption at the highest level

"Corruption is any abuse of an official, business, or social position or influence in order to gain personal benefit or benefit for another. A public official is obliged to perform his function in such a way that the public interest is not subordinated to the private one, as well as not to cause a conflict of interest in the performance of the public function" - (Act on Prevention of Corruption).

These are general norms on corruption, which apply to all public officials.

Deputies are only apparently in a different position. The Constitution guarantees them immunity and the freedom to decide according to their own convictions, but this does not release them from those general obligations. The fact that they are freed from any responsibility for the expressed opinion and voice in the assembly does not mean that they can subordinate the public to their private and party interests.

And they do it more and more openly.

Examples are numerous. The most obvious case is the famous laws on the pensions of deputies and ministers, the president of the state, the assembly, the government..., which on two occasions were unanimously voted by all and the Constitutional Court annulled them. It is similar with other privileges that the deputies voted for themselves, benefits and rights upon termination of office, the so-called white bread and others. These are the most primitive examples of corruption.

An example of slightly more subtle corruption is the various laws on benefits, for the elderly, for mothers, for ironworkers, for carpenters, for olive growers..., with which various promises to voters are made or fulfilled. Such was the first law on mothers, and this second one is just a case, not for study but for prosecution.

We had the opportunity to see the real acceleration of this corrupt practice in the last few months: the recent adoption of the law on postponing elections, which the Constitutional Court abolished, as well as the most recent one on separating Zeta into a separate municipality, including the justification for its immediate entry into legal force, cause well-founded suspicion of corruption.

We are used to labeling this preference for the private to the detriment of the public interest as "political corruption", "political manipulation" and the like, thus underestimating the damage caused by corruption in the assembly. On the contrary, the damages from the law, which are the result of subordinating the public to various private interests, are the greatest and most long-lasting. Passing laws on a case-by-case basis, according to private party needs, has led to the fact that, every day, in front of the assembly and the government, vuvuzelas are blown... national, religious, pensioner's, ironmonger's, Kapo's, student's, transporter's, livestock's... and everyone , depending on the size of whose "noisy potential", comes out to meet. It pollutes the legal system so much at its source that there is no judiciary (even if it were the best) that can wash it away.

That's why it has become a question of all questions how to make deputies work in the public interest, because until that happens, no elections can bring about a change for the better.

The key thing is the response of the system, which should prevent them from voting in the "honorable" party interest.

That story would have to be initiated by the Agency for the Prevention of Corruption, to actualize the topic and take what it can, at least through its own opinions.

The Constitutional Court is also an important part of the institutional response to the irresponsibility of deputies. It is important to see from their explanations that the public interest is key to the evaluation of constitutionality and legality, in order to at least start the fight against corruption at the highest level.

Then it would become clear to the prosecutor's office that there is also its jurisdiction. Immunity, as a protection of the freedom of deputies to, in the public interest, decide according to their own conviction, must be understood in accordance with what is the goal of that right and not as total irresponsibility. The final position would have to be taken by the court, but the beginning would be for the members of parliament to be called before the prosecutor and, with a warning that they are obliged to tell the truth and only the truth, that they must not keep anything silent, ask why they voted for some of these dubious laws... Either way it would be interesting to hear what they have to say in their defense.

Citizens are also competent but powerless. Because as long as we choose between parties that work for themselves and not for the public interest, there is no such majority that will fundamentally change something. Even open lists would not change anything, if we are not fooling ourselves.

The author is the founder of the new legal portal The Jury (Facebook)