The findings of the anti-corruption authority challenge both our blind trust in institutions and our claims that everyone is corrupt.
Yesterday's report by the Independent Authority Against Corruption on the book *Mafia State* is a significant institutional intervention with real substance. At a time when public debate had become trapped between toxicity and exaggeration, this development brings us back to reality in the clearest possible way.
The intense election campaign leading up to the parliamentary elections, combined with the rise of anti-establishment forces, put the traditional party system under pressure. The response to that pressure was not calm political argument or measured debate. Instead, seriousness often gave way to sensationalism and confrontation, at the expense of responsibility.
That climate deteriorated rapidly with the "Santi" affair. The story was brought to light by the same journalist whose book ultimately led to today's report. The handling of the Santi case, the lack of convincing evidence to support a number of serious allegations, and various other factors helped create a kind of social "civil war" atmosphere. Public discourse became trapped in a dangerous tug-of-war between two extremes: blanket condemnation on one side and uncritical idealization on the other.
This unfolded during a period of deep public distrust, with society experiencing a broad loss of confidence in institutions. Voices seeking political support seized on that frustration, repeating slogans such as "they're all corrupt" and "they're all fooling us." Predictably, this provoked equally strong reactions from those who held the opposite view.
It was this toxic environment that gave rise to two equally problematic positions. On one side was the mentality that anyone could say anything about anyone, based solely on personal beliefs and without the necessary evidentiary standards, accompanied by a sweeping dismissal of institutions as a whole. On the other side emerged an equally blunt refusal to engage, where every criticism was dismissed as an attempt to destabilize the country or manipulate public sentiment. In that view, any discussion of corruption within institutions, the justice system, or political parties was rejected outright.
The report published today by the Independent Authority Against Corruption cuts directly through these two false choices.
It grounds us.
It silences the shouting from both sides.
It allows neither arbitrary mudslinging without evidence nor the convenient sweeping of problems under the carpet in the name of institutional authority. It rejects both wholesale cynicism and blind trust. It rejects both institutional ostrich-like behaviour—pretending not to see the obvious to protect the image of institutions—and the notion that everyone is guilty until proven innocent.
From an institutional perspective, this development moves us a step forward. It establishes a clear framework based on rules, evidence, and accountability. Society advances only through constructive rigor and well-documented criticism.
Most importantly, it places everyone before their responsibilities, regardless of the position they hold, the power they exercise, or the connections they may have.
