The crisis of confidence in institutions did not emerge in a vacuum. The “golden passports” scandal shook Cyprus’ international reputation in recent years and damaged the internal sense of equality before the law. Political resignations following the Al Jazeera revelations and subsequent investigations showed that the system has mechanisms to respond. Yet today, as with other parts of this colossal scandal, decisions made in courtrooms fail to deliver substantive justice, and citizens perceive that no sufficient process has taken place.
It is important not to overlook that the “golden passport” industry was never a marginal activity. It was a multi-billion-euro economic machine, an organised system generating extraordinary profits that operated for years with the tolerance, if not the protection, of state institutions. The cost was not only ethical but political. Cyprus’ reputation suffered internationally, its prestige was damaged, and the concept of equality before the law was undermined from within.
The scandal involving the video and Al Jazeera’s revelations was not merely a public relations blow for Cyprus. It reflected a system that allowed political and other figures to exploit state rules for personal gain. Today, the prevailing sentiment is that institutions do not respond proportionately to the scale of the damage, and that international exposure alone is not enough to trigger institutional self-reflection. This burden falls primarily on the leadership of the Attorney General’s office, the political leadership, and certain parts of the judiciary.
Corruption acts corrosively. Like a silent rot, it seeps into every level of authority and decision-making until decay becomes structural. At that point, the problem is no longer a single bad decision or an error in judgment. It is the dominance of a culture of impunity. If there is no clear break from this mindset, and responsibilities are not assigned in a way that convinces the public rather than simply closing case files as happens now, social anger will not dissipate. It will accumulate. No democracy can govern permanently on a foundation of accumulated distrust.
The problem is not a single judicial decision. It is the institutional framework within which the decision was made. The image consolidating in Cyprus concerns not just one case or two defendants. It concerns the very ability of the state to enforce consequences when rules with enormous economic and moral impact are violated.
When impunity becomes entrenched, it becomes a structural feature. A fully controlled system that cannot or does not wish to hold its powerful sectors accountable does not generate stability. It produces silent delegitimisation. Without a radical revision of balances, genuine strengthening of accountability, and real dissemination of oversight, the problem will shift from being institutional to existential, threatening the democratic resilience of the country. This is now the greatest danger for the days ahead.