Italians will go to the polls on the 22nd and 23rd, in a constitutional referendum on the organization of careers and management of judiciaries. The two chambers have already spoken by absolute majority in favor of the proposals defended by the Meloni government, but without having reached the qualified majority that would dispense with consultation.
Whoever votes “Yes” will approve the full separation of careers between judges and prosecutors – the idea presented as the axis of the reform -, the creation of two superior councils instead of the current one, the change in the way its members are appointed and the autonomy of disciplinary justice. Whoever votes “No” will defend the maintenance of the current constitutional solutions, referred to in the past, among us, in support of the autonomous conception of the Public Ministry that we adopt today.
The referendum led to the publication of numerous books on the points covered, justifying the vote in one way or another. Among those who achieved the greatest editorial success, in defense of the current rules, stands out Why notby M.Travaglio – a work that reaches the reader accredited by an introduction by Professor Gustavo Zagrebeslky, former judge of the Constitutional Court and, furthermore, enriched by an assessment of the situation in other countries.
It is a comparison that is not without difficulty for those who defend, like Zagrebelsky, the vote for “No”, since the innovations proposed by Meloni are seen, in this field, as opening the way for a subsequent placement of the MP in a position of greater dependence on the Executive. The uniqueness of the Italian autonomic solution is well documented, in contrast to what is observed in most countries (Germany, Austria, France, Holland and Anglo-Saxon countries are covered in particular).
Bearing in mind our old invocation of the Italian precedent, defended in the book, the way in which the evolution and current panorama of careers in Portugal is presented there deserves attention.
As for the MP magistrates, the conclusion is severe: “Freed from the political burden, disconnected from the culture of impartiality, they became increasingly self-referential and less balanced: a compact caste of inquisitors”, “very popular for investigations into economic and political power, long kept unpunished, but very criticizable due to inquisitorial methods, poor balance and obstinacy”.
As for the judicial judiciary, and with a view to the criminal sphere, the thesis is supported that this “drift from the MP” has also “worsened the culture of judges, increasingly closed in corporate, notarial and formalistic attitudes, as if they were aseptic arbiters of the process and not active guarantors of impartial Justice” (p. 126).
These judgments about the two professional cultures, coming from Italy, will come as a huge surprise to many and, above all, coming from the “No” side to Meloni’s proposals.
Can anyone who knows the Portuguese case argue that they have nothing to do with our reality?
Yet another reason to pay attention to the result of the referendum.
Write without applying the new Spelling Agreement
Leave a Reply