The necessary words. Mattarella’s bewilderment over a year of inconclusion on justice


The necessary words. Point. Without any underestimation of what happened, lexical indulgence or prudence. Words that go to the heart of the matter. And the question is the delegitimization that invests the Italian judiciary, in a framework in which, faced with the opaque intertwining of robes and politics that emerges from the Palamara scandal, neither politics as a whole nor the judiciary as a whole, they showed awareness and responsiveness.

It is no coincidence that the head of state, in his crude speech, refers to his speech to the CSM a year ago, when the scandal manifested itself in all its explosive scope, revealing the “degeneration of the current system” and “the inadmissible mixture of politicians and magistrates “. On that occasion Mattarella expressed “serious bewilderment” and “disapproval”: a state of mind, which is proposed again in an even more nagging way, insofar as it carries within itself a political and moral denunciation, facing a year of substantial immobility, which a new wave of listening makes almost incomprehensible and unjustifiable.

Vox clamantis in the desert, both then, when, with rare exceptions, even the Torquemadas in effective permanent service, with the fluttering toga and the pointing finger, avoided placing the theme of the “moral question” in the judiciary, and today there is a year of inconclusion, due to the internal contradictions in Count 2, in the matter of justice, which likewise in Count 1, have in fact frozen the issue. And also because of a “corrective” reaction to the issue by the magistrates with the ANM engaged in a rebound of responsibility among those who are more or less involved, but not to a choral assumption of responsibility.

In this sense, Mattarella’s words go far beyond an answer to Salvini, who in these days has brought him to the stage, in a more or less decomposed, more or less instrumental way. Let’s say it: they tackle a theme that is greater than Salvini, that is, the need for urgent and determined action that protects and re-legitimizes the judiciary in the eyes of the Italians, avoiding that, in political propaganda and in common sense, it is thrown away together with the dirty water of degenerations also the child, that is the judiciary as a whole. But, at the same time, in the intervention there is the firm rejection of a double morality and a double political-moral standard for which, after all, if an incorrectness harms the leader of the League becomes tolerable: magistrates who on the phone wish that a politician being torn down with trials is serious in itself, regardless of the color of the tunic worn by that politician.

It is simply called the sense of the state and institutions, reaffirmed in the strictest respect for its constitutional prerogatives. For this, with equal firmness, Mattarella puts a firm stop in front of the gazzarra, artfully created with a pounding campaign of the right, in the name of “melt everything”. In fact, the founding law of the CSM provides that, being an autonomous body, it cannot be dissolved by other constitutional bodies. There is only one case in which this is possible: should a non-functionality of the same occur, “a condition that occurs, in particular, where the legal number of its components is lost”. This is not the case with the current CSM which was partially renewed with the resignation and replacement of the five directors involved in the Palamara affair, on which disciplinary proceedings are underway, which, however, would be interrupted by a dissolution of the CSM.

Here, the road is not an easy invocation of processes of squares, real or social, but a profound awareness, a radical change of approach and method. That is up to politics, understood as Parliament and Government, called to discuss a reform of the CSM which envisages “new and different criteria”. It is yet another call to take responsibility, in a debate, that on the reform of the CSM, which has come back in an almost tired and bored way, with the hypocrisy of those who propose it for thirty years now, without succeeding to arrive at a concrete landing. Always respecting his prerogatives, the head of state cannot do more than one invitation. It would not be the first case that is not collected, as happened a year ago. However, as the saying goes, it remains in the records. Even for all the times he is thrown out of proportion.

Source link


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here