Professor Sabino Cassese, former judge of the Constitutional Court and jurist of great renown, has fought in recent years to improve the functioning of our institutions. From the inefficiencies of the management of public affairs derives the growing detachment of citizens from politics, the taking refuge in their own personnel, with the consequence of causing a further worsening of the management of public affairs, and the prevalence in political forces of immediate objectives to the detriment of an act with foresight to change what needs to be changed to keep up with the times and to offer good opportunities to the new generations.
Sui five referendums on Justice Prof. Cassese has expressed himself several times to vote YES to all five questions, even if some may appear modest in scope. In this interview with FIRSTonline he reiterates the reasons that should lead citizens not to desert the polls and to vote affirmatively on all the proposed issues. The reason is simple: the victory of the SI would give a boost to induce the Government and Parliament to face with greater determination the distortions that make our judicial system inefficient and unreliable. Here is the interview.
Forecasts of voter turnout for justice referenda are generally pessimistic. It will not be easy to reach the quorum. How do you explain this attitude of Italians who have a deep distrust of parties and politics yet when they are called to decide directly they do not respond to the call or reject the proposals that push towards a change in our system, which even in words, appears desired?
“There are many possible explanations. The first is that there is a decreasing popular participation, both in the institutions of representative democracy, ie elections, and in the institutions of direct democracy, ie referendums. The second is that there were too many requests: from 1970 to 2022, 666 abrogative referendums and 23 constitutional referendums were presented. 73 referendums were voted by Italians. Leaving aside the institutional referendum on the Republic, the address referendum and the four constitutional referendums, 67 abrogative referendums were voted, of which 39 exceeded the quorum: 23 times yes won and 16 times the no. The third possible explanation is that the formulations of the referendum questions are complex and difficult to understand. The fourth possible explanation is that direct democracy, through referendums, has intrinsic limits, due to the complexity of the management of the State, which the simplification of the referendum request contrasts with, both because it is only a question of abrogating referendums, and because one can only answer with a yes or a no”.
Yet the problem of a well-functioning Justice is one of the main Italian problems both from the point of view of equity and democracy, and from an economic point of view as many investors are discouraged by the difficulties of having Justice due to the uncertainty of the law and the times very long judgments.
“The issue of the crisis of justice has become a social issue, of which there are many indicators. Six million pending issues, more than 7 years to conclude, on average, the three levels of judgment in the civil court and more than 3 in the criminal court. Poor independence and impartiality of judges, due to the endogenous politicization of the body of magistrates. Excessive involvement of magistrates in other powers of the state, the legislative and the executive. Flooding of the prosecutors, who have become the guardians of virtue, according to Pizzorno's formula. Decreasing trust of the population in justice”.
Some referendum questions cross the provisions of the Cartabia reform. So is it a useless referendum or can it serve to give a push for a more profound reform?
"The positive response to the referenda could be very functional, in solicitation or substitution, to the Cartabia reform, which goes in the right direction to ensure faster processes, greater protection of suspects, more detachment between prosecution and trial, a fairer justice".
Proponents of the NO argue that some questions are not understood or are irrelevant and therefore invite citizens to go to the beach. It is true?
The participation of citizens, with the vote for the choice of their representatives and with the referendum responses, is defined by the Constitution as a civic duty; who invites to violate it, invites to violate the Constitution.
Some magistrates, not only those who have positions in their association, have intervened heavily even with false statements such as that of Trieste. It is not a distortion that there are continuous interventions by the Judiciary on matters falling within the competence of politics and citizens?
“It is another proof of the lack of independence of the judiciary, of the erroneous idea that the CSM should be an instrument of self-government, of the so-called self-referentiality of magistrates, who instead of being subject to the law think that the law is subject to the magistrates. All this despite the fact that the majority of magistrates is far from the positions of the minority, organized in so-called current parties, which make their voices heard more than the balanced opinion of the majority of magistrates”.
