The groupish drift of a left that gives the right the right the guarantee

On the same topic:

The news of the imminent vote in the Senate Chamber of the constitutional bill number 1,353, an important bill because it contains the reform that separates the careers of judges and public prosecutors, because it contains the reform that creates two distinct superior councils of the judiciary, because it contains the reform that regulates the new methods of election of the members of the CSM, offers some food for thought that deserve to be put together and that tell us something interesting about three issues that concern the world of the center-right and that of the center-left. The first fundamental issue, politically relevant, is linked to an important confirmation. The centre-right has decided to go into high gear on justice issues, and not on others, with the explicit aim of approving the constitutional package by the end of the year (the first reading has already been voted on in the Chamber) and leaving open the possibility of holding a referendum next year (without a quorum) that could help the centre-right electorate to mobilise , weigh up, measure themselves and do a dress rehearsal for the next political elections (by 2025, there will be a second reading vote in both the Chamber and the Senate, and after the last vote in the second reading it will be possible to call a referendum after three months, which is what the government wants to do).

The political fact is clear and relevant: the only reform that the center-right considers simultaneously identity-based and not divisive and potentially transversal is the one regarding justice , and the only reform on which it might make sense to call voters to vote, before the general election, is not the one regarding the premiership, a reform that will be done, of course, but with the right timing to arrive at the referendum after the next general election, but it is the one regarding justice. The second clear and relevant political theme concerns a theme that constitutes one of the guiding threads of the current legislature, and which concerns a dynamic that is both interesting and incredible that the center-left has chosen to support and even endorse: to commit itself constantly, consistently and sincerely to giving the right battles that are not necessarily right-wing . In recent times, you will have noticed, the center-left has offered and delivered to the right common-sense battles such as attention to public finances, the defense of Ukraine, the fight against the Iranian regime, the fight against the Putin regime, European defense, pragmatism on migrants. And the transformation of the battles for guarantees into an asset for the exclusive use of the right is the reflection of an unstoppable trend of the center-left led by Fra.Sc.Co.Bo. (Fratoianni, Schlein, Conte, Bonelli): whatever political battle the right chooses to carry forward, that battle cannot but become a right-wing battle (Tafazzi thanks). And the result of this operation has transformed the progressive camp into a camp that does not simply fight against the right but also fights against its own history (see the Jobs Act). The collateral effect of this process – here is the third theme – is to have eliminated any form of courage within the center-left , any desire on the part of any component of the coalition to raise some identity flag so as not to raise the white flag on issues of common sense (or if you prefer, as they would have said in the past, on reformist issues). The center-right, over the years, has managed to create a rather successful amalgam, through the combination of identities that are very distant from each other.

And in doing so, it has offered voters the opportunity to find various reasons to feel represented. The center-left, instead, hostage to a groupish, activist, masochistic impulse, has chosen not to value the nuances within its own coalition . And the result, on the justice reform in particular, is that of having anesthetized, nullified, not only its internal component, the so-called reformist component, but also that of having eliminated any form of coherence with its own history . We will not stand here to remind you that an important part of today's Democratic Party once, not too long ago, when it found itself voting for Maurizio Martina's motion, expressly asked to work for a separation of careers between judges and prosecutors (it was 2019, and the sentence contained in the motion was this: "The issue of the separation of careers appears unavoidable to guarantee a third and impartial judge"). We will not remember that the current head of justice of the Democratic Party, Debora Serracchiani, also signed that motion. We will not remember that among the signatories of that motion there were also other senators of the Democratic Party who with little courage will vote against a justice reform transformed by the left into a reform of the right without being one (and for the sake of our country we will not mention the names of Graziano Delrio, Simona Malpezzi, Francesco Verducci). What we could do, to try to light not a vote in favor but at least a glimmer of reflection, is to remember how many on the left, in the recent history of our politics, have remembered how urgent it is, and not of the right, a reform to separate the careers of judges and prosecutors, to avoid any confusion between those who judge and those who accuse and to strengthen the third-party status of the judge. We will not quote Giovanni Falcone so as not to embarrass the magistrates who will cry coup d'état ("It is beginning to become clear [...] that the regulation of the functions and the careers of public prosecutors can no longer be identical to those of judging magistrates [...]. Ignoring the specificity of the prosecuting functions compared to the judging functions [...] is equivalent [...] to less guaranteeing the judiciary itself"). We could therefore quote Norberto Bobbio, who was among the first to underline the risks of mixing the prosecuting and judging functions, and who said: "If the judge is the same one who accuses, there is no longer balance, but inquisition". We could quote Giuliano Pisapia, according to whom "the judge - to guarantee the correct administration of justice and in the interest of the entire community - must not only be - as expressly provided for by Article 111 of the Constitution - third and impartial, but must also appear as equidistant as possible from all parties in the proceedings, the public prosecutor, the accused and the injured party". We could quote Giuliano Amato, who has repeatedly argued that the separation of careers is “a measure of legal civilization.” We could quote Giovanni Bachelet, who in the early 2000s argued that the confusion of roles between accusation and judgment compromised trust in the system.

We could quote the great Emanuele Macaluso, convinced that "it is not possible to accept that the prosecutor becomes the master of the trial and the press". We could even quote Antonio Di Pietro, convinced that there is no reason to say that "with the separation of careers the independence of the judiciary is lacking". One could naively be surprised by the lack of courage of the left, and of the PD. But in doing so one would commit a strategic error, and one would not fully understand that in this absence of courage there is a total form of coherence of the left of the present: doing everything necessary to put one's ideas on the leash of a frightening triad formed by the ANM, the CGIL and the M5S. Here too, one could think that the choice, the leash, is the result of a strategy linked to the search for consensus . It would be nice if it were so, it would even be noble, in its own way. But the choice comes from something else. It does not come from the algorithm. It comes from identity. It comes from the idea of ​​doing everything possible to transform the groupish drift of the Italian left into the only vocation of the broad field, in addition of course to the other great vocation also pursued with coherence by the progressive universe: the self-destructive one. Trying to separate the careers between judges and public prosecutors is important, in addition to not being right-wing . But given the current state of the progressive world today one could be satisfied with much less: trying to separate the careers between left-wing reformism and groupish masochism.

More on these topics: