The right's guaranteeism is a gargle

On the same topic:

There's one thing the center-right should stop doing: talking about guarantees, if every time a center-left politician ends up in a judicial investigation, the principle of innocence melts away . The investigation into the Milanese government and Mayor Sala is the most striking proof of this. The headlines in some right-wing newspapers—with the sole, notable exception of Sallusti's Giornale—launch an inelegant lynching. "A brick to Sala's head," headlines La Verità. "In Milan they swallow the Democratic Party," adds Libero. Reports or outbursts? If you change the playing field, it won't be hard to see that it was the same parties now in government who were calling for a profound reform of the justice system to restore balance between the legislative and judicial branches. The same ones who once said that "a notice of investigation is not a conviction." Well, today that notice concerns a political opponent, and everything changes. So what is guarantees? A principle or a gargle? We rinse our mouths out, said with respect, we pretend to be righteous, then we spit it out, ready to ask for resignations, moral sanctions, preventive crucifixions .

Director Sallusti, however, is right to point out that politics cannot allow prosecutors to dictate its agenda. This is the real flaw: a judiciary that can influence, even with just a title, public life, alliances, and even the vote. But it hurts, very hurts, to see those who claimed to want to correct these imbalances turn into the most zealous advocates of justice. Double standards are the subtlest form of hypocrisy (and on the right, at the moment, only Forza Italia, which had the good sense not to exploit the investigation, and Minister Crosetto , who yesterday said that "the judiciary must not and cannot replace the electorate," not even when it involves a political opponent). If the principle of due process applies only to its own leaders, then it isn't due process: it's sad partisanship. And if the defense of due process only serves to protect its own leaders, it isn't reform: it's a cover-up. More courage and more consistency are needed. Even – and above all – when those under investigation are those who are intended to be defeated only at the ballot box, and not in court.

More on these topics: