Referendum, a debate that deserves Justice

There is little time left until the so-called Referendum on Justice, and it can be said that we have witnessed the referendum debate, to be generous, the most surreal ever. Perhaps, however, just giving it a name that has little or nothing to do with the content of the constitutional reform should have foreshadowed dire consequences.

Yet, the debate has taken on dimensions that it did not even reach during the last confirmatory referendum (or oppositional depending on the point of view), namely the emblem of anti-establishment policies represented by the “cut of parliamentarians”.

An independent study estimated that since the process outlined by Article 138 of the Constitution began, there have been as many as 11 million posts and over 246 million interactions on social networks.

The problem, as often happens, is not the quantity but the quality. This is also reflected in the mobilization of civil society, because despite the many committees, most of the meetings held are not debates between different views, but gatherings among friends who have already decided which side to be on; the confrontation, even tough, that should represent the salt of democracy is often avoided, and catchy phrases are preferred to be shared on platforms.

But what about the content of the constitutional reform? Few truly know it. Not only common citizens who see the issue as something distant from their interests, but many among the same commentators do not feel the need to delve into it.

On one side are the conservatives of the Constitution, who often come from the area that self-defines as progressive; those who, at every modification of the constitutional text (especially if proposed by the opposing side), resurrect the slogan “the Constitution cannot be touched”. Probably some were distracted when the Charter was being “touched” to cut parliamentarians or to constitutionalize the budget balance; even less so when there was celebration for the inclusion of environmental protection in two articles of the Constitution at the same time that coal-fired power plants were being reopened to compensate for the loss of Russian gas.

On the other side are those who use constitutional reforms as political battles to garner support or divert attention from other issues, such as Gaza, Iran, and much more.

A prominent constitutionalist defined it as “situational use”, as if the Constitution were just any temporary measure, to be used to appease that dissatisfied segment of the electorate, with the difference that in this way essential elements of the legal system are modified.

The two "factions" are, however, united by one thing: the distorted use of communication that manifests in fake news, projections of apocalyptic disasters, and fabricated quotes.

To go in order, just take a look at the posters on the street or the posts on various social networks to find "vote YES/NO" with images that refer to themes that do not concern either the Csm, nor the High Court, nor the draw. Among those who invoke the criminals who destroyed Turin and those who reference the Roman salutes of Casa Pound, passing through those who evoke the P2 and "clean hands", all factions have shown a certain creativity that seems to have taken root among a large part of the electorate but confuses the voter and loses focus on a matter that is not irrelevant.

As if that weren't enough, there is a competition over who can make the most counterproductive statements for their own side.

The well-known anti-mafia prosecutor for the No side who states "mafiosi and Freemasons vote Yes" is answered by a chief of staff, a former judge, who speaks of the judiciary as a "firing squad" to be eliminated with the reform. These statements are not only extremely serious but once again do not discuss the merits of a complex reform.

The last surreal element is the search for quotes from illustrious jurists of the past who would have been in favor of or against the reform. It started with Falcone and Borsellino, attributing to them different statements every day. The former, distant from factions, who had explicitly expressed support for the separation of careers, is invoked by the Yes supporters as if he had also commented on the rest of the content of the reform that was not being discussed at the time, and by the No supporters, some of whom have even read live fabricated statements in which he supposedly opposed the separation. The latter, however, more distant from the spotlight and notoriously linked to a minority faction, has never publicly expressed himself on these issues.

Regardless of what these two heroes have or would have said, using two magistrates who were killed serving the State is decidedly tiresome and inappropriate, not to mention that relying on others' statements is not the best way to approach a reform.

Regardless of how the vote will go, conditioned by a poor debate, the scenario that is emerging for national politics cannot be positive. If the level of discourse is this during a popular vote on a technical question, which requires strong popular participation in light of a change approved by majority votes, we can expect even more heated tones and an increasingly low quality of debates in the upcoming political elections.

Mala tempora currunt, but the responsibility is shared among all. If we do not participate actively, consciously, and with an openness to dialogue, we cannot expect better prospects.

*PhD Contract Professor in Public Law

University of Palermo