This article certainly won't be your chance to learn the results of the constitutional referendum on justice. --- So, will this No victory change anything for us mere mortals? And would anything have changed if the Yes vote had won? Maybe not. So, why even talk about it? What use is it? Well, behind the campaign and the referendum result lies something broader that is worth analyzing.
Let's start with the underlying fact: the government wanted a constitutional reform regarding the functioning of the justice system, and this referendum resulted, which was presented (emphasis on the imperfect tense) as purely technical. At stake was the functioning and organization of the higher institutions that report to the Italian judiciary, seeking to erode the independence of the judiciary as much as possible, adhering to the canons of the infamous "constitutionality," and operating in a subtle manner, not overtly respectful of its objectives. Indeed, to cut a long story short, the disassembly of the CSM and the creation of a new, superior super-body, half elected by the parliamentary majority (let's keep this in mind) and half drawn by lot, was at least a tool for laying the foundations for a new course, in which politics could gradually intrude into the judiciary. A political "battle" that (without reviving fascism's mania for total control) dates back to Silvio Berlusconi's desires, in his eternal struggle against the "red robes" (sic!).But let's be honest: Regardless of the consensus achieved by the current right in the last elections, would its electorate have been interested in a purely technical question concerning the higher institutions of the judiciary? This polemical question isn't so malicious, considering that, for many months, the debate on the referendum failed to take off.
The center-left had rightly expressed its timid dissent, the government basically kept quiet about it... and everything remained largely silent until the pivotal moment of Minister Nordio's speech, at the end of 2025, in which he expressed surprise that the center-left could appear opposed to the reform, given that "it would also be in the opposition's interest, if they were to win the elections and govern." So, immediately, "the mask fell"; this is the goal of the reform: to ensure that government policy can have a greater influence on the judiciary. But let's move forward a few months later, to the period of January-February 2026, and here is Nordio himself arguing that the referendum had nothing to do with the functioning of judicial proceedings and therefore had nothing directly to do with citizens; statements echoed by Lega Senator Giulia Bongiorno, even more colorfully: "Only an ignoramus could think that this reform should impact the timing and efficiency of justice." So why should we vote Yes? So, all the ingredients are in place. Now it's clear: the greatest exponents of the No camp were precisely the right-wingers (sic!). They essentially did and undid everything on their own, right from the start. But, as we all know, "he who gives up is doomed"-you never give up.
They turned a technical referendum into a political ultimatum, turning it into a hubbub, believing they would prevail, just as they did in the general election. And, mind you, the same hypocrisy was also exploited by the center-left, including those who shouted about the Constitution needing to be safeguarded, while yesterday they abolished Article 18, spitting on it, for example.
To make up for the lost gap, after months of potentially wasted propaganda and the few damnably self-sabotaging statements (taken verbatim by the opposition to bolster the No camp), the government then tried to play yet another card of vulgar, manipulative, and simplistic propaganda. From there, a mega-galactic election campaign for the Yes vote began. Askatasuna? Blame the magistrates, vote Yes. Family in the woods? Vote Yes. Garlasco? Vote Yes. Sore throat? Cough? Vote Yes in the referendum! Hey, wasn't it a technical issue that didn't impact "the timing and efficiency of justice"? Perhaps the previous polemical question wasn't so malicious, then.
It only took one day, and here was the "reshuffle," the forced resignation of Delmastro, Bartolozzi, and Santanché, guilty of being unpresentable... we wonder: but if the Yes vote had won, would they have been presentable? Would Giorgia "Disciamo" Meloni have, let's say, brought, let's say invited, let's say even forced these shady characters, dobodighé, to resign?
So, in the end, what can we say about this referendum? Well, perhaps there's a glimmer of hope, at least that if you're constantly talking big, it won't stick.
Alessandro Usai
http://www.sicilialibertaria.it/wp-content/uploads/aprile2026_compressed.pdf
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten