Photo: Ansa
Pietro De Leo
Leftist attitudes to the career separation referendum, current anomalies and ongoing debates. Il Tempo talks about this with Luca Palamara, a former judge and President of ANM who, better than many others, can guide readers through the vulnerabilities of Italian justice that he has both embodied and denounced.
From what perspective do you view the debate over the career separation referendum?
«From the point of view of those who argue that the text of the constitution should not be analyzed from the point of view of political opposition, but from the point of view of technical law, the position of the judiciary within the framework of the constitution».
There is a certain tendency towards disaster. Leftists say the government wants “full power”. Is this a strong argument?
«The pursuit of natural disasters is the result of the fact that they wanted to prevent the center-right government from being able to implement judicial reforms, perhaps they forgot that in 1997 a bicameral commission had proposed to carry out the changes we are talking about today».
Giovanni Falcone supported career separation, but there were those who considered him a critic. For Paolo Borsellino, who did not comment on this matter, a statement that had never been said was instead made. Why did it have to go this far?
“The exercise of bringing in people who have represented the history of the judiciary and are examples that should be imitated every day is an operation that I do not approve of. Furthermore, let us never forget that it was the National Association of Magistrates itself, at the time of the founding of the national anti-mafia prosecutor’s office, that organized the actual strike against Giovanni Falcone.”
You have experienced and raised the latest accounting issues. What is at stake in this referendum?
“The issue of career separation concerns the application of the principles of the legal process. However, the real thing at stake is the result of the lottery, which when I was president of the ANM, I strongly opposed because it would destroy the system that still exists in the current judicial system. The current lottery is not a panacea for all ills, but it will certainly provide the possibility of introducing a new ruling class in the judicial system that is free from the logic of ownership. This will not affect the autonomy and independence of the judiciary in the slightest, but will actually make judges freer.”
In your opinion, has society’s perception of judges changed?
“I don’t think it’s right to lump everyone together. Let us never forget that the machine of justice continues to advance amidst thousands of difficulties also thanks to the commitment and work of judges. Here we are talking about a different situation, namely the fact that overexposure and politicization of parts of the justice system risks giving the idea that things work that way.”
How much influence does your case and the contents of the book you wrote have on all of this?
“My story is a story that lifts the veil of hypocrisy regarding the functioning of existing mechanisms in the judiciary, as well as a reflection on the relationship between politics and the judiciary and on the role of political opposition played by the National Association of Magistrates during my experience. The role and position I held give me the obligation to explain further why these events resulted in the judiciary becoming increasingly left-leaning. It is clear that all citizens interested in the topic of justice want to understand the internal dynamics.”
From the initial stages of the referendum campaign, how do you see ANM’s positioning?
“The placement of the ANM is typical in this situation because in the relevant judicial system, the prevailing position is that of those who believe that constitutional principles cannot be questioned at all and therefore there are calls for limiting autonomy and independence. However, the risk is that by placing parties who are prejudiced against the majority of the current government for political reasons, the relevant judicial institution will be sucked into the logic of political opposition».
Will you campaign?
“I will continue to express my ideas and opinions freely, because in a democratic country, I believe that these rights should be recognized by everyone without exception. And most importantly, I think respect should be mutual.”
