You always end up returning to your starting point, and you don't always do it in a useful way. In order to be immediately updated, the general discussion on the delegated law for the reform of the Superior Council of the Judiciary is resumed in the Justice Commission, that is, to be clear, of what is considered the Reform of all Reforms which, in , it would seem to aim to purge the judiciary from the distortions and vices of the still rampant "currentism" to return it then restored (at least hopefully) to the community of associates.
Whether or not it is a project capable of reflecting concrete and tangible practical implications, only time will tell, since, for two years now, despite "Palamara" as a "cold case" taken as a paradigm of a “System” with much more meaningful connotations, and despite the urgency of having to proceed, nothing has actually been possible and / or wanted to do about it. To say it all, the nodal point of the legislative intervention should focus solely, and / or in any case predominantly, on the electoral "device" of the members of the Superior Council, to be achieved through a reform that can eradicate, once and for all, " understandings ”,“ alliances ”and distorting practices of regulatory rules aimed at protecting the correct electoral competition mechanisms.
It would be a matter of conducting a purge legal policy operation useful to avoid not only, and in the immediate future, the risk of calling the next elections under the regime of obsolete rules and now unsustainable mechanisms that would have no other effect than to continue to nourish that articulated and ancient "system", but also, and above all, to conduct a legal policy operation useful for guaranteeing the full and efficient restoration of the balance, constitutionally guaranteed, between the Powers of the State, which, at the same time of their explanation, presuppose, at least in principle, the "internal" (in relation to the specific category of belonging) and "external" (in relation to reciprocal relations) independence of their individual representatives.
The undertaking is undoubtedly titanic, nor can it be expected that it will be completed in a few hectic months just to follow up on an understandable "input" of supranational importance. But this is another story and it would be necessary to open a further debate which, at this moment, would only have the flavor of impromptuness. One detail, however, seems to have emerged in an unequivocally expressed way: despite everything, the Superior Council of the Judiciary must continue and exist, and must resist. The postulate is monolithic in its impact and, like it or not, presupposes at least a threefold order of reflection: the one whereby any potential reform of the electoral system of the Superior Council of the Judiciary cannot ignore the appropriate consideration of the plurality of cultures and souls that characterize the Judiciary itself in its articulated subjective complexity; the other, no less important, for which the new system by setting up cannot and should not mortify the choice of voters and respect for gender representation; the last, the most complex, which, in acting as a synthesis tool, presupposes the rational harmonization of the first two useful to achieve the elimination of the dangers deriving from "degenerative currentism", that is, from "human" and "poor management" politics "of the different" souls "existing and operating within the" category ".
Well: as we wanted to prove, we always end up returning to the starting line, without even going through the start. Because the real problem to be faced and solved, and it may not necessarily be possible to do so, is first and foremost to understand what the methods of identifying individual candidates must be, while respecting the plurality of existing cultures and even if necessary, assumed as a basis intervention, not to be overwhelmed by the force of the "currents". That that modality of choice is the starting point (Mother) or, instead, the arrival point (Embryo) of a Reform with contingent implications and, in many ways, unimaginable to be honest, is a question of another tenor and induces and preludes to alternative reflections that risk further complicating a "system", the one attributable to the operating parameters of the Superior Council, so to speak, already too complex and bureaucratized that has always had to deal with its identity issue, that is with the its own quality as "Body of Guarantee of the Autonomy and Independence of the Ordinary Judiciary" called to preserve and implement the constitutional premise of autonomy and independence, that of suitable and respectful representation, as well as that of the fight against corporate degeneration in order to actualize, consequently, and consequently, transparency in the exercise of the self-government of the judiciary.
But are we really sure that evil hides only in the existence and in the articulation of the "currents"? Are we sure that it is not just a subjectively lived and interpreted ethical question which is independent of any system and which derives solely from the human intentionality of the interlocutor on duty? If it were not a question of mechanisms but purely and simply a matter of men and women in power? It would be forced, and Marta Cartabia first considered her current role, to deal with the very concept of independence of the judiciary as the starting point of a two-sided Reform that sees the judge as subject only to the law, and not as a liberating solution without meaningful content. In this sense, we ask ourselves, is it still possible to imagine, and above all to create, a Superior Council of the Judiciary that can be proudly independent of the other State Powers within which each member can act in the exclusive interest of the institution it represents?
Giuseppina Di Salvatore
(Lawyer - Nuoro)