The Referendum on Justice is approaching: the public debate in the run-up to the vote on 22 and 23 March is bringing to the surface the communicative limits of a political class that does not – purposely – approach the technicalities of the reform, but fuels the usual right vs. left diatribe.

What do we vote on?

The constitutional revision, which was approved in double reading by the parliament by a simple majority, which is why a confirmatory referendum is planned, provides for the introduction of three main changes.

1. The separation of careers between Public Prosecutors and Judicial Magistrates, today ‘colleagues’ as they share the same course of study and the same qualifying examination;
2. The change from one to two Superior Councils of the Magistracy of self-government: one of the ‘judiciary‘, which would be composed of judges, and one of the ‘judiciary’, composed of public prosecutors. A lottery would be introduced for the composition of the two Councils for the togate and lay components;
3. The implementation of the new High Disciplinary Court, which is given disciplinary jurisdiction over all magistrates.

The argumentative deficiency of oppositions

On the left, the line is clear: lead the voters towards the ‘No’ vote, otherwise there would be a real risk of strengthening an already long-serving government, in view of the imminent renewal of the chambers in 2027.

First of all, it is good to point out that some of the proposals of the constitutional revision retrace instances already expressed in the past by the current oppositions: the separation of careers is a historical battle of the democratic left, while the drawing of lots for the judicial members of the CSM has been evoked for years by the grillini, Travaglio & Gratteri.

A strange break from past ideas, due purely to political reasons.

The referendum campaign aims to get away from the real merit of the reform. On the other hand, having already proposed similar ideas in the past, may centre-left voters take notice. Politicising the issue, the oppositions have deployed their entire anti-government repertoire, in which the unfailing cry of fascism cannot be missing.

The reference falls on a video posted on the social networks of the PD where some members of Casapound, which has come out in favour of the constitutional amendment, are immortalised while giving the Roman salute. The slogan posted is more explanatory than ever: ‘If you vote ‘Yes’, you are a fascist‘.

Add to this video the recent statements by one of the NO frontmen, National Anti-Mafia Prosecutor Nicola Gratteri, that ‘the suspects, defendants, deviant freemasonry and illegal power centres are voting ‘yes’, while decent people are voting ‘no’.

This sentence has not only generated endless political controversy, but also highlights the difficulty of the ‘no’ front to enter into technical arguments: they are aiming at emotional and anti-fascist mobilisation, since, by now, the Referendum on Justice has turned into a Referendum on the Meloni government.

The toxicity of the oppositions’ communication lies precisely here: an extremely precise issue, which deserves to be explained by jurists and experts in the field, is turning intoyet another political battle against a government.

Theelectorate, as shown by the recent AdnKronos poll, will vote ‘No’ in 70% of cases because they are opposed to the policies of the Meloni government, and only 30% because they are truly opposed to the reform.

One does not want to condemn for this the left-wing electorate that, having supported the demands contained in the reform for years, is absolutely free to disagree with the current government. The condemnation is to the opposition forces that, unable to embody a credible government alternative, tinge the referendum dispute with identity tones rather than merit. Lowering the level of contention.

The right and the irresistible ‘call of the forest’

Even the government majority is not making itself the protagonist of a noteworthy referendum campaign.

In an attempt to push voters towards a ‘Yes’ vote, the centre-right is betting everything (or almost everything) on anti-justice sentiment due to some recent court rulings.

It almost seems as if the judges are all on the side of the criminals, exonerated and unharmed despite the wrongdoing.

All this is demonstrated by numerous contents appearing on Fratelli d’Italia’s social networks, which expose some of the most striking cases in which the judiciary seems not to have applied Italian law properly.

There is talk of illegal immigrants being exonerated and to be compensated, of the migrant centre in Albania being ‘blocked’ by the magistrates, and of those responsible for the violence on policemen at the demonstration in Turin. Why is all this brought up?

The real goal is to distance the electorate from rationality in order to focus on emotions. Fear, anger and disappointment are stirred; all emotions to be leveraged in an attempt to wring a ‘Yes‘ vote against someone (the judiciary) rather than in favour of reform.

Again, this does not go into the technical merits of the law: emotion mobilises more than law.

The real problem

On both sides, communication strategies are likely to lead to much more damage than one thinks: the Referendum on Justice was the right opportunity for the political class to elevate the usual banal speeches to technical arguments on the legal merits of the reform.

Once again, however, it was preferred to mobilise for or against the government, removing any technicality from the public debate.

While it is true that emotions and a sense of belonging are more impactful than legal reasoning, these will never adequately explain the practical effects of such important measures.

The strategies adopted will not lead to voting for what we think is most correct, but for the politicalideology that we feel is most akin.

The whole thing has turned into a Manichean issue: those who vote ‘Yes’ are for Meloni, those who vote ‘No’ are not. Theweapon of fascism on the one hand and anti-judiciary sentiments on the other come into play.

It is the game of the good guys against the bad guys at the expense of the right.

To convince the electorate, legal motives must give way to moral ones, with no possibility of making the electorate more competent. Because yes, a competent citizen is certainly less controllable than one who lives by slogans; the public’s awareness in these cases is frightening.

Fear that the left-wing voter might vote deservedly and vice versa; fear that the right-wing voter might not believe in a reform of his government, favouring the oppositions; fear that the left-wing voter might support a reform of the majority, strengthening it.

There is still time

The vote will take place in over a month; the time is there, the will is lacking.

Turning everything into a matter of camp, as always, pays off. It lowers the risk of unexpected mix-ups and focuses, instead, on the sense of belonging for one side or the other.

Justice, however, is not political; it is an independent body subject only to the law.

Consciously voting in the referendum means taking responsibility for knowing the whys and the consequences, which will not overturn parliamentary seats, but will affect courts and prosecutors’ offices.