Referendum, books in favour of Yes and those in favour of No

Vassalli's thought was at the centre of controversy and discussion during the election campaign, as was the opinion of other authoritative jurists or symbolic names, such as that of Giovanni Falcone, whose position is read differently by one side and the other.

The authors of Le ragioni del No (Ed. Laterza) focus on the culture of jurisdiction in pages that are an analytical critique of the Meloni government's reform. The real issue at stake in the constitutional referendum - the two magistrates state in the introduction - is "the fate of the government of the judiciary and jurisdiction, in an institutional context in which the government's drive to increase its powers at the expense of the guarantee institutions is growing". The authors place the constitutional amendment in a broader political context and dwell in particular on the separation of careers - 'what is said and what is done' - with a look at other countries and the reasons in support of a unified government and formation of the judiciary.

In the book, 'The truth about the reform of the judiciary: why it is right to vote yes' (ed Liberilibri) the two editors, two lawyers, start by reflecting on the 'serious anomalies and distortions' that - in their opinion - have immediately marked the referendum debate. And in a collection of contributions by university professors and criminalists, they explain, among other things, why, in their opinion, "the accusatory process has made intervention necessary" on the Constitution and why the separation of functions between prosecutor and judge is not enough. They also look at the experiences of other countries and at the issue of the independence of the judiciary from politics and from itself.

The book written by the magistrates, Cesare Parodi, current president of the National Association of Magistrates, and Carlo Maria Pellicano, 'Justice Reform and Surroundings' (ed Aliberti), is first and foremost a description, for the uninitiated, of the workings of the judicial system. The key word is precisely 'environs': before getting to the points that are the subject of the referendum, the book accompanies the reader-citizen through the basic places and mechanisms of the magistrate's work, with a focus on some of the most recurrent themes, rightly or wrongly, in the election campaign, from judicial errors to the autonomy of the judge to the disciplinary section.

In "La giustizia vista da vicino" (published by Piemme), Antonio Di Pietro, the former public prosecutor symbol of the Tangentopoli season, reviews the criticalities of the judicial system in Italia to support the reasons for his yes to the reform. In an excursus, he refutes from his perspective some of the objections made to the reform design, enhances the guarantees, in his opinion, present in the text with respect to the independence of the judiciary, ("Article 104 of the Constitution," he writes, "remains as it is") and considers the draw to be the only effective way against current affairs. The book concludes with an appeal to vote.

The essay by another former public prosecutor of the Mani Pulite pool, Gherardo Colombo, entitled "La giustizia italiana in 10 risposte" (published by Garzanti), has a popular approach: The Italian justice in 10 answers (published by Garzanti). The author explains and inserts his reasons for the No to the constitutional changes within the overall architecture of the Constitution, which is "a unitary system", he writes, in which every change has repercussions on the whole. The thesis is that the reform does not solve the problems of the justice service, which affects all citizens, but on the contrary - this is the risk he fears - has within it the danger of the submission of the judiciary to the executive.

On fake news focuses above all the lawyer Emilia Rossi, who in the volume 'Of course I do! Il referendum tra realtà e propaganda (Castelvecchi editore)", aims to dismantle some of them, for example, on the risks to democracy. From the writings of Victor Hugo, "Le Dernier jour d'un condamné - more often translated into Italian as "L'ultimo giorno di un condannato a morte" - starts the introduction by Mattia Feltri, director of the Huffington Post, to arrive - passing also through a personal episode of a young reporter - to his reasons in favour of the reform: "it is never good or bad, improvable or cassable, never a subject for debate, never a philosophical dispute. Every reform,' he writes, 'is sacrilege. Because with the judiciary we have put back in place a priestly caste that draws power from some divine force'.

The book 'Nordio, reasons and dangers of a reform (Passigli editore)' by the political scientist, former politician, Stefano Passigli analyses the reform and its effects starting from the fundamental principle of the balance between powers, which, according to the author, is called into question by the current Executive. In this context, the reform does not, according to the author, improve the problems of justice, but "looks more like a showdown between two powers of the State" warns Ferruccio de Bortoli in the preface: "the revenge of politics on a judiciary that has not infrequently given proof and even the impression (and the impression counts, very much) of stepping outside its constitutional boundaries".

It is an interview with the President Emeritus of the Constitutional Court, Augusto Barbera, in the book 'Changing Justice is right and not right-wing' (Il Foglio letture) signed by journalist Ermes Antonucci. As a 'man of the left', Barbera explains his support for the Nordio reform 'because it reinforces the independence and autonomy of the judiciary', he explains, and 'it is in the furrow of a long battle waged by the centre-left in favour of the separation of careers between prosecutors and judges and the institution of a High Disciplinary Court'.

In the constitutional reform submitted to a confirmatory referendum, he sees a "revenge of certain politics against certain judiciary to shift the constitutional balance in favour of the impunity of the former and to the detriment of the autonomy of the independence of the latter" Gustavo Zagrebelsky, president emeritus of the Constitutional Court, in the preface to the book by Marco Travaglio, editor of Il Fatto Quotidiano: "Perché NO. A guide to the referendum on the judiciary and politics in a few simple words" Paper first. "This counter-reform," rejoices Nicola Gratteri, Naples prosecutor, in his contribution to the volume, "opens the way to government control over the pm. It is not a battle of category, but of democracy'. Among the objections, Travaglio predicts that in the event of a yes vote 'the prosecutor separated from the judge will be less impartial, more interested in accusing than in seeking the truth'. And he also draws attention to the costs: 'The work of the Csm will be done by three bodies, with an enormous and useless increase in expenses'.