Often, when we talk about the Judiciary, you hear people talking about currents at which the judges themselves adhere. The tone is always critical, and it is suspected that such groups, described as opaque aggregations, could be able to influence, or better, that they do influence, the work of the Judge and influence the outcomes of the processes. It is appropriate, therefore, to deepen the role and the organization of those groups, to help understand their genesis and whether today their existence is still useful and positive.
The necessary premise is that the external representativeness of the Judges is to be found in the National Association of magistrates. We are talking about a private association which one is free to join or not, but that certainly is the only organization which expresses, in public places, the sensitivity, the intentions and the alleged trade unions of the magistrates. It was not constituted, over a hundred years ago, in the shape of trade unions, with the desire to pursue purposes of non-exclusive category interest in the shape of an association, but at least in the aspirations, to “begin” as it reads in the statute, “so that the character, the functions and the prerogatives of the judiciary, with respect to the other powers of the State, will be defined and guaranteed in accordance with the constitutional requirements”, advocating “the implementation of a legal system that will allow an autonomous organization of the judiciary in accordance with the requirements of the rule of law in a democratic regime”.
As it can be seen, at least potentially, the desire to create an organization that should look at public interest: from here the refusal of a syndicate choice, which, however, is among the primary purposes of the group, providing the duty of the latter to ‘protect the moral and economic interests of the judiciary, as well as prestige and respect for the judicial function”. Such ambitious goals, to which need to be added ,in a statutory way, others that are still of primary importance for every judge, have imposed the overcoming of an idea of creating a plurality of associations, a situation that would have weakened the capacity of pursuit; likewise, however, it is clear that the sensitivity in the approach to problems, priorities in terms of its goals, the paths to be undertaken and the action modes were different. Then, the creation, in the course of time, of those groups that were formed, the current term, in use during the sixties when was taken the path of creation of such groups, the desire, with that term, not to create a rift or fragmentation, wishing rather to suggested that it was a matter of of associative components that, in their diversity, all aimed at the scopes transfused in the unique recognized statute of the organization.
Diversity, therefore, understood as cultural enrichment, ANM as a place of interior meeting where to develop ideas on the matter of Justice – and I write it with an upper-case capital letter on purpose – the collaboration between all of them occurs also through constructive contrast that is “the pepper” of democracy, finally, the possibility to express themselves through representatives that all of them wanted, is a reason for credibility of what is presented to the collectivity. The time has contributed to the success of such a system, which at present seems to some people to have reached degenerations dictated by a given line of thought. The main criticism is that the groups have lost their ideality and have become factions that are at war one with another. The only scope being the interests of those who have adhered to it, aggregations of power devoid of ideality.
This conclusion has been certainly supported by a continuous denigratory campaign of a political kind has recently supposed that the exponents of the associative components, far from being interested in the institutional problems of the Judiciary. Certainly, during those years the cultural richness of the Judiciary, its clear words, and the very legitimation of its work have gone through the work and the credibility of the ANM and of its associative components.
Factions in the associated Judiciary have been and continue to be an input for reflection and a way of involving new judges, a platform where to elaborate on ideas, avoiding thus, non-transparent aggregations. And it is precisely the fact that it is not merely a trade union that has given a broader character to the associations; and the magistrates who question today the usefulness of the associative components – which, while wanting to avoid overusing words, have meant on some occasions ”movements “- we should remember that sociality belongs to every man, to get closer to those who have similar principles is a source of growth; whereas to deal peacefully with those who think differently, helps to sharpen consciousness and culture.
Some of the current attacks at the movements are far from appearing the result of moralizing cravings, seem designed to deconstruct the organizational system of the associated Judiciary, so as to weaken its credibility and voice. On the other hand, other critique cannot be set aside without an analysis that takes into account the discontent from which it springs: mistakes have been made, improvements are possible, stimulation of reflection is needed. Nevertheless it is necessary to think twice before saying which voices mean what, with all the human limitations, provide their contribution of passion and ideas to the system, is an evil that needs to be eradicated: perhaps it is precisely the freedom of those voices that constitutes the reason of the criticism which we currently see dangerously gaining terrain in a common feeling.