Once upon a time, there was the “Separation Of Powers”..*

By: Peter Gomez; translated By: Ahmed M. ElNahas.. Firenze, May 23^rd 2015.

In his usual elegant style, the Italian constitutionalist Michele Ainis writes: “In these times of crisis, even the old separation between powers has become a Lux; to the Juridical power serve major Political Sensibility as much as major juridical sensibility would serve to the Political power.. There are also a need for communication channels and structures for liaisons”.

In an attempt to discredit the Constitutional Court sentence, which blocked the Pensions Indexation Bill announcing it unconstitutional; Carlo Padoan, the Italian Minister of Economy, argued that “The Court didn’t carefully evaluated the financial hole that the sentence will create”; and that he finds himself “puzzled because the Judges sustain themselves not obliged to make any sort of economic analysis regarding the consequences of their measures”; the Minister, while tracing his view of a way out from the crisis, promoted the idea of “a dialogue” between the ‘Independent Organs of the State’; he also see the answer in “sharing information concerning the accounts of the State with the Court”!

To defend these claims, the Prime Minister, Matteo Renzi, stepped forward and with an apparent reasonability said: “The Constitutional Court has made its sentence, we have respected it; now it is a question of working together so as the recovery signals in sight may grow stronger and consolidate”.

However, having a Constitution in force, the Constitutional Court does not have to work together with no one. Its judges remain in their seats exclusively to control the total respect of the Chart. They must verify what the political power is doing, even though it nominates them in part. “Channels of Communication” or “Structures for Liaisons” are not admitted or even supposed to be allowed.

They have overlooked the fact that a sentence which foiled the robbery of pensions, has left for the legislator the possibility to beat many other ways. If, for example, the pension is a “Postponed Retribution” then it is logic to ask ourselves whether it’s right or not treating in the same way and measure, a person who receives a pension based upon the Contributions Actually Deposited and a the one who, instead, is pocketing the pension on the basis of the Average Retributions Received through the last working years?!

Because, in the end, in order to avoid crossing out the law and economise; there is no need for “Channels of Communication”.. Only little preparation and lots of common sense are best needed.

Pass On The Word.

* The article appeared on ‘La Repubblica’ of May 23^rd 2015.