On March 22nd and 23rd, 2026, Italy will face a decision that sounds like the plot of a political thriller but is, in fact, a looming constitutional reality. We are heading to the polls for a Constitutional Referendum that could fundamentally rewire the way justice is administered in this country.
Unlike most referendums, this one has no quorum. It doesn’t matter if the streets are empty or the polling stations are packed; the result will stand. As we stand on the precipice of this “Great Judicial Gamble,” we must ask ourselves: Are we voting for a better justice system, or are we simply choosing which flavor of dysfunction we can live with?
The Architecture of the Reform: The Three Pillars
The reform isn’t just a single law; it’s a structural overhaul of the Italian Constitution. It stands on three legs, each designed to address a perceived failure in the current system.
1. The Separation of Careers
Currently, an Italian magistrate is a member of a single “order.” They can move from being a Prosecutor (PM)—the accuser—to a Judge—the neutral arbiter.
Critics, especially defense lawyers, argue this creates a “colleague culture” where the judge is naturally biased toward their former office-mate, the prosecutor. The fix? You choose your path at the start. If you want to be a PM, you stay a PM. If you want to judge, you stay a judge. The wall is permanent.
2. The Dual CSM: Two Heads for One Body
To support this separation, the Superior Council of the Magistracy (CSM)—the body that governs judges’ careers—will be split. One CSM will exist solely for judges, and another for prosecutors. This ensures that those who judge have no say in the promotions of those who investigate, and vice-versa.
3. The High Disciplinary Court: The Judge of Judges
Perhaps the most “punitive” aspect of the reform is the creation of a dedicated High Disciplinary Court. This body will handle the mistakes and misconduct of magistrates, moving that power away from their direct colleagues. This is a response to the public perception that “judges never punish their own.”
The Sortition Scandal: Can Luck Replace Merit?
The real “bomb” in this reform is the introduction of Sortition (Lottery) for the members of these governing councils. This is the part that feels like a surrender of reason to fate.
For years, the CSM has been plagued by “currents” (correnti)—internal judicial unions that act like political parties. These groups trade favors, decide who gets promoted, and influence the direction of major investigations. After the “Palamara Scandal” exposed the depth of this lottizzazione, the political class decided that elections within the judiciary were unsalvageable.
The Logic of the Dice: If we can’t trust judges to vote for the best candidates without being corrupted by “currents,” we will let a computer pick the names at random. It’s an admission that the system is so broken that only the “blindness” of fate can restore impartiality.
The Deep Critique: As our discussion revealed, there is a fundamental flaw in this logic. We are told the lottery is “fair” because it’s blind. But is “blind” what we want for the people who decide who should lead our anti-mafia units or our supreme courts?
If merit is subjective—and it often is—then by randomizing the selection, we aren’t “finding” merit; we are simply admitting we have given up on trying to define it.
The Government Parallel: A Dangerous Double Standard
This brings us to the most provocative question of the entire debate: If we believe a “Randomized Government” is the cure for the Judiciary, why don’t we do it for the Parliament?
Think about it. Our Government is also plagued by “currents,” factions, and backroom deals. Yet, no one suggests we should choose the Minister of Economy by drawing a name from a hat of MPs.
We elect a Government because it needs a program, a philosophy, and a direction. The reformers counter that the Judiciary doesn’t need a “vision”—it just needs to “apply the law.”
But this is a fallacy. As we explored, the law is not a mathematical formula. It is inherently interpretable. Every time a judge decides how to balance privacy against security, or labor rights against economic stability, they are exercising a “vision.”
By randomizing the CSM, we are randomizing the interpretative soul of the country. If you randomize the deciders, you randomize the decisions. You are essentially rolling the dice on the meaning of our constitutional rights.
The Global Context: Are We Chasing a Ghost?
If we look at countries where justice is efficient—like Germany or the United Kingdom—the system looks very different, but not in the way you might expect.
In Germany, the system uses a “strictly separate” career path. A judge is a judge for life, and a prosecutor is a prosecutor. However, they don’t use a lottery. Instead, they rely on a mix of ministerial oversight and regional committees. It is a “political” system in the sense that it is part of the state administration, but it works because of a massive investment in court staff and a culture of accountability.
In the United Kingdom, judges are recruited after decades of experience as lawyers. Again, there is no lottery. There is a “merit-based” selection by independent commissions. The British system relies on the prestige and seniority of its judges to maintain independence.
Italy’s 2026 reform tries to copy the “Separation” of these countries but adds a “Lottery” as a desperate band-aid. We are trying to achieve the efficiency of Berlin or London using a mechanic that neither city would ever dream of employing.
The “Reformer’s Trap”: Stagnation vs. Chaos
This brings us to the ultimate “trap” of the 2026 vote. It’s the choice between a disastrous status quo and an unpredictable experiment.
The Trap of the “NO” (Stagnation)
Voting “NO” means keeping the correnti. It means accepting that the judiciary will continue to be a closed shop where “who you know” is more important than “what you know.” It keeps the judges strong enough to fight the politicians, but it also keeps them isolated from the citizens they serve. It is the choice to stay in a burning house because you’re afraid of the cold outside.
The Trap of the “SÌ” (Chaos)
Voting “SÌ” means smashing the correnti. But what takes their place? A “randomized” CSM will be a weak CSM. It will be a group of individuals who don’t know each other and have no unified voice. In every vacuum, power rushes in. If the CSM is too weak to lead, the Ministry of Justice (the Government) will inevitably step in to fill the gap. By voting to “free” the judges from their own internal unions, we might inadvertently be handing them over to the political power of the day.
Cui Bono? (Who Benefits?)
It is a hard truth, but this referendum wasn’t designed with the “ordinary citizen” in mind. Referendums of this scale are usually the result of a War of the Palaces.
The Politicians want a “Yes” because it weakens a judiciary that has often been too powerful for their liking. For thirty years, the “Mani Pulite” era has cast a shadow over Italian politics; this reform is the final counter-attack.
The Magistrates want a “No” to protect their autonomy—and their own internal power structures. They argue that any weakening of the CSM is a weakening of democracy itself.
The Citizen simply wants a trial that doesn’t take ten years. The tragedy is that this reform does almost nothing to speed up the courts. It doesn’t hire more clerks. It doesn’t simplify the code of procedure. It just changes who sits in the big chairs in Rome.
Final Thought: A Choice of Shadows
We are not choosing between “Good” and “Bad.” We are choosing between two different shadows of power.
Shadow A (The Current): A justice system where your career is decided by which “union” you belong to. It is flawed, often biased, but deeply independent from the Government.
Shadow B (The Die): A justice system where the leadership is decided by a roll of the dice. It is “clean” in its randomness, but it leaves the door open for the Government to pull the strings of a disorganized and leaderless judiciary.
If you believe that the law is an act of human intelligence and leadership, the Lottery should terrify you. But if you believe that human intelligence in the Italian judiciary has been so corrupted by factionalism that it can no longer be trusted, then Luck might be the only “honest” broker left.
March 2026 is not just a vote on the law; it is a vote on whether we still believe in our ability to choose our leaders, or whether we have finally decided to leave the soul of our justice to the whim of a computer-generated number.
Where do you stand? Is “Luck” the ultimate impartiality, or is it a surrender of democratic responsibility?
Discover more from Zera's Castle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Zera's Castle 