There is a magistrate who wants to “rebuild” a town (in which, however, he holds office)

A magistrate has undertaken the task of ‘rebuilding a town’. His name is Nicola Russo; he is a judge at the Naples Court of Appeal, and the town in question is Castellammare di Stabia. He makes it clear that he does not want to be mayor. However, he wants to organise the community, build ‘social defences’, work on ‘a programme of collective rebuilding’ and ‘engage in politics together’. Following the dissolution of the municipality of Castellammare di Stabia over alleged Camorra infiltration—a decision taken by the Council of Ministers on 14 July—Russo announced on his Facebook page the launch of a civic initiative aimed at the town. The first event organised by the magistrate is scheduled for 17 September, to be held in a church (the Chiesa del Carmine), to “analyse the causes of the city’s democratic collapse”, with several prominent guests, notably Nicola Gratteri (Public Prosecutor of Naples) and Don Luigi Ciotti (founder of Libera).

“I believe it is important to begin by analysing what has happened and how we arrived at the second dissolution due to Camorra infiltration, without the political establishment having bothered to draw a clear line between the first and second instances (which, it is worth recalling, involved governments from both sides of the political spectrum),” said Russo. To those who suggested he should start with the administrative projects that had stalled, Russo replied: “If I were standing for a seat, it might perhaps be logical for me to start from there. However, I believe my contribution must more urgently engage with the approach of a programme of collective renewal. We must build and spread social antibodies. Let’s do it together.”

In short, Russo maintains (for the time being) that he has no intention of entering politics, but politics is not the same as elections. First come the public meetings, the development of a project, the mobilisation of citizens, and the shaping of a vision for the city. And that is precisely what Russo is doing. All this raises some significant questions, particularly as Castellammare falls within the jurisdiction of the Naples Court of Appeal, where Russo carries out his judicial duties. We are therefore not dealing with a magistrate who occasionally intervenes in a town outside his professional sphere, but rather with a judge who is taking on a public role within the community falling within the jurisdiction of his own court.

It is precisely this overlap between the judiciary and politics within the same jurisdiction that the High Council of the Judiciary has repeatedly highlighted as problematic. In its resolutions on the relationship between politics and the judiciary, the CSM has emphasised the need to protect not only the effective impartiality of magistrates, but also their image of neutrality, calling on the legislator to impose limits on political participation within the territory in which judicial functions are exercised.

Russo, on the other hand, seems to have found a way to remain formally outside politics whilst still occupying the political arena. No candidacy, but ‘collective refoundation’. No electoral list, but ‘social antibodies’. No election campaign, but meetings open to the public with whom to ‘engage in politics together’.

The interesting point is that Russo clearly feels the need to emphasize that he is not engaging in politics. Yet, to explain his actions, he employs the very word ‘politics’. “I would like us to engage in politics together, in the freest and most fundamental sense of the term: to take an interest in the polis, in our city,” he writes. He then adds: “There are many, many of you, and your vote will be free and cross-party. I will not be the one to tell you who to vote for. Together, however, we will try to decide what to vote for, which city to rebuild.” It is a rather curious semantic distinction: citizens are not being asked who to vote for, but rather invited to decide together “what to vote for”, that is, to build the vision for the city that a future candidate will then have to carry forward.

Is it appropriate for an Appeal Court judge to become one of the driving forces behind a city’s political reconstruction? After all, the judge’s robes do not disappear when he leaves the courtroom. The authority of the office remains with him, and for this very reason it should not be used to build consensus, even when that consensus is presented as mere civic participation. Russo has chosen the path of political activity: is this all right by the CSM?