Italy will vote on 22–23 March in a referendum on a major reform of the country’s judiciary system, a proposal that has triggered intense political debate and deep divisions within the legal profession.
The reform, promoted by the government of Giorgia Meloni, aims to change the structure of the judiciary, particularly the relationship between judges and prosecutors. Supporters say the changes are necessary to modernise the system and strengthen fairness in criminal trials, while critics warn they could weaken judicial independence.
Why the government says reform is needed
Italy’s judicial system has long been a central feature of political debate. Governments across the political spectrum have argued that trials are often too slow and that the structure of the judiciary can create conflicts within the system.
A key issue concerns the fact that judges and prosecutors belong to the same professional body and follow the same career path. Both are magistrates and can move between the two roles during their careers. The government argues this creates the risk of professional closeness between those who prosecute cases and those who rule on them.
The proposed reform would formally separate the two careers, creating distinct professional tracks for judges and prosecutors. Supporters say this would reinforce the principle that judges must be entirely independent from those bringing criminal cases.
The reform would also restructure the judiciary’s governing body, the High Council of the Judiciary (CSM), splitting it into two separate councils—one overseeing judges and another overseeing prosecutors.
Another element of the reform would introduce a new disciplinary court for magistrates and change the way members of the CSM are selected, including the use of a random draw process intended to reduce the influence of internal factions.
Government supporters say these measures are designed to increase transparency and reduce what they see as politicisation within the judiciary.
What supporters of the reform say
The “Yes” campaign argues that the reform would align Italy with other European legal systems where judges and prosecutors are institutionally separate.
Supporters also say the reform would strengthen the impartiality of trials by reinforcing the distinction between those who investigate and prosecute crimes and those who judge them.
Meloni and her allies have also framed the reform as a way to restore balance between political institutions and the judiciary. Members of the governing coalition have repeatedly accused some magistrates of using court rulings to obstruct government policy, particularly on immigration.
Supporters argue that the changes would not increase government influence over magistrates but instead reduce political pressures by changing internal power structures within the judiciary.
What opponents say about the proposed judiciary reform
Opposition parties and the main magistrates’ union, the National Magistrates Association, have strongly criticised the reform.
They argue that separating judges and prosecutors could weaken the independence of prosecutors and potentially open the door to greater political influence over criminal investigations.
Critics also oppose the proposed changes to the CSM, warning that altering the selection system could undermine the body responsible for safeguarding judicial autonomy.
Opponents say the reform risks upsetting the balance between the branches of government and could ultimately reduce the judiciary’s ability to act independently of political power.
They have also accused the government of using the reform as part of a broader political confrontation with the courts.
Possible consequences of the referendum
If the “Yes” vote prevails, the reform would lead to structural changes in the organisation of the judiciary and the governance of magistrates. It would also mark one of the most significant reforms of the Italian justice system in decades.
If voters reject the proposal, the current system will remain in place. The outcome could still have political implications for the government, which has strongly backed the reform.
Beyond the institutional changes themselves, the referendum reflects a broader debate about the role of the judiciary in Italy’s political life.
Also read: Too much rhetoric ahead of referendum
Institutional trust and the Italian context
Italy has historically had a complex relationship with its institutions. While the judiciary is often seen as a crucial safeguard against corruption and abuse of power, it has also been at the centre of major political conflicts.
Investigations during the Mani Pulite era reshaped Italian politics and led to the collapse of several major parties. Since then, disputes over the influence and independence of magistrates have remained a recurring theme. The issue became particularly prominent during the political career of Silvio Berlusconi, who repeatedly clashed with prosecutors over allegations of corruption and fraud, claiming that some investigations were politically motivated. Critics argued that the legal proceedings underscored the judiciary’s independence, while Berlusconi’s supporters saw them as evidence of judicial overreach into politics.
Italy has historically had a complex relationship with its institutions. While the judiciary is widely regarded as a safeguard against corruption and abuse of power, it has also been at the centre of major political conflicts. Public trust in political institutions often fluctuates, with confidence in parliament and parties generally lower than in other European countries.
Against this backdrop, the March referendum on judicial reform has evolved into a broader debate about the balance of power between politics and the judiciary, and about how Italy’s democratic institutions should function in the future.
