Addio, Rule of Law?

Fears are spreading that Italy, too, could also be becoming a member of the membership of EU Member States nicknamed as “dismantlers”: nations whose governments are taking measures to undermine the rule of legislation. As a matter of truth, current developments in Italy lay naked a set of putting up with constitutional tensions: the problem of safeguarding media freedom and basic rights amid the securitarian shift of a right-wing authorities dedicated to strengthening nationwide safety and the trouble to reform felony justice with out narrowing civic house. All of that is unfolding towards the backdrop of a still-pending constitutional reform that, although at the moment on stand-by, continues to forged a shadow over institutional balances, notably in gentle of ongoing debates on a doable change of the electoral legislation.

On this publish, I’ll focus on three episodes which might be triggering a harsh debate amongst constitutional scholarship. First, allegations that anti-mafia prosecutors had surveilled authorities officers in what has been dubbed the “Striano gate”; second, counter-allegations that the federal government had spied on journalists and activists within the so-called “Paragon affair”; and to high it off, the enactment of a Safety Decree by way of an unorthodox (but fairly widespread) legislative method.

Whereas the actors concerned usually are not the identical in every story, the constitutional stakes are analogous: the right use of coercive powers in a democracy and the standard dichotomy between freedom and state authority. So, in any case, are we witnessing early indicators of democratic regression?

The suspicion recreation

The “Striano gate”, sparked in early 2024, revealed a troubling case of unauthorised surveillance, certified by some as political espionage, by others dismissed as irrelevant. On the centre of the scandal is a Lieutenant of the Finance Police (Guardia di Finanza) who allegedly accessed lots of of confidential information information from anti-mafia prosecutors’ databases with out prior green-light. Lots of them had been leaked to journalists, thus elevating severe issues concerning the misuse of delicate data belonging to individuals in outstanding political positions (together with members of the federal government).

In response to the scandal, Italian authorities have initiated investigations, now beneath the jurisdiction of the Rome Prosecutor’s Workplace for a second evaluate. The affair has additionally triggered mounting tensions, notably inside the Italian Parliament’s Anti-Mafia Committee, the place a conflict-of-interest polemic has emerged. Though the case remains to be open, it has reignited long-standing issues concerning the politicisation of the judiciary and judicial overreach in Italy. The try and orient political processes, mirrored within the up to date tendency to a “authorities of the judges”, is a part of a wider debate unfolding in lots of nations, reminiscent of – lately – in France, with the authorized proceedings involving Marine Le Pen (Aynès, 2025).

The Paragon affairs

The second scandal was uncovered by The Guardian, that includes interviews with some Italian journalists and NGO activists sustaining {that a} software program developed by Paragon Options, an organization based by former Prime Minister Ehud Barak (Haaretz), was spying on their telephones and that this firm had a contractual relationship with the Italian authorities. The victims acquired a WhatsApp alert about potential spy ware intrusion, and the director of an internet media outlet (Fanpage) claimed that he was being hacked due to his essential stance towards the Italian Authorities and that, understanding this, the corporate had instantly terminated its contract with the Italian authorities on moral grounds. In response, the Authorities issued a press notice, reminding that journalists are legally protected against intelligence surveillance beneath Regulation No. 124 of 2007. The federal government additionally acknowledged that seven Italian cell gadgets appeared to have been contaminated and introduced it had activated COPASIR, the Parliamentary Committee overseeing intelligence companies, to analyze additional.

Nonetheless, the image turns into much more disconcerting when one connects the dots between the stress on journalists, the allegations of surveillance towards the federal government, and a algorithm lately accredited by the chief.

The “Safety Decree” on a tightrope?

The “Safety Decree”, or Decree-Regulation No. 48, enacted on 11 April 2025 by the federal government encompasses a broad set of measures on public safety, aiming at combating terrorism and arranged crime (Half I), addressing city safety points (Half II), defending legislation enforcement personnel (Half III), supporting victims of usury (Half IV), and reforming the penitentiary system (Half V).

Criticism over it issues many provisions. The decree units or will increase sanctions for a variety of offences, together with, however not restricted to, the act of blocking streets, notably when carried out by a bunch. It punishes riots occurring inside prisons and migrant detention centres (Centri di permanenza per il rimpatrio, or CPRs). It additionally offers for arrest in case of begging (accattonaggio) and for people committing crimes in public transportation hubs.

Some provisions, suspected of being unconstitutional, had been both repealed or considerably watered down, as a consequence of a number of remarks by the President of the Republic forward of issuance. For example, the preliminary model of Article 31 imposed an obligation to cooperate with nationwide intelligence companies on all public administrations, together with publicly owned and publicly managed firms. This ostensibly comprised universities and the general public service media, so critics argued that the supply posed a threat of stifling freedom of knowledge and tutorial freedom. The article, a considerably lengthy and slightly obscure one because it depends closely on a number of legislative cross-references, comprises a number of norms for empowering the exercise of secret companies, however the criticised “obligation to cooperate” has been repealed from the model in pressure. Regardless of this and different last-minute adjustments, dissent on the remainder of the decree stays sturdy.

Particularly, 257 Italian authorized students, together with outstanding figures reminiscent of former Presidents and Vice Presidents of the Constitutional Courtroom, printed an open letter expressing deep concern about what they characterised as an authoritarian and repressive flip within the Italian legislative agenda. Apparently sufficient, the letter was not disseminated by means of tutorial channels or institutional fora, nor was it mentioned in seminars, however by way of a well-liked media outlet recognized for its anti-establishment editorial line and constant criticism of right-wing governments, Il Fatto Quotidiano. There, the attraction framed the decree as a prioritisation of state authority over particular person freedoms and basic rights.

The signatories argue that the decree is affected by two major deficiencies. First, on procedural grounds, it represents a “humiliation” of the Parliament. The decree was issued by the Authorities whereas the identical textual content was already beneath dialogue in its second studying on the Senate, elevating severe questions of compliance with Article 77 of the Structure, which permits for decree-laws solely in “extraordinary instances of necessity and urgency”.

Second, on substance, the signatories argue that the decree embodies a broader political technique of governing by means of concern, slightly than following democratic and constitutional ideas, as evidenced by the “unreasonable qualitative and quantitative enhance in felony penalties”.

A extra restrained however nonetheless essential debate has additionally emerged inside the Italian Affiliation of Constitutionalists (AIC), which, on a periodic foundation, fosters debate on a topical concern of related constitutional curiosity. In its 04/2025 concern of Lettera AIC, Balduzzi opened the dialogue sharing his impression that the decree marks “the autumn level of historical and decisive points for our type of authorities and our type of state,” cautioning that such emergency decrees should stay the exception to parliamentary laws and that this use of legislative energy shall usually be suspected. Cardone identified the distorting results of overusing decree-laws, together with inside incoherence and the erosion of parliamentary sovereignty: for him, the Safety Decree is a patchy assortment of disparate topic issues. Others, like Camerlengo, warned that the decree indicators a shift from viewing “safety as a method” to understanding “order as an finish in itself.”

A tricky nut to crack

The mentioned episodes of alleged political and journalistic espionage in Italy, although nonetheless beneath judicial investigation, are undoubtedly trigger for concern. Nonetheless, from a constitutional perspective, it’s prudent to undertake a place of analytical warning and chorus from untimely judgments about doable systemic implications. Extra worrisome, within the brief time period, is the normative content material of the Safety Decree, which impacts a spread of basic rights, together with freedom of expression, freedom of meeting, and the best to peacefully protest. The securitarian flip of the Meloni authorities was evident from the very starting of its mandate, as signalled by its first main legislative act: Decree-Regulation No. 162/2022 (Decreto Rave), later transformed into legislation, which aimed on the prevention and suppression of unlawful gatherings and events on deserted properties. It’s value noting that this legislative trajectory responds to a robust political demand among the many governing coalition’s voters, formed by public notion of city insecurity and rising crime charges.

As for the Safety Decree, the legislative course of was rushed however its path remained firmly inside the boundaries of present institutional (mal)practices. Whereas procedural shortcuts do elevate authentic issues concerning the separation of powers, a difficulty rightly famous within the above-mentioned AIC Letters, it stays the case that Parliament retains the ultimate say on emergency laws. Beneath Article 77 of the Structure, decree-laws are legitimate solely briefly: the federal government should submit them to Parliament on the day of enactment, and Parliament has 60 days to transform them into legislation, amend them, reject them, or permit them to run out.

Furthermore, the usage of decree-laws should be evaluated in a historic context. Since at the least the Eighties, Italian executives have routinely relied on emergency laws to advance their political agendas (Cassese, 2021). Govt predominance within the legislative course of has been a structural characteristic of the Italian system and is way from distinctive to Italy. Comparative information confirms this pattern throughout parliamentary democracies: government-initiated legal guidelines account for 80.4% of laws in Germany, 84% in the UK, and 96% in Spain. Even in France, the place parliamentary energy has lately resurged, government-initiated laws nonetheless accounts for 52% of legal guidelines (Rapporto sulla legislazione, 2025).

Against this, when put next with the distinctive legislative dynamics of the COVID-19 disaster, present tendencies recommend a relative normalisation of govt–legislative relations in Italy (Longo, 2021). “Normalisation” doesn’t equate “equilibrium”: the (im)steadiness between the chief and the legislative stays formed by structurally “artistic” practices that usually permit the chief to avoid or dominate parliamentary procedures. A notable instance is the proliferation of so-called Decreti Minotauro, a observe whereby a number of decree-laws are repealed and their content material folded into amendments to a single conversion invoice already beneath examination. This and different legislative stratagems have the impact of sidelining Parliament and diminishing its deliberative capability, as argued by Losana (2024).

A cautious evaluation

So, is Italy experiencing a democratic regression? This isn’t the perfect discussion board during which to supply a definitive reply, one which requires greater than instinct or notion. As an alternative, it calls for cautious analysis grounded in measurable indicators and comparative benchmarks and, on this regard, the forthcoming 2025 Rule of Regulation Report by the European Fee is a instrument that will provide precious insights (Citino, 2024). Furthermore, any evaluation should situate current episodes inside the broader context of the Italian constitutional system and the enduring robustness of its institutional guardrails. These embody the moderating function of the President of the Republic and the pivotal half performed by the Constitutional Courtroom, the resilience of parliamentary debate, weakened in its legislative perform however, extra realistically, leaning in direction of new types of parliamentary oversight of the chief (Griglio, 2020). Lastly, the precious function of civic mobilisation in Italy should be recalled, accomplished by a vibrant media setting which serves as a democratic watchdog (however see dangers of politicisation of public media service right here).

One closing consideration is value noting. Italy’s political polarisation will not be in itself proof of institutional breakdown; slightly, it’s the consequence of the rise of populist dynamics spreading throughout Europe and past. Within the Italian context, such polarisation is additional formed by the nation’s distinctive political tradition, specifically, the intrinsic heterogeneity (and riotism) of its governing coalitions. This may be exemplified by a better take a look at the composition of the Conte governments, which spanned dramatically completely different coalitions from the populist alliance between the 5 Star Motion and the League (Conte I) to a centre-left coalition together with the Democratic Get together (Conte II). Not like extra inflexible coalition techniques (e.g., in Germany, the place agreements are likely to mute inside dissent), Italian majorities are, due to this fact, usually characterised by inside negotiation, rigidity, and even open disagreement. Removed from signalling dysfunction, this characteristic displays an everlasting, even when at instances unruly, type of intra-coalitional dialogue and democratic contestation. It’s exactly this tradition of ongoing negotiation that distinguishes Italian parliamentary democracy and complicates exterior efforts to interpret it by means of standard fashions of institutional stability.