Sadly, for quite some time the main institutions in our region have been operating in conditions different from the model required by law: the Port System Authority has been under commissionership for some timeand for a long period it was even without its general secretary, the top of the Region is not in a position to operate for well-known reasons, and fortunately that our Mayor, to whom affectionate wishes for a very speedy total recovery go, in a few days he resumed leadership of the city of Genoa.
These are events that have very different causes, and therefore call for common reflection, relating to the governance of institutions, which constitutes the essence of their good functioning. Even more so in systems in which, as in Italy, the values of the rule of law are shared, it is clear that respect for these values presupposes a balance which is not only between powers, but also applies within individual institutions and that is with respect to their joints, in particular as the latter are governed by the laws that respectively concern them, and identify very delicate balances within them. These are fundamental needs, by no means ends in themselves: in fact, the good functioning of the institutional machine derives from its ability to solve problems and satisfy the needs of a public and general nature for which it is responsible, in the interests of citizens.
As a damaged vehicle is unable to complete its journey without risks or inconveniences, so an unbalanced institution will perform the tasks entrusted to it less adequately. Often, but not always (it happens for example due to the failure to appoint the constitutional judges necessary to complete the number established by our Constitution), the law provides for emergency solutions: but the latter are, in fact, such; it is therefore necessary to make use of it commensurate with strict necessity. The exercise of public functions by institutions cannot deviate from these paradigms, because we are talking about the exercise of power as framed in the context of the rules that delimit it, in accordance with the principles of democracy.
We find confirmation from another perspective, which is that, already mentioned, of the ultimate reason for which institutions exist, namely the care of the public interest. Even if we want to forget that in these years, between Pnrr and extraordinary works in the area, the workload and responsibility is and will be enormous, it is very difficult to imagine that, with respect to the care of public affairs, there can be an “ordinary” management compared to an “extraordinary” management, imagining only for the latter the need for institutions in the fullness of powers and prerogatives, while such a requirement could be waived for the former. However, since power cannot be exercised intermittently, or its exercise postponed with respect to some issues and not others, the only possible outcome of institutional dysfunctions consists in the failure or delayed satisfaction of public needs, or in forcing the balance: from an institutional twist a distortion then arises, which is almost always corrected with another distortion. But since administration is not exactly like algebra, in the end the result will not be neutral. And once we have become accustomed to “corrective distortions”, we have forgotten the legislator’s model and created a permanent imbalance, which sometimes also explains the reason why, in the general perception, there is dissatisfaction with how public affairs are managed.
With this, and still using the metaphor from earlier, we certainly do not want to assume that institutions respond to arithmetic rules, with respect to which political reasoning, the weighing of the interests at stake and even the normal dialectic between opposing parties have no place whatsoever. . But having said this, it is advisable that these elements do not become preponderant, and that with respect to them, in the end, let the general interest prevail.
— The author is a professor of European Union law at the University of Genoa
© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
