Andrei Pleșu, Dilema.ro: The Servitude of Justice – a Fatality?

I rediscover, amazed, an article written in May 2004, on a topic fiercely debated here for several months: the theme of Justice. We are thus faced with yet another proof that, in our small country, "the current situation" tends to be an "old illness," even if the "context" sometimes seems changed. By rereading the text below, we may find, perhaps, in our "democratic" fatigue, the need and energy for a renewal.

The newspapers report a disturbing statement from Mr. Scheele, head of the European Commission Delegation in Bucharest: a preliminary study conducted by the Ministry of Justice shows that 81% of Romanian judges consider the independence of the judicial system to be illusory. My first reaction is rather positive: first of all, the ministry's decision to conduct a study on this topic seems intelligent and honest to me. The second good news would be transparency: the result of the study is serious, but it is, nonetheless, made public. The third good news is that 81% of judges have a critical opinion about the system in which they work. And if they have a critical opinion, it means they are brave and lucid people. But after this initial burst of good mood, I had to realize that the situation tends to logically collapse. It’s one of two things: if 81% of judges correctly diagnose the crisis, then things are not yet dramatic, and the whole problem reduces to the remaining 19% who, precisely because they are subservient, hypocritically proclaim their independence. However, if the 81% also feel subservient, then it is not clear what constitutes their "independence" in judgment. You wonder, in other words, why the clear awareness of subservience does not spontaneously become the premise of an action for liberation. An external analyst can coldly say that Justice is failing. But it is strange that the majority of those who embody the system complain about the system they embody. The system is them! Taxi users can declare, for example, that 81% of taxi drivers are drunk. But it would be ridiculous for taxi drivers themselves to denounce the fact that they are, in a proportion of 81%, drunk, as if drunkenness were a fatality, a microbe mysteriously inoculated into the profession by insidious foreign forces. You cannot complain that you are sleepless while simultaneously refusing to go to bed. Yet, that is exactly how the "self-criticism" of judges appears. They behave as if they were outside their own community, capable of clinically analyzing it, without reservations, but at the same time, unable to reform it. Under dictatorship, judges could not be independent because dictatorship does not allow the independence of any institution. But now? Now, some say, it is the legislation's fault – legislation that does not protect the independence of the judge. It does not protect it, but it does not prohibit it either! What prevents today’s judge from behaving correctly, in strict obedience to the laws, free from any external interference? The answer can only be melancholic: it is his lack of courage, his vulnerability to political pressures, careerism, moral inconsistency, lack of energy, the pallor of the judicial vocation, in a word, his own weaknesses and resignations. No lamentation about the "objective limits" of independence is convincing. Phrases like: "What can we do?" or "If we abuse our independence, we lose our position, salary, chances of promotion" etc. demonstrate precisely the mediocrity of the justifications, the low price at which those involved self-evaluate. More verticality, a more intense and sharper spirit of the body, the systematic refusal of any concessions would be sufficient conditions for improving the situation. If the 81% who note their pathetic subordination to an illegitimate political bureaucracy were to decide to adopt, starting tomorrow, the conduct of free and responsible people, if, starting tomorrow, the professionals in the field would defy the impure interference and the audacity of the powerful, domestic Justice would gain the strength and prestige of a true institution. In any case, it will not be able to play indefinitely the role of the innocent victim, the wronged virgin, whom no one understands, defends, or loves.

Beyond all the circumstantial bitterness, I am optimistic. In the few circumstances in which I have been dragged through the courts, I was pleasantly surprised to see how many young judges there are. I place my last resources of hope in them. Youth does not fit at all with prudent obedience nor with petty and self-interested calculation.

https://www.dilema.ro/situatiunea/aservirea-justitiei-o-fatalitate