OPINION How the reform of magistrates pensions became an exercise in political image

The reform of magistrates' pensions brings to the fore a paradox that the Romanian political scene seems to cultivate consistently: the very ones who contributed, through years of legislative amendments, to the weakening of the judicial system, are today the ones who assume the role of reformers concerned with sustainability and equity. With an unexpected concern for budgetary balance, the same political actors are looking for constitutional formulas to reduce pensions and increase the retirement age, while easily overlooking the points of view expressed by prosecutors and judges. Despite strong criticism, the Government is moving forward with the project currently under public debate, which provides for the retirement of magistrates at the standard age in the public system, the establishment of a minimum seniority of 35 years and the capping of the pension at 70% of the last net income, with the exception of judges of the Constitutional Court.

Military Prosecutor Bogdan Pîrlog, representative of the Justice Initiative Association, criticized yesterday, after the meeting of the magistrates' representatives with Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan, the Government's legislative project: "Discussing the substance now, the proposed project solves absolutely nothing, it is, after all, a diversion, an eyewash, to show public opinion that something is being done. In reality, the social costs of the imbalances in the judicial system and those that will be caused in this way will also be borne by the population and will be immeasurably greater."

Before the dialogue with the Chief Executive, Mr. Pîrlog stated that the weakening of the judiciary did not happen by chance: "The trans-party and trans-institutional interest groups that have almost completely captured the state had only one fear, the judiciary. And for over a decade they have acted increasingly in concert and concentrated to functionally destroy it and transform it into a sinecure for clients incapable of ensuring their existence on the free market, in a meritocratic system. Unfortunately, without the complicity of some elements within the judicial system, these "criminal" actions would not have succeeded in their long-term effects on society and the rule of law."

In a way, the logic is impeccable: after a mechanism has been weakened step by step, it can be argued that a radical reform is needed to put it back into operation. Bogdan Pîrlog also described how this process was possible: "After doing everything they could in legislative matters to thwart justice, they turned to the axe handles within the system, that mixed category of "scoundrels' and "useful idiots'. Jurisprudence changed overnight. White became black and black became white. The political appointments to most of the major positions in the prosecutor's office of controlled characters who lacked a minimum of professional and human value, in contrast to the support and encouragement of the creation and development of an internal control system in the courts, have deepened the gap even further and have contributed significantly to the increasingly poor functioning of the judicial system.”

That the Government's proposals coincide with a lack of receptivity to the arguments of the professional body is a detail that does not change the impression of determination. For Bogdan Pîrlog, these measures represent only an illusion of reform, while the real problems of justice - political dependence, lack of meritocracy and institutional capture - remain unresolved and condemn the system to a prolonged crisis.

And for public opinion, the show may seem convincing: the same people who weakened the system now present themselves as its saviors, trying to demonstrate that in politics, just like in theater, sometimes the cast is repeated, but the roles are played with a different text.