The ruling by the Court of Cagliari on the dismissal of the President of the Region Alessandra Todde has provoked the predictable reactions of the opposing fan bases when important facts, bursting into the world of politics, are stretched left or right according to affiliation, in view of the consensus dividend, even if still presumed.
This newspaper cannot avoid taking a position on such an important issue: it is a thorny issue and I feel obliged to do so myself. And this is to leave no room for doubt about the editorial line of L'Unione Sarda.
The protagonist is President Todde who has not fulfilled the obligation, given the current ruling, to appoint a proxy, open a dedicated bank account and transparently account for the expenses of her electoral campaign, won by a few votes in the spring of last year. This has led to the objections raised by the Regional Guarantee Board which, due to the contradictory and deficient answers provided, has issued the final provision transmitted to the Regional Council, competent to declare, or not, her forfeiture. The President, supported by eminent lawyers, has strenuously defended her actions in the appeal filed with the Court of Cagliari, an appeal however rejected with an exemplary sentence for calmness and clarity of exposition, precise and severe in its development, learned in doctrine and jurisprudence and implacable in its conclusions. The President has already announced an appeal and fortunately has for the moment refrained from making offensive statements towards the Judging Board, as she did instead in the Regional Council against the Control Board and its President.
The fan bases have gone wild: some, in opposition, giving support and breath to those who aspire to end the legislature and take advantage of the juicy event that weakens the political and council majority. On the reasons for the democratic wound, resulting from the fact that the President intends to react by appealing the sentence rather than taking note and resigning, considering the legislature now over, it should be noted that the high and noble reasons in defense of democracy that would be damaged hide the more prosaic, albeit legitimate, ones of taking as soon as possible the place currently occupied by others. The others, the members of the majority, on the contrary eager to complete the legislature, in turn speak of a democratic wound that would be created if the popular will were betrayed by a forfeiture provision; of non-applicability to the elected President of the rules on reporting, valid only for regional councilors; of reduction of the irregularities found to mere formal anomalies, at most punishable by a fine. Even these high and noble motivations in defense of wounded democracy conceal more practical reasons, equally legitimate, easily understood and known by almost everyone.
