Waging lawfare: Italian prosecutors try to imprison a democratically-elected leader

In 2019 Matteo Salvini, then Italy’s Interior Minister, blocked a boat from the pro-migrant NGO Open Arms charity from docking in Italy. Open Arms, and other similar groups, pose as rescue organisations for migrants who may be drowning at sea. This is half-true; they do indeed rescue migrants, and have rescued hundreds. But they do not bring them back to where they came from: instead, they bring them to European countries and demand docking privileges. 

Not that this stopped activists, or as the United Nations calls them, “experts.” In a blistering press statement in 2019, the “experts” urged “Italian authorities to immediately stop the criminalisation of search and rescue operations.”

In response to Salvini’s criticism of a judge for ordering the captain of the ship to be released from custody (she had been arrested by Italian authorities), those experts also lambasted him, saying that such statements by the Lega party leader  “constitute a serious breach of the principles of judicial independence and the separation of powers.”

Such a claim – that judges can never be criticised in any way or else the separation of powers has been breached – is extraordinary. But so is the core of the argument here. Most would not quibble with saving individuals from drowning. But there is no inherent need, nor right, for an NGO to bring them into countries to which they have never been. It is not “criminalisation of search and rescue operations” to expect that a boat that picks up migrants at sea returns them to their own country, or to another country.

Initially however, this was just an angry press release from “experts.” But now, it seems that some in Italy believe that such thinking should carry the force of law. Prosecutors this past week have asked for a six-year prison term for Salvini and possibly even a ban on the Lega leader holding office. In doing so, the prosecutor put forward a novel way of thinking: “Between human rights and the protection of state sovereignty, it is human rights that must prevail in our fortunately democratic system,” he said.

It is worth taking a moment to discuss this quote in full, as it highlights an increasingly disturbing pattern of thought emerging from the minds of liberal internationalists.

The prosecutor begins with the notion that “human rights” and “protection of state sovereignty” are somehow at odds. They are not. Salvini had not ordered the ship be sunk, nor did he have the ship towed back to Northern Africa. The ship could have sailed to any other nearby country – Salvini just said it simply could not land in Italy.

The argument also follows a tortured supposition: it holds that if a migrant is found in the Mediterranean Sea by an NGO – not even an Italian one, as Open Arms is Spanish – they automatically have a human right to enter Italy. How? Why?

Secondly, the prosecutor states that “it is human rights that must prevail in our fortunately democratic system.” Here too is a concerning thought process. In a democratic system, why must any particular concept of “rights” prevail? Practically all individuals who believe in democracy hope that a certain type of right prevails, but to say that democracy must start with an unchangeable progressive demand – as “human rights” is often used as code for a new progressive ideology – is to simply cast off the core of what democracy is all about.

This is all the more concerning when one considers that Salvini was democratically appointed. His party had come in second in Italy’s national elections in 2017, but it was governing in coalition with another, the 5Star movement; by 2019, his party was polling first. He is still in government now, serving in the cabinet of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, whose own party, the Brothers of Italy, is also firmly against illegal migration.

If the prosecutor would have looked at her own country’s election results, it would show two national elections in a row which were won by populist anti-illegal migrant parties (not counting EU elections, which this past year were also won by Meloni’s illegal migrant sceptics). Italy’s government now is the most anti-illegal migrant it has ever been; even centre-left leaders like Britain’s Keir Starmer are flocking to Italy to learn from how Meloni has dealt with migration.

Meloni’s people are also supporting her and Salvini’s course: polling indicates that, since the last elections in 2022, almost nothing has changed politically and that if elections were held today the coalition would receive slightly more seats than before. This is rare for Italy, which is famous for burning through governments like almost no other European country (Italy is currently on its 68th government since the end of World War II). If Meloni manages to serve out her single term in office, she would already be one of the top 10 longest-serving Italian prime ministers. If she serves two terms – a relatively normal feat in most countries – she would be the longest serving Italian prime minister since Benito Mussolini.

This is all to say that the goal of eliminating the waves of illegal migration which have washed over Italy has proven to be extremely popular in Italy’s “fortunately democratic” society. But yet unappointed prosecutors and judges are taking it upon themselves to do all they can to blunt democracy’s effect. By attempting to throw Salvini in prison for over half a decade, they are trying to chill democracy by scaring other politicians into compliance with their demands.

Liberal internationalists are losing elections all over the West. As they lose democratic power, they are increasingly turning to judicial power. Democracy is the will of the people. To say that in a democratic system one way of thinking must prevail, as the prosecutors are saying here, is to essentially endorse soft progressive authoritarianism.