In a year the number will be round: 80 anniversaries. It was the 2 June 1946 when the vote of the Italian people in favor of the Republic – for the first time women spoke out – crowned the struggle for liberation from Nazism and fascism and was the premise of the Constitution. That date has become our Republic Day. What does June 2nd mean today, between principles of freedom, democracy and solidarity in the current life and reforms plus referendums on the doorstep, he talks about it in an interview with FIRST online the professor Stephen Ceccanti, constitutionalist, former member of parliament and professor of public law at La Sapienza University of Rome.
Just yesterday, on the eve of today's anniversary, the Head of State, Sergio Mattarella, wanted to recall that "the task of concretely implementing the constitutional ideals, of making them alive in society as a constant inspiring criterion of choices, is a mission that is never exhausted, entrusted every day first and foremost to the care of those who, with dedication and competence, lend their work in the institutions and in civil society. The Constitution, in fact, entrusts each citizen with the responsibility of contributing to the social cohesion of the country. In the various areas of action, the commitment to ensure effective fullness of rights, with efficient services, legality and security intervenes".
However, the risk of authoritarian involution in Italy has been denounced by many parties and for a long time.
Professor Ceccanti, Which principles of our Constitution still find space in this anniversary and which are the parts of the Charter that deserve an update?
"I do not subscribe to a line of anxious constitutionalism that describes the classic problems we suffer from, and the new ones that may derive from wrong choices of the current Government, such as the fall from a golden age that would be behind us. The principles of the Constitution, those of the first articles of our Constitution, recently integrated by the explicitation of the right to the environment, are widely rooted in Italian society. The problems do not reside at all in a presumed lack of rooting of the principles but in the search for new tools and new mediations to make them live effectively".
Security decree, attacks on the judiciary, freedom of the media: the right-wing government seems rather uncomfortable with democracy. How healthy is the rule of law in Italy?
“I think we should keep two issues in mind. The first is the difference between wrong laws and unconstitutional laws. Personally, from the point of view of political direction, I do not agree with almost anything of the choices of the current government majority, but the fact that I do not agree with them, that depending on the case I consider them wrong or even extremely wrong, does not mean that they are automatically unconstitutional. Often they are wrong choices that however reflect choices that are themselves wrong: for example, the dependence of public information on governments pro tempore it is real, but it is not born today. It has had only rare exceptions. Second issue: the rule of law in our legal systems is guaranteed by three key elements that still play a beneficial role. Namely: a Constitutional Court of absolute independence, an authoritative Presidency of the Republic, membership of the European Union. These are permanent elements of our legal system that perform their function very well”.
On the subject of the judiciary: is the separation of careers a good thing, a bad thing or a constitutional necessity?
"The separation of careers in itself certainly cannot be demonized. It is not excluded by the current Constitution, so much so that we were able to hold two abrogative referendums on ordinary laws that went in that direction, and in any case on the level of ordinary legislation we went in that direction anyway, reducing the passages from one function to another to just one. The debate has been open especially since, in 1999, a constitutional revision inserted the principle of the "third judge" in article 111, which has the most natural consequence of separation. Having said this on SE, the crucial problem is the HOW. It is not clear why this choice should be linked to forms of irresponsible drawing of lots that would weaken the representative capacity of the Superior Councils of the Judiciary. The criticisms are very fair if they hit the HOW, not the SE".
Some say that, after the results of the “extralarge” Genoese pact that (re)brought the center-left to victory in the Ligurian capital and Silvia Salis to be elected new mayor, it is likely that Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni will want to accelerate the reform of the electoral law, in view of the 2027 general elections, since – numbers in hand – the opposition manages to become competitive with the center-right if and when it gets together. Professor Fulco Lanchester called it “compulsive electoral hyperkineticism”, that is, tactics dictated by the moment. What name do you give it?
"I would reverse the problem. Can we leave the electoral law as it is? Obviously not because it is widely criticized both in terms of the precise identification of candidates (the lists are blocked and the constituencies are too large) and in terms of direct legitimacy of the Government, which must be more clearly present to make the citizen the arbiter of the Government's choice. At this point, a table would be needed to try to approve a law in a shared manner as happened with the Mattarella law, with the law on mayors in 1993 and with the regional law in 1995. Only if this attempt failed, could the majority approve it alone. Here, however, I fear that once again they want to approve it by the majority alone, a legitimate choice but radically inappropriate because it inevitably contributes to that hyperkineticism that Professor Lanchester speaks of."
More electoral reform. A series of projections seems to have created alarm in the center-right according to which, with the current system, the majority would suffer in the single-member constituencies of the South: and this would be the first aspect to touch on. But among the hypotheses that are circulating most insistently are: a proportional system with a majority bonus of 15% once the threshold of 40% is exceeded (there is also talk of 42%, and in the center-left 45% could find consensus), a blocked leader and preferences on the rest of the list. What do you think?
"The best method to facilitate both the choice of candidates and the direct legitimacy of the Government is to use single-member majoritarian constituencies, better if with a two-round system, when - as in our case - we start from a high level of fragmentation. If all parliamentarians are elected in constituencies (even better if the 600 elected are brought together in a single political chamber), a true relationship between the elected and the elector is guaranteed and the majoritarian logic is more natural. The creation of a majority is not assured, but it is strongly encouraged".
Reward Systems: Thumbs Up or Down?
“It is not constitutionally prohibited – the Court has already said so – to also resort to bonus systems that give a majority in seats to those who have already reached 40 percent of the votes. Here there would be the advantage of the guarantee of the majority, but there are various problems and contraindications. If there are two Chambers, how do you regulate the possibility of different majorities? What to do if 40 percent is not reached? How to choose individual parliamentarians, given that preferences would make them compete in very large constituencies? If you block the top candidates and leave the others to compete for preferences, in small and medium-sized parties only the top candidates would pass, in large parties also those elected with preferences. A contradiction of no small importance. I do not believe it to be such as to determine unconstitutionality, but the costs would be greater than the advantages compared to the alternative of single-member constituencies with a two-round vote”.
And what if doubts of constitutionality arise?
“If there are any constitutional concerns, we know that the Court accepts cases before election laws are implemented, and this is an important element of our rule of law that should serve as a deterrent.”
After the rejection – by the Constitutional Court – of a fundamental part of the reform on differentiated autonomy (a qualifying point of the government program), in February the new judges of the Consulta were elected. Among them, the former legal advisor to Prime Minister Meloni (on the FdI quota), also considered the “father” of the premiership. Is it reasonable or senseless to fear the hands of the right on a body that is the guardian of our Constitution?
"The fears about the loss of independence of the Constitutional Court have always been unfounded. There are 15 judges, they come from three different sources of legitimacy (Head of State, magistrates, three-fifths of Parliament). The current majority has been able to propose only 2 judges out of 4 and all were elected with the consent of the other party, as could be expected. We must not fall into the anxiety-inducing constitutionalism that sees dangers even where there are none".
On June 2, 1946, Italy – for the first time with universal suffrage – chose to abandon the monarchy. And it did so with a historic consultation. This year, six days after that anniversary, the country is called to express itself on work and citizenship with the referendum of 8-9 June. The theme of abstention dominates, with the debate on reaching the quorum. Do you think that giving up an instrument of “direct democracy” such as the referendum means giving up the Charter?
“The institution needs to be rethought by increasing the signatures to 800 thousand and lowering the quorum: otherwise it is scarcely usable in an era of high structural abstentionism”.
Five questions. How many Yes and how many No?
"In this specific case, the four questions on work are difficult to understand not only from a technical but also a political point of view because they are not the classic proposals that the opposition groups that lost in Parliament want to bring forward to demonstrate that they are the majority in the country, but they are an attack that a part of the opposition makes on laws approved by the center-left government. The question on citizenship is a different story, however, as it attacks an outdated law, truly from another century. For this reason, I will vote a convinced Yes only to this last question and I invite, together with the members of the reformist association Libertà Eguale, to evaluate case by case whether to vote No or reject the ballot paper on the 4 questions on work".
