The Senate conundrum is sending the coalitions engaged in the electoral campaign into fibrillation. Especially the one headed by Bersani's Democratic Party, which may not be self-sufficient if it loses in some key regions (Lombardy, Veneto, Campania, Sicily, Lazio). What scenarios lie ahead in the very complicated game being played at Palazzo Madama?
“To date pollsters – replies the constitutionalist and democratic senator Stefano Ceccanti – after the partial recovery of Berlusconi and the launch of the Ingroia campaign, tend to give more probability a Senate without a self-sufficient majority of the centre-left coalition, which in 2006 instead he only managed to reach it by three votes. This is the reason why Bersani legitimately insists on the useful vote. However, unlike 2006 when almost everyone was part of only two coalitions, this time the Monti list, which is not part of it, exceeding 8% in all Regions can reach a quota of senators between 30 and 40 and therefore still guarantee governance without having to repeat the too large and heterogeneous coalition, including the PDL, which created problems for the Monti government".
FIRSTonline – Beyond the numbers?
snipers – Beyond the numbers, it still seems difficult to think of a government capable of withstanding the long-term impact of a complex legislature that does not arise with a parliamentary base of support that includes the only two serious, non-populist forces: Pd and Monti . Even in the event of a self-sufficient majority, I would avoid repeating the mistake of 2006, especially since this time there is a more viable alternative.
FIRSTonline - Going back to voting with Porcellum, have the premises been laid for a short legislature, despite the advantage of the Democratic Party in terms of seats?
Snipers – I do not wish for a short legislature. There is no deterministic effect between an ugly electoral system, the Porcellum, and the concrete outcome. I believe that a serious agreement between Pd and Monti can guarantee a long and effective legislature in terms of reforms.
FIRSTonline - But was everything possible really done to change the electoral law in time?
Snipers – I think it was necessary to tighten ranks before the final year because at the end of the term everyone calculates what they lose and what they gain without a veil of ignorance. However, the match was largely lost after the Court's ruling on the referendums which eliminated the external constraint to the reform, capable of displacing the veto powers.
FIRSTonline - Even the centre-left didn't seem particularly motivated. Why didn't we take advantage of the moment in which Berlusconi had withdrawn from politics?
Snipers – Berlusconi has never really withdrawn from politics, but only from the government. In the Senate together with the League he always had a self-sufficient majority.
FIRSTonline – Enzo Bianco had proposed an amendment to return at least to the Mattarellum. Would he have supported him?
Snipers – I presented the first proposal to the Senate to restore the Mattarellum, in any case better than the Porcellum, but the center-right is a priori opposed to the single-member constituency.
FIRSTonline – Do you think that in the next legislature it will be possible to finally put in place a new law and change the Porcellum?
Snipers – I hope so but above all I believe that this attempt should be made immediately precisely to operate under a veil of ignorance, which is the necessary condition for a reform.
FIRSTonline – What do you mean by veil of ignorance?
Snipers – Veil of ignorance means that when I make a decision I can't predict what the effects will be. I don't know, for example, if I approve of a majority system who will win the elections and be rewarded in seats. Otherwise what happens? That everything is paralyzed because whoever thinks of losing becomes a proportionalist to reduce the damage and whoever thinks of winning becomes a majoritarian because it amplifies the gains. The two thus paralyze each other. There is a need for a time space between the decision and the application which does not allow us to calculate the utilities.
FIRSTonline – The Democratic Party did not consider re-nomination and she also refused the candidacy with Monti. What plans does she have for the future?
Snipers – Fortunately, I have one certainty more than projects: we university professors are placed on mandatory leave by law from the first meeting of the Chambers until the first of the subsequent Chambers of which we are no longer part. So from March 15 I will be in my place at La Sapienza University.
FIRSTonline – So a farewell to politics?
Snipers – No and not only because the first policy is to do one's job well and, moreover, teaching comparative constitutional law means entering into the functioning of institutions. But also because, in the possible forms, I would like to continue fighting for the original project of the Democratic Party which wanted to propose new syntheses by associating in unprecedented forms the political cultures of the centre-left, both those of the left with a socialist matrix and those with a Catholic matrix, inserting elements of liberalism, of equality of opportunities, as happened above all, but not only, in the Anglo-Saxon area.
