The friction between the Monti government and the parties
who support it? "A suicide for the country and the Italians". The differences on article 18 of the labor market reform? "A secondary problem compared to the malfunctioning of the length of legal proceedings, which costs companies over two billion euros a year and pushes foreign investors to go elsewhere". Emma Bonino, radical senator and vice-president of the Senate whom web polls crown as one of the most popular women as a possible successor to the post-Napolitan Quirinale, is among the Italian politicians closest to the executive led by the professor, if only for the common militancy in the European Community. However, this does not keep her from severe analyzes of the political and economic situation in Italy today. And from participating, on 25 April, in the march for the amnesty organized by the Radical Party
Senator, the alleged honeymoon between Monti and his majority already seems to be on the way to sunset. In your opinion, will the technical executive make it to 2013?
If the parties really want to commit the last suicide, let them sit down. But for the country and for the Italians it would really be a disaster. We are talking about hypotheses of considerable irresponsibility, to say the least. If we look around, we think of Portugal or Spain with the risk of default, and the Italian situation is anything but rosy given the recession alarm, plus the problem of having to place quite a few bonds in the near future, well, if in this situation it occurs to someone to put an end to the life of this government - which has so far been forced to make tough and unpopular but necessary choices - and perhaps go to early elections with this electoral law, taking on a great responsibility. I can not even imagine that anyone would think of such a hypothesis.
And after 2013, what scenarios do you anticipate? A Monti bis as Casini wishes?
If we all did a little less scenarios and focused more on the problems we still face, we would really be doing the country a service.
But what if Monti were a candidate?
Monti is an Italian citizen and if he wants to participate in the elections he has all the civil and juridical rights, no more and no less like everyone else. After all, he is a senator for life and therefore he will certainly make politics.
Among the points of greatest friction between the executive and the parties is the discussion on article 18, in particular on the part concerning economic dismissals. Should the executive move forward without bowing to any changes or accepting the demands of the hawks on both sides?
I think it is a mistake to focus exclusively on article 18. Because, beyond article 18 – on which the most disparate things can be thought – for the first time in decades there is a serious intervention to counter this whole anomaly Italian, from the use of autonomous collaborations to the bizarre use of layoffs. The system certainly has some shadows, but it seems important and thick to me. We have fought hard, as Radicals, to put an end to the discrimination between guaranteed and unsecured, and to pass the principle that it was a matter of safeguarding the worker and not the job. I would not like these measures, which I consider very positively, long awaited and necessary, certainly improvable, to be thrown off because of something that in the end I consider a problem that can be solved with some tricks. In reality, the problem is not so much article 18 but the length of the legal proceedings which, if they increase following the labor reform, we would be finished.
In fact, another theme on the table is that of justice. For years, the Radicals have denounced the paralysis of our judicial system, the lack of legal certainty. But on these topics there is no trace in the debate between the parties.
I'd say that there's really no debate, not even about the meaning of punishment because in Italy the medieval idea still dominates that the function of punishment is that of social revenge and that if there's a problem of overcrowding, it's enough to build a few more prisons. We propose amnesty. Which, I stress, with the pardon are not something extravagant, but institutions provided for by the constitution. It is not just an act of clemency, and there would be nothing wrong with it because a little humanity is also good for politics, but a structural reform that even before emptying the prisons, for example of the more than 30 prisoners awaiting trial would bring the Italian State back into legality. It's not just me saying this, but leading international bodies. The European Court of Human Rights, for example, from 1959 to 2010 condemned Italy 2121 times, thus ranking it behind Turkey and before Russia. If we consider the judgments for the unreasonable length of trials, Italy leaps to first place with 1139 violations, so much so that in 2010 the Council of Europe defined the "serious danger to the rule of law" which materializes in the "denial of the rights enshrined in the European Convention".
An uncertainty of the law that also discourages the foreign investors that Monti would like to bring to our country?
If we look at the civil law, our bad justice costs businesses 2,3 billion euros a year, discouraging foreign direct investment much more than any article 18. Overall, the cost of justice in Italy exceeds 4 billion a year against 3,3 in France and 2,9 in Spain: 70 euros per inhabitant compared to 56 in France where the average duration of a civil trial is half. With these data, the "March for amnesty, justice and legality" that we organized in Rome on April 25 must mark a new liberation of a new country based on the rule of law.
What do you think of the new electoral project proposed by the Alfano, Bersani, Casini trio? Is it a restoration of proportionality as someone accuses?
More than a mere restoration, it seems to me a continuation of the party system. And, frankly, I would have to object to the method and the substance, as far as we know. The electoral reform should be the subject of a great public debate not only in Parliament but also in Rai, if only Rai wanted to fulfill its public service role for once. What do we see instead? The three party leaders who meet indoors to create something that seems above all a way to save themselves and the system of power that revolves around the party system.
On the other hand, the radicals have had clear ideas about the electoral system for some time. Above all on the rejection of a return, even a disguised one, of the proportional system.
We Radicals remain in favor of a simple and transparent system, that is to say a single-member majority law in the Anglo-Saxon style, or with a double shift in the French style, with relatively small constituencies so as not to diminish control by the citizens. Instead, wanting a demagogic cut in parliamentarians but maintaining public funding, wanting to return to proportional representation with a blocked short list and threshold, as well as even a double majority bonus but with ex ante indication of the Premier's name, is a sure recipe for a mess that risks leaving everything in the hands of an increasingly restricted oligarchy, co-opted by party leaders.
