Those who organize the collection of signatures on the two referendums to abolish the current electoral system (the so-called Porcellum which does not allow voters to choose their own representatives in Parliament) are cautiously optimistic. It is possible to exceed 500 signatures, they explain, but the last two weeks will be decisive. On the one hand, the organizers cannot take the achievement of the goal for granted, because in this way they could cause a weakening of the activists' commitment, on the other, however, they must make it clear that we are not working in vain and that if someone wants to lend a hand and get on the bandwagon of possible winners, must do it now. Above all, the aim is for the Democratic Party, initially cold to the point of hostility due to the IDV initiative and a few others, to commit itself as much as possible in the last few days. Because the signatures must be collected by the 25th of this month, given that the organizers will need at least five days for the appropriate checks before handing everything over to the Cassation.
We have said of an initially cold Pd, despite the fact that authoritative leaders and reference figures such as Romano Prodi and Arturo Parisi pushed for the referendum initiative from the beginning. The rest of the leadership team did not go beyond a measured "neither help nor sabotage". This is because the Mattarellum, which, in the event of the success of the referendums, would return to being the current electoral system (at least in terms of the initiative's objectives) is not entirely convincing (the German system is better or even the French double shift) and then because the reforms it is better to do them in Parliament. Yes, but that hasn't happened, and there are already two national electoral appointments that have been regulated by the Porcellum. In short, the current Parliament is the second of nominees. And so the banquets at the Democratic Holidays began to appear and above all the mayors of the Democratic Party were in large numbers protagonists of the collection of signatures. At this point many managers (not yet the secretary) have also signed under the pressure of what is called "civil society" and which in many cases coincides with the electorate of the Democratic Party.
The result is that, over time, almost without wanting to, the Democratic Party has found itself to be decisive in reaching the goal of 500 signatures. And so in Bersani's party the idea gradually gained ground that the Mattarellum is certainly not the perfect system, that it could create some problems for the alliance with the centre, but that in the meantime it would lead to a significant and convenient result: the In order to avoid the referendum and the Mattarellum, which would force it into an alliance with Berlusconi with common candidacies in the constituencies of the North, the League would provoke a government crisis, thus bringing down Berlusconi and provoking early elections.
This is a somewhat mischievous interpretation, but not without credibility, given that it is often right to think badly. But in reality, something similar to what happened in Naples, on the occasion of the election of mayor De Magistris, occurred on the collection of signatures at the base of the Democratic Party: the Porcellum and the Parliament of the nominees are so inedible that Mattarellum is welcome back. albeit on the impetus of a referendum that Di Pietro wanted. And in any case not only the leader of the IDV, given the timely entry into the field (absit iniuria verbis) of the Prodi and the Parisi and, why not, of the Mario Segni.
The problem will rather be another. Are we sure that, once the signatures have been collected for the Cassation, the refrendum will pass the examination of the Constitutional Court? Here the doubts, brought into play by Marco Pannella who knows something about refrendary initiatives, increase. Especially among the constitutionalists. According to an investigation published by the newspaper "Europa" for Stefano Rodotà there could be "serious doubts of constitutionality. Along the same line Luciano Violante, for whom the repeal of the current system would lead to that legislative vacuum that up to now the Court has always shown it wants to avoid. Enzo Balboni is more optimistic, for whom Violante's objections are well founded, but this time the Court could also choose the path of a "more discretionary interpretation". On the other hand, the constitutionalists agree that in any case the referendum request would be "a positive push" to change the law. but this will be a matter of debate after reaching 500 signatures.
