Faced with a tragicomic political day like the one that took place yesterday around theitalicum, first with the replacement of 10 dissidents of the Democratic Party in the Constitutional Affairs Commission of the Chamber and then with the choice of the Aventine Hill of all the oppositions, it would be time to pierce the veils of hypocrisy and say what is really at stake. Beyond and well beyond the quibbles and quibbles on the new electoral law, it is clear that we are facing a sort of great referendum between the defense and consolidation of the Renzi government or the defeat and liquidation of his plan to modernize the country .
Faced with an epochal massacre such as that of the migrants in the Mediterranean or the great challenges for the revival of the economy and for the fight against unemployment and inequalities, it makes us smile - if it weren't terribly bleak - that the battlefield chosen by the oppositions, and in firstly from the dem minority is not that of the great issues on which the future of Italy is played out but that of the alchemy of electoral engineering.
But is there anyone who really believes that the choice between the prize to the list or to the coalition who wins the election or the dosage with the balance between chosen parliamentarians with blocked lists or with preferences can they really change the lives of Italians? Come on, people aren't so naive and the scent of instrumentality can be felt a mile away.
Each political group is naturally free to make the choices it wants but, since sooner or later it will have to account for it to the voters, it will be good to immediately bring to the fore the many doubts that wind among citizens and the questions that yesterday inevitably brings with self.
Going to the heart of the political issues and deliberately setting aside the details of the electoral reform, understandable only to the priests of the temple but indifferent to the vast majority of Italian society, the main questions raised by the moves of the opposition and the Government are more than a dozen.
Ten questions await an answer from the opposition (of which seven from the dissidence of the Democratic Party) and one, but crucial, from Prime Minister Matteo Renzi and his government. Here are which ones.
SEVEN QUESTIONS FOR THE DISSIDENTS OF THE PD
1) Let's start with the mother of all questions: since the Bersani-led Democratic Party was unable to collect 51% in the last elections, one can really ignore the issue of alliances at least on institutional reforms or it is inevitable to seek a compromise as has been done with the Italicum?
2) Given that the Italicum is not the ideal reform, even if it is indisputably better than the Porcellum because it indicates with certainty who wins and who loses and avoids mix-ups, it is better to go to the next elections with the Italicum or the Consultellum and with the consequent fractionation ultra-proportional Parliament that would make governability impossible?
3) The choice of preferences, which today is considered by the dem minority (and not only) as the guarantee of palingenesis inspired by the people, was stigmatized up to two years ago as the antechamber of all political degeneration by the same exponents who glorify it today: where is the truth?
4) Given the extreme volatility of the majority in Palazzo Madama, who can assure you that amending the Italicum again in the Chamber and sending it back to Palazzo Madama is equivalent to improving it and not instead burying it, rocking the Government and putting an end to the legislature at a turning point for the economy?
5) The majority of the Renzi-led Pd that won the primaries, won the Congress, took the party to over 40% in the European elections and won all confrontations in the leadership of the party and in parliamentary groups whether or not he has the right to assert his line on the Italicum and to demand loyalty and respect for democratic rules even from the internal minority or is the Democratic Party imagined by dissidence a babel of languages where the dictatorship of minorities prevails and no decision is ever made?
6) Is it true or not that the representatives of a party in a parliamentary commission must faithfully represent the party line unless they express themselves differently in the classroom?
7) Is it true or isn't it true that the possibility of a parliamentary group to change its representatives in a Commission, in the light of what is referred to in point 6, is not a novelty born yesterday but is explicitly provided for by the House Rules of Procedure?
THREE QUESTIONS FOR OTHER MINORITIES (Forza Italia, M5S and Civic Choice)
8) As Forza Italia will explain to its voters his sudden opposition to the Italicum, who had previously voted in the Senate on the basis of the Pact of the Nazarene between Renzi and Berlusconi and who he now renounces only because, being a minority force, he did not have - as was obvious that happened - the right of first choice on election as President of the Republic of a man esteemed by all like Sergio Mattarella? Are institutional reform choices based on content or are they variables dependent on Berlusconi's rancor and whims?
9) Civic Choice is the last voice of dissidence, but how will he explain his surprising about-face on the Italicum, previously approved in the Senate, with his permanence in the Government? Does the frantic search for visibility pass from disloyalty to the government to which it belongs?
10) The line of the 5 Star Movement is so humorous as to make it very clear why its ineffable leader is a former comedian like Beppe Grillo: but what credibility can the protest have for the replacement of Pd commissioners of a movement, like that of Grillino, which has made expulsions, unilaterally and dictatorially decided by its leader, its golden rule towards internal dissidence?
AND FINALLY A QUESTION TO RENTI
Given the foreseeable entrenchment of minorities in front of the Italicum in view of the regional elections at the end of May, wouldn't it have been wiser to postpone the final sprint on electoral reform to early June? Quickly approving an electoral reform that has been awaited for 9 years is important, but isn't the explosion of disputes within the Democratic Party a month after the vote an own goal?
