The tones are serene and the signatures authoritative (from Casavola to Zagrebelsky, from Valerio Onida to Franco Gallo, from Cheli to Flick) but the critical document on the reform of the Constitution and Title V signed by 56 constitutionalists and jurists, which anticipates the No to referendum in October, does not erase the disappointment at the lack of response from so many illustrious scholars to what is and will be the real question at the center of the autumn consultation, namely: the recent reform of the Constitution, albeit with all the limitations due to the political balance than a bizarre tripolar Parliament, is it better or worse than the status quo?
As Professor Roberto D'Alimonte, who is one of the leading experts on electoral systems, wrote in "Il Sole 24 Ore" last Saturday, "there are no perfect reforms" and the evaluation criterion that is inspired by ideal models is completely inadequate , not only because everyone has their own model but because they do not take into account the limits set by the political context and tend to overestimate the critical rather than the positive aspects of the reform. But drawing inspiration from abstract ideal models of constitutional reform is also misleading for another reason, which seems to escape the document of the 56 constitutionalists and jurists and which instead makes the difference between a purely academic discussion and a highly significant act such as the new Constitution, namely that concrete results count in politics, which in turn depend on the ability to gather a majority around them, without which even the best intentions remain just a dead letter. This is why the best is often the enemy of the good and why, especially in this Parliament, the real alternative is between dreaming of reforms without being able to carry them out or really making possible reforms, even if not perfect but always perfectible in a different and future political context. The ABC of politics says so.
It will also be true that, as the 56 constitutional critics say, the Senate that emerges from the reform is weak, that regionalism becomes less autonomous and that the problem of the costs of representation is not everything, but having reduced the useless overlaps between the Chamber and the Senate by filing equal bicameralism, having accelerated and simplified the decision-making process of Parliament, having brought powers of national significance back to the center such as those on energy policy and having reduced the costs of politics (no direct elections and no allowances for regional councilors) are the fruits of a good choice or not? Certainly yes, argues D'Alimonte, who wisely argues that "the reform is a step forward for the Italian system". Just as good choices are, despite the incomprehensible dissent of the 56 constitutionalists, the abolition of the Provinces and that of a now useless body like the Cnel.
Everyone can have the ideas he wants on the constitutional reform (and luckily the 56 signatories agree at least on the fact that it is not the antechamber of a new authoritarianism), but woe to lose sight of the real central question of the forthcoming referendum: better this reform or the conservation of the existing? This is the real question of the forthcoming consultation and this is the question to which, net of biased exploitation, every serious innovator can only answer with a clear YES to the referendum confirmation of the reform.
