A little recalcitrant and with many doubts, but it seems that the political forces have also begun to think about electoral reform. It's already something. In fact, after the Constitutional Court (with good legal reasons) had declared inadmissible the refrendums that aimed at the "revival" of the mattarellum, the question had seemed to fade into the background. The reasoning of many was that, at this moment, there were other urgencies pressing on the country, and that the change in electoral rules was not perceived as a priority by Italian citizens.
Sound reasoning, but only up to a certain point. Of course, first came the problems of the economy, namely fiscal consolidation and growth. Issues to which the Monti government is applying itself, and with some success. But say that the restoration of democratic rules to elect our parliamentarians (so far appointed and not elected) is an issue that Italians consider second-rate and completely risky. This is demonstrated by the million signatures collected in a very short time, and under unfavorable conditions (very little information on television) by those who proposed the repeal of the so-called Porcellum. And then that of an electoral law that restores the right of choice to citizens is a democratic issue. And as such, in principle, it should never come second.
So it is good that the parties, covered for the other problems by the efficient government action, have started talking about it again. But it is well known that between saying and doing… The disputes over whether it is better to carry out the more general ones concerning the country's constitutional order before the electoral reform can therefore only produce concern. The suspicion that lurks behind this dispute over priorities a delaying tactic, could be founded. Because it is known that to make an electoral reform a simple ordinary law is enough. To change the constitutional order, constitutional laws would be needed and therefore much longer times.
It is therefore better to provide for a new electoral law as soon as possible, which restores the right of citizens to choose their own representatives in the House and Senate. Then something else can be done. Starting with the reduction in the number of parliamentarians. Naturally, in order to obtain a result favorable to the citizens, the parties will have to be able to keep their selfishness and cunning at bay. Among the many drafts that have been discussed in recent days, one of the most accredited provided that half of the parliamentarians could be chosen in single-member constituencies and half with blocked lists. In this way the Porcellum would end up being halved rather than abolished. And frankly it doesn't seem like a good idea.
There is then much discussion as to whether the constituency route or that of preferential voting should prevail. While not demonizing this second solution, which in the past has done much less damage than is attributed to it, the modestly sized constituencies would bring politics back to the territory. And this would be a positive fact, because it would shorten the distance between voters and those elected. Reasonable then to think about a barrier (5 or 6 %) to avoid fragmentation of the lists (which, as we have seen, not even the exasperated bipolarity between Berlusconi and anti-Berlusconi is enough to avoid), rather than an unreasonable maxi majority premium.
But these things will belong to the free negotiation between the parties. Who will have to find a balance solution that protects the different schools of thought, which are not lacking in electoral matters, and above all the right of citizens to be able to choose their own representatives. But it is above all essential that the parties give each other certain and close deadlines. Next time to vote again with the Porcellum, as well as being unreasonable, would be indecent.
