It is completely understandable that on the eve of the tightening on the reform of the Senate, which could finally reach the examination of the hall of Palazzo Madama in the middle of the week, there is growing fibrillation, fronds and dissidences both in the centre-right and in the centre-left, both in Forza Italia and in the Democratic Party After years of inconclusive talk, it is evident that we are facing a crucial passage which, depending on the results that will be achieved, may or may not close the ominous twenty years of the Second Republic.
It will soon be seen whether Matteo Renzi's bet to pave the way for institutional reforms which, despite their inevitable imperfection and transience due to a bizarre Parliament such as the one produced by Porcellum, can mark a turning point, will succeed in becoming a reality or if particular interests that lurk on both sides will eventually prevail over the general interests of change.
The ballet that opens whenever it seems that we get to the point of institutional and electoral reforms is like the one that is repeated during the World Cup: everyone is convinced that they are the best coach on earth and everyone thinks that their reform model is the best possible. But that's fine if you're content to argue at the bar.
Politics is something else and the most basic truth that we should never forget is that the difference between preaching and politics is that the former can afford to promise the moon not being called to any verification while politics is required to produce tangible results and on this she is judged. This is why, especially in a very complicated field such as institutional reforms, the best is often the enemy of the good, because what really matters is not putting in place the theoretically best reform proposal but the one shared by the majority. If an idea of reform, even the most suggestive, is unable to garner the consent of the majority of Parliament, it is worthless and nothing remains.
Those long-time captains of the Democratic Party make us smile, in whose collection of medals there is an infinite number of defeats, who reproach the Premier for having opened a dialogue with Silvio Berlusconi (who is certainly a multi-convict but who remains the leader of Forza Italia voted by about a third of voters) forgetting that without an agreement between the Pd and Forza Italia – barring real second thoughts by the M5S – institutional and electoral reforms have no chance of being approved.
For one simple reason: because the Democratic Party, thanks to the electoral failure of its old guard, does not have 51% and does not have an absolute majority and must therefore prepare to find an agreement in Parliament with other political forces if it does not want to be condemned to immobility. Also because thinking of launching electoral reforms with majority blows without dialogue with all the political forces – as Berlusconi did with the Porcellum to boycott Romano Prodi's second victory – would only be suicidal.
All the improvement proposals of the Pact of the Nazarene, of the reform of the Senate and of the Italicum are therefore welcome, but the litmus test of their goodness is as clear as it is inescapable: are those proposals shared or not by a possible majority? If they are not, they may represent a legitimate testimony for posterity but certainly not a contribution to reform. On this both the dissidents of the Democratic Party and the anti-Berlusconi frond suffer from too many amnesias and so far have not been able to offer convincing answers, fueling the doubt that their initiatives end up objectively and beyond personal intentions to hinder if not sabotage the reforms.
A great father of the country like Bruno Visentini used to remember that a good politician must have three characteristics: 1) technical knowledge of the problems he is dealing with; 2) have very clear the priorities of his action; 3) knowing how to evaluate the effects of one's own policy in advance. Holy words: if the clear identification of priorities and the effects of each move are not the compass of those involved in institutional and electoral reforms, the risk of ending up off the road becomes higher every day.
Coming to the merits of the issues and starting the speech on the reform of the Senate, which is next on the agenda, it is more important to insist on the electivity of the senators or to take the first step to downsize the Senate and overcome the nefarious and costly perfect bicameralism which in the last twenty years has only hindered the progress of laws and reforms? This is the central point to which all the rest, however important, must be subordinated. And don't come and tell the fairy tale that, by downsizing the Senate and avoiding the direct election of its members, the democratic balance would be undermined.
As for the Italicum and the reform of the electoral law, many improvements can be suggested, also in this case, but on condition that they are shared by a large majority and that they are consistent with the objective of consolidating bipolarity, of ensuring that whoever wins the elections governs and to avoid recourse to broad agreements which, barring exceptional situations, obscure the clarity of government action. If you don't consider these three decisive points, as the grillini seem to do, you can also flex your muscles but it's just confusing.
But finally there is a question of method which concerns both the Forza Italia frondists and the dissidents of the Democratic Party. Who wouldn't like future parliamentarians to be no longer nominated by party secretariats but chosen by electoral citizens? However, it sounds grotesque that to raise the flag of preferences, until recently considered demonic, are politicians who have not been chosen by the people but from blocked price lists and from the lists drawn up by Silvio Berlusconi and the former secretary of the Democratic Party Pierluigi Bersani. All this raises an unprecedented problem of political coherence.
Every parliamentarian has every right to fight his battles, but up to what point? When it comes to the point, the idea of a single parliamentarian matters more, even if he does not have the comfort of the electorate who did not choose him but suffered him, or the respect of the majority of the party to which he refers and with which it seems obvious to have to find a synthesis? Put in other words: does Renzi, who swept the primaries of his party even before the European elections, have the right or not to express the political line supported by so many militants and citizens who ask him for reforms or not? And in a democracy does he count more the will to renew millions of citizens or the eccentricities of a Corradino Mineo or an Augusto Minzolini?
An iota of wisdom would be enough to answer, knowing that pluralism, even within a party, is sacrosanct as long as it does not lead to a rambling anarchy or the dictatorship of minorities which are always the antechamber of inaction and inconclusiveness. One thing is certain: if Renzi does not win the reforms, which is the corporate name of his government, it will be inevitable that the country will end up on the inclined plane of early elections, because the comparison of ideas is always useful but in the end we must decide and revolutionize today Italy is an obligation that can no longer be postponed.
