Dear Economist Friends, your appeal in favor of the independence of the Bank of Italy risks opening up more problems for our institutions and for our democracy than it would like to solve. In fact, your text runs the risk of further undermining the legitimacy of Parliament by putting "politics" in the pillory, which is in fact held up as a polluting element of the correct functioning of economic and civil society.
In fact, there is the risk of fueling the already lively campaign of discredit that is poured on Parliament every day by populist forces which, moreover, are completely devoid of any politically viable programme. And this would require greater attention on the part of intellectuals and authentically democratic forces.
I believe I am entitled to speak on this delicate matter as I am the only parliamentarian (and I stress the only one) who stood up, as a deputy of Civic Choice, to speak last Monday in the chamber of the Chamber against the 5 Star motion trying to contest it not so much in the method (that is, whether the presentation of a motion was to be considered admissible or irrelevant) but by contrasting the merits of many of their statements on the basis of which they asked for replacement at the top of the central bank.
What I don't agree with about your appeal are the arguments on the basis of which you actually contest the intervention of Parliament which instead, being sovereign, can decide to deal with this matter too. And this cannot in any way be classified as undue political interference, nor can it be said that in this way the independence of the Bank of Italy and its international credibility are put at risk.
Fate would have it that on the same page of Il Sole-24 Ore that, such as FIRSTonline, published your appeal, an article has appeared describing President Trump's consultations to choose the future head of the Fed, who will then have to be examined by a parliamentary committee. It is from us that the appointment of the Governor is made by whom? From politics, and indeed on various previous occasions, the political struggle has been very bitter, perhaps underground, but bitter. I only remember the last one, the one that led Visco to the position of governor. Tremonti had his own candidate, the Quirinale preferred the then general manager Saccomanni.
And between the two litigants in the end a third name popped up, that of Visco. Have these contrasts called into question the bank's autonomy or undermined its credibility with the ECB? If this were the case, this would be a formidable charge against the current governor. Instead, it would have been much more effective and above all less destructive for our already shaky institutions, if your appeal had brought some element of judgment based on the which the affirmations contained in the various motions could be refuted (incidentally, the vast majority of Parliament was in favor of a change in the leadership of the central bank, and everyone was positioning themselves to oppose the Government's decision, even in the squares).
In other words, bring some factual elements capable of demonstrating the proper functioning of the Supervision. Let me be clear, this does not mean that some political parties have messed things up and have brought our country into a situation of dangerous stagnation, including cultural stagnation. But this is contested with politics, that is with different ideas and not with the generic discredit towards the institutions. We are already very close to imploding the system. Be careful not to give further picks, even unintentionally.
