Roberto D'Alimonte, a Florentine political scientist who teaches at Luiss, a scholar in particular of electoral systems, knows well that when a party capable of proposing a realistic vision to lead the country out of the economic and social stalemate in which it has been found for many years, the electoral system, alone, cannot change our fate. Yet for some months there has been talk of modifying the current system – the Rosatellum – which provides for a quota of single-member constituencies, in a proportional system with a bonus for the coalition that receives the most votes.
Professor D'Alimonte, where are we with the discussion on the new electoral system? Let's take a look before considering the consequences of Vannacci's split from the League and the results of the referendum on justice, which could change the parties' opinions on various points of the electoral law.
It must be considered that the majority's renewed focus on the electoral law stems from the realization that the consolidation of the so-called broad left would jeopardize many single-member constituencies, especially in the South, which had been won in previous elections by the center-right because the Democratic Party and the Five Star Movement had run divided. If many of these constituencies were in the balance, there would be a risk that neither coalition would have a majority in both chambers, and consequently a government would be impossible. Therefore, in the name of ensuring government stability (which, as we say, is necessary to improve our economy, but is not sufficient on its own), the idea of abolishing single-member constituencies and moving to a proportional system with a majority bonus for the winning coalition was born. The parties are therefore induced to make agreements before the elections in order to secure the majority bonus and to bind themselves for the subsequent government. It is worth remembering that this system is not new to our country, as it is more or less in place in many local authorities where, overall, it seems to ensure government stability.
From what has emerged so far, it seems that there are still many open issues, both among the majority parties and between them and the opposition forces, which should be fully involved when institutional arrangements are decided.
Indeed, the discussions, even before the Vannacci split and the referendum, had left several issues unresolved, starting with the minimum threshold required to qualify for the bonus. The Constitutional Court was called into question after Bersani's Democratic Party (PD) won 54% of the seats with 29% of the vote in 2013, a gift that was too large. The Court made it clear that a minimum threshold of 40% was needed to trigger the bonus, and therefore proponents should decide at what level to set this threshold and link the size of the bonus to it, which typically hovers around 54-55% of parliamentary seats. Then the threshold for individual parties to enter Parliament needs to be established. And here too, it's a question of whether they should stay low or aim for 5%, as in Germany.
What would happen if no coalition reached the minimum threshold to trigger the bonus?
In this case, which is considered unlikely according to the polls, in my opinion, a runoff election should be held between the two leading coalitions, at which point there would be a clear winner. But this solution isn't popular with everyone, especially right-wing parties, and so there would be a return to proportional representation, with the government emerging from agreements between the parties to be reached in Parliament—a sort of German system, which, however, according to current polls, would make forming a government extremely difficult.
However, this would favor the reduction of the extreme wings by eliminating parties in both coalitions whose foreign policy positions are incompatible with the country's traditions. I'm thinking of the League and the Five Star Movement, which are pro-Putin and anti-Europe and would represent a serious obstacle for any winning coalition. In short, parliamentary stability would correspond to real political stability in a government that would have to address many of the structural issues that are blocking our country's growth potential.
If we look at the polls, it's clear that there's currently no chance of forming governments with solid majorities without right- and left-wing coalitions in both coalitions. Unless we do as in Germany, where Christian Democrats and Social Democrats are in government together. But we're not Germany. But to complete the list of open issues in the current discussions on electoral reform, we should decide whether to introduce preferences, which is certainly important for attracting some abstentions to the polls. And last but not least, we should decide whether to put the name of the prime ministerial candidate on the coalition ballot. Giorgia Meloni would be in favor of it, but the others believe that her party would have too great an advantage that way.
It seems we're still far from finding a solution. And then there's the current political situation, which is raising further uncertainties. On the one hand, deciding whether Vannacci's new party would join the right-wing coalition or not, while on the other, there's the uncertainty of the referendum's political consequences. If the "Yes" vote wins, in your opinion, would Meloni try to expedite the process of holding general elections?
I would rule out Meloni calling for early elections, both because I don't believe she would make the same mistake as Salvini with his Papeete proclamation, and because President Mattarella wouldn't grant them. As for Vannacci, we'll see over time whether the 3% polls currently assign him will hold up over time. The track record of far-right parties isn't encouraging: they've all failed at the polls.
In her opinion, after an electoral campaign that appears to be really over the top from both sides, who will ultimately prevail in the referendum, even considering that the percentage of those who will go to vote will not be very high??
"The polls on the referendum are varied and not very reliable. I believe the 'Yes' vote will ultimately win because voters' distrust of the judiciary is very strong today, and this appears to be a step that is certainly not decisive, but it will reduce the influence of political factions within the judiciary."
It's clear that both our political and economic systems appear bogged down and are causing great dissatisfaction among the population, who not only don't vote but, when they do, display a mobility unseen in the First Republic. First there was Berlusconi, then Grillo, then Salvini. Most recently, Meloni. In theory, therefore, it would be possible for a strong central coalition to emerge, capable of marginalizing right- and left-wing extremists and launching a truly reformist project to lift the country out of its rut.
In theory, it would be possible to break away from heterogeneous coalitions divided on fundamental issues like foreign policy, but it would require new, charismatic figures capable of capturing the widespread dissatisfaction and strong desire for change among our voters, even if few know which direction they should take. Calenda is positioned in the liberal and reformist center, but he lacks the credibility needed to change the political system. He could play an important role, but he will be called upon to make very difficult decisions that he cannot fail to make, lest he repeat the experience of his partnership with Renzi. Observations of the past tell us that voters have shifted en masse when they glimpsed new faces and fresh ideas. But this is impossible to predict at the moment.
