"Do you agree that the 5 Star Movement will start a government, together with the Democratic Party, chaired by Giuseppe Conte?". This is the question which the 115 subscribers to the Rousseau platform are called to answer by 18 pm today.
The whole of Italy awaits the outcome of the online vote to find out if it will soon have a new government or if the President of the Republic will be forced to consider the other options on the table, including early elections. Provided that everything is constitutionally possible. In fact, many are wondering whether the fate of the country should and can depend on a vote expressed by a very, very few, on a platform managed by a private company - the Rousseau Association chaired by Davide Casaleggio and whose members are Massimo Bugani, Pietro Dettori and Enrico Sabatini. In this context, it is also necessary to take into account the fact that in the past (but it was the old version) the platform also gave rise to numerous doubts relating to user privacy and safety.
The constitutionalist Sabino Cassese on the pages of Corriere della Sera, wonders what will happen if the No to the agreement prevails:
“What will the parliamentary groups, denied by the members, after pronouncing themselves in favor of the new government formation? Will they resign?” But since it is the head of state who has given the task of setting up a new government on the basis of the indications of the parliamentary groups of M5S and Pd, what will he do? Will he revoke Professor Conte's office?”
From the questions, Cassese moves on to the possible ones consequences of voting:
“If the decision of the parliamentarians, communicated to the President of the Republic, and therefore an act of a public procedure, were denied by the members, the following three paradoxical consequences would arise. The will of the greatest number (the representatives-delegates of 11 million M5S voters) would be canceled by that of the smallest number (a majority of 50-60 thousand members of the M5S), denying the populist invocations of the Movement. The representatives of the people would be denied by the party, reviving the glories of the best party politics. The political force that invokes the people at every turn will instead silence them to give voice to their small members. When will the political leader of the M5S stop playing with democracy?”
It should be emphasized that even if there are 115.372 subscribers to the platform, it is not certain that they all vote, on the contrary. On the occasion of the vote on Luigi Di Maio's leadership of the Movement, the preferences expressed were half, 56.127. In previous ballots the number of votes was even lower. You have to take that into consideration the result of the votes did not always follow the line of the leadership. An example can be the consultation held in January 2014, when about 16 members voted in favor of the abrogation of the crime of illegal immigration and 9 for its maintenance, despite both Beppe Grillo and Gianroberto Casaleggio having previously spoken out against the amendment promoted the abolition of crime.
Returning to the opinions on today's vote, no less critical is the opinion of Cesare Mirabelli, president emeritus of the Constitutional Court, su The print.
“I would have understood – observes the president emeritus – that the M5S had consulted the base of its members before starting the consultations of the Quirinale. It would have been an act of internal political orientation. But when the consultation is organized after the Head of State has given the assignment, this consultation is aimed at having an immediate external effect".
“That a party feels the pulse of its militants is perfectly fine – comments Mirabelli. I would say it is desirable. It happens ordinarily that polls influence policy making. That there can be a continuous connection between representatives and represented is perfectly fine. But all of this – she warns – cannot and must not mean acts. It must remain within the sphere of processes within a political force".
The judgment of the constitutional lawyer is also clear John Mary Flick on the pages of Republic:
"It is not unconstitutional in itself, but it seems to me against the spirit of the Charter to make the Rousseau platform, or another similar one, an instrument for the exercise of sovereignty".
