Following the editorial by the editor of FIRSTonline, Franco Locatelli, by title "Referendum, vote NO against populism and opportunism”, and after the intervention of the president of this newspaper, Ernesto Auci, in the service "The referendum and the great scam of the Five Stars”, a debate has begun on the referendum vote to be held on 20 and 21 September to decide on cutting the number of parliamentarians.
Below we publish the speeches by the former Rector of the Roma Tre University Guido Fabiani, by the economist Marco Leonardi, by the ambassador Maurizio Melani and by the economic journalist Alfredo Recanatesi, previously deputy director of Il Sole 24 Ore and then of La Stampa. .
GUIDO FABIANI
I do not repeat the numerous reasons that are emerging in support of NO. As far as I'm concerned, I just want to point out that the cut in the number of parliamentarians, carried out alone, constitutes a dangerous vulnerability for the form of representative democracy that the country has given itself with the Constitution.
In fact, there is no guarantee that the current Parliament will be able to proceed to approve one in the coming months completed electoral reform, to define the operating rules and the reciprocal competences of the Chamber, Senate and Regions which there is a strong need for. To build, that is, a shared institutional framework, respectful of the founding values of the republican Constitution within which, once the framework has been defined, it would also make sense to foresee (together with the definition of a new electoral law) anticipating a justified numerical decrease of deputies and senators.
As things stand, instead, of that painting, or of one of his first drawings, there is no trace, the electoral law is in total uncertainty and only the drastic and hasty cut of a third of the number of deputies and senators (300 members out of 900) is carried forward. A cut which, in addition to not improving the level of quality and competence which there would be great need to raise the efficiency and functionality of the work of the Chambers, would mean: a) that a large part of the social and territorial components of the country would not the right to send their own representatives to parliament, and, b) that political choices would increasingly be the prerogative of a few, with less influence of Parliament on government actions and an increase in the power of party secretariats and ridiculous demonstrations of "direct democracy".
I will therefore vote NO with conviction and I hope that the political forces that have always held firm to the country's constitutional reference will continue to do so.
MARK LEONARDI
In the debate on the referendum, I would not take such arguments into consideration policy cost savings. The costs are quite different, let's just think of the world of autonomy, the undergrowth of subsidiaries and the like. It doesn't even convince me the issue of greater speed of decisions. For that, a more marked reform of parliamentary regulations would be necessary and sufficient. Furthermore, let us not forget that today (I am not referring to this period, but for about thirty years now) decision-making power is already biased in favor of the government. If anything a constitutional reform would be needed to eliminate perfect bicameralism and redesign some levels of local government. But it will be difficult to achieve.
In theory, with smaller numbers it should be more difficult to reach qualified majorities, but much will depend on the electoral system: a pushed majority will allow for little "representation" to elect the President of the Republic, for example. With the YES, 134 senators, a few, could be enough to change the constitution without resorting to a referendum.
At this point, voting YES or NO becomes a matter of instinct rather than reason: to preserve the balance created by the constituents or to rock the waters anyway? This could be the last chance to cut MPs for some time. Looks like a blank bill to me which could be followed by no real reform. I vote NO, but if I were a party leader I would obviously vote YES and then try to get the rest of the reform pact.
MAURIZIO MELANI
Any position taken is welcome and appropriate, from wherever it comes and for what reasons, aimed at blocking this absolutely demagogic constitutional law which by the way it was presented and the rhetoric that accompanied it is expression of an anti-parliamentary culture and hostile to representative democracy.
It would reduce representation without ameliorative effects on the functioning of institutions. The ratio of three electors to those elected would increase without any logic and in an unequal way in various parts of the country, making the distance between them grow. It would alter the balance in the election of the President of the Republic, increasing the relative weight of the representatives of the Regions. Considering the current electoral law, it would surreptitiously introduce a strong majority system without the necessary corrections.
Its effect on overall public administration costs would be insignificant.
It would now be necessary for the PD, in which voices in favor of the NO are growing, to quickly take a position in this sense, in line with the vote repeatedly expressed in Parliament against the law in the absence of a broader institutional reform, in particular as regards it concerns bicameralism and the State-Regions relationship, and with the minimum condition of the adoption of a new electoral law, which did not take place, unfortunately placed at the moment of the vote in favor in the hall.
A pronouncement in favor of NO would not be contradictory, considering the condition set and not fulfilled and would be defensible with every interlocutor. Even the minor political forces inside and outside the majority should stand up decisively for the NO. Some did, some didn't.
From a strictly political point of view a victory of the SI would mean the success of a reassembled national-populist front, centered on Lega and Cinque Stelle, which the decisions for the establishment of the second Conte government and the European events have broken.
When talking to people who in previous electoral rounds voted for those two political forces there is growing disaffection against them as the polls show. This also seems to reverberate on the willingness of many to follow the indications for the referendum vote of those forces with the prospect that a substantial share, especially among young people, will at least abstain (which is more difficult where the referendum takes place at the same time as regional and municipal elections). . It is necessary to encourage these tendencies by using the right arguments with the various interlocutors, bearing in mind however that a part, as the polls indicate, is attracted by the presidentialists of the Brothers of Italy who, coherently with their anti-parliamentary roots, are equally aligned with the YES. It is now necessary to mobilize with all available means, beyond the legitimate differences on other issues, so that their front does not prevail or at least, in the worst case scenario, the dimensions of its eventual success are limited as much as possible.
ALFREDO RECANATESI
Maybe partisanship is deceiving me, but it seems to me that, while the reasons for NO are variously argued, the reasons for YES, apart from a saving to which only the most grillini naive can give relevance, are reduced to the thesis that a reduction of parliamentarians does not cause damage. Therefore, I think it appropriate to add some considerations on the deeper scope of the choice.
In my opinion, in fact, a victory of the YES would constitute a further departure from the parliamentary character that the constituents wanted to give to our democracy and which, albeit for slightly different reasons than then, is still today to be considered as a fundamental and indispensable pillar of our legal system. The abolition of preferences has already compromised the direct personal relationship of deputies, or would-be deputies, with their specific electorate, with the consequence that there are no longer elected but appointed, who no longer represent the orientations of each single constituency, but they have become privileged – therefore caste – who owe their privileges to the loyalty shown towards the leaders. Now to this already serious weak point on which the discrediting machination of the parliamentary institution was able to take root, it is understood that the degree of representation of Parliament it can very well be reduced for the sole reason of cost savings to be boasted of against an inexperienced and largely sectarian electorate.
Apart from any contingent implication on which the information has directed its greatest attention as if it were an electoral confrontation of ordinary administration, behind the simplification of the referendum question, on 20 September we will play a time of the match between the parliamentary republic and the presidential republic. If this is at least partially true – and for me there can be no doubt – the rest, by comparison, is trifles.
IL COMMENT BY ERNESTO AUCI
Going to the heart of the matter, it can be said that the YES is essentially supported by the consideration that Parliament functions badly and therefore with fewer deputies it can perhaps improve, or in the worst case it will continue to function badly. I am amazed that Valerio Onida and other talented constitutionalists ready to see dangers in rational and logical changes to our fundamental charter, do not see the clear risks of an attack on Parliament which does not correct any of the current defects and indeed accelerates the dependence of parliamentarians on the secretariats of the parties nullifying any possibility of effective control of the chambers over the executive.
The claim that this first step really opens a reformist season with the change of parliamentary regulations, the differentiation of the tasks of the Chamber and the Senate, and the revision of the electoral law seems to me completely unfounded. Past experience shows that whoever emerges victorious from the popular vote will then be induced to continue on their own ideological line. The Five Stars want Parliament to be overtaken, the mandate to be introduced, proactive referendums that go beyond the resolutions of the Chambers. Are these considerations not enough to vote NO?
