For a long time the line of the Third International (which was then the Comintern to which all the communist parties adhered) was to consider the closest political forces as the main adversaries. Thus, with a series of rough and hasty steps, the great social democracies of the first post-war period ended up being considered as a sort of antechamber of Nazi-fascism. Obviously – as we will see – mine is a paradoxical comparison; but, in the ongoing debate on the referendum confirming the constitutional "talion" of parliamentarians, the most heated controversies (albeit under the banner of the chivalrous "English gentlemen, shoot first") take place within the colorful anti-populist universe, between the supporters of the Yes and those of the No, often on the playing field arrangement from The paper, which, while supporting the Yes line, correctly does not deny space to those who are of the opposite opinion.
Out of respect for the opinions of others, I am careful not to mention the treaty The Betrayal of the Clerics by Julien Benda (1927), but I cannot explain certain positions and arguments of the friends of the Yes. Firstly, their slogan does not convince me: woe to give a good reform to the populists. It would be, they say, a serious political error caused by an attack of pedantry (the deniers have been compared to Doctor Balanzone) and by the refusal to get his hands dirty as would be the duty of a reformist. According to these theses, the beautiful souls of the No would work for the King of Prussia, favoring the populists with their snobbery. To defend yourself against this indictment, you need to start from a premise: the dissent lies precisely in the judgment on the merits and the institutional and political effects of the provision submitted to a confirmation vote. Where is it written that this is a reform going in the right direction? It is precisely the Yes militants who reproach the Italians, who in the majority voted against the Renzi-Boschi law on 4 December 2016, for having missed the opportunity of a lifetime, because it would have been enough to overcome the perfect bicameralism to solve all the problems. Not having understood the importance of that reform, today we have to - they reproach us - get on the bicycle of the "taglione" and pedal, because the reduction in the number of parliamentarians will guarantee more efficiency to the legislative power.
Let's stop for a moment on this point: admitted and not granted that the problem was and still is the overcoming (through the antics of a Senate/after-work club of governors and mayors) of equal bicameralism, if the law on which we will vote on the 20th and 21st passes next September, the two Chambers become even more equal than before. Furthermore, if the idea of a Chamber (the only one with full powers) with a smaller number of seats were so appropriate and efficient, why, in the 2016 reform, were there 635 deputies and 635 would remain? I also hope that those who "get their hands dirty" will not be naive enough to think that a Yes victory will be attributed to them and not to the anti-politics junkyards to whom they offer an important and unexpected contribution, putting respectable faces in the service of a plebeian battle. Have they noticed that the pentastellati leave it alone and are satisfied with the imprimatur of the reformist intelligentsia?
It is then common opinion that in the absence of further institutional adjustment measures retaliation would only produce serious trouble. But who assures that the grillini will keep their word? Does Nicola Zingaretti guarantee it?
Then there is another aspect to consider: the yellow-red government was born to prevent the ''resistible rise'' to the full powers of the Captain and with the hope of lasting at least until the election of the Head of State. If the Yes were to win, could the current Parliament feel entitled to leave the highest judiciary of the Republic to the new (and different for many reasons) one? The push towards early elections would then become very strong, before entering the ''blank semester''.
To conclude these reflections, I must say that I found the arguments with which prof. Carlo Fusaro defended the Yes always on Sheet, criticizing "the hypocrisy of the No". After detailing what, in his opinion, are the historical, political and functional reasons for starting the reform, Fusaro acknowledges that the new structure would eliminate the "residual elements of differentiation between the two twin chambers", as a consequence of the unification of the personal data requirements of the electorate. In essence, we would arrive at "a sort of absolute bicameralism", that is, a Parliament made up of two completely identical chambers. If this is the explicit opinion of a "big voter" of the Yes, what would be the use of the reform? Fusaro replies as follows: "It is legitimate to hope that "a Parliament of this kind, built in hindsight solely and exclusively to slow down the decision-making processes and weaken the government-Parliament relationship, will end up being quite evident, re-launching the issue of political reforms- institutions, the really incisive ones”.
In the meantime, according to Fusaro, ''the absurdity and structural inefficiency of a Parliament of this kind'' will emerge. To summarize the concept: the country has to hurt itself even more to decide to cure itself. The usual logic - not at all reformist - of ''the worse, the better''. If this is the goal of the Yes militants, let them assume all the (ir)responsibility of contributing to the collapse of the country while waiting to be able to rebuild it in their own way. We in the NO are interested in achieving the best possible result in the polls, for bring out that part of the country that refuses to surrender.
