These days I receive many messages on the choices to be made for the next one referendum on the law which provides for a drastic reduction in the number of members of the House and Senate. I therefore take the liberty of summarizing in this brief note my orientation, which I have matured for some time also thanks to the discussions that have taken place, since the beginning of 2019, within theNational Association of former Parliamentarians of the Republic.
This association, to which I am honored to belong, investigated the issue when the provision was still going through its long process in the parliamentary halls. And he came to the widely publicized conclusion that it was a wrong and dangerous rule.
Assuming that the House and the Senate have a reduced number of components compared to the current ones is, mind you, completely legitimate. However, it would be necessary to pursue this objective without damage to Parliament's ability to represent citizens correctly both in relation to the different territorial realities and as regards the plurality of political opinions.
The Constitution of the Republic assigns to Parliament two functions fundamentals: making "the voice of the country heard in the state", according to the incisive image of a great jurist such as Sabino Cassese, and balancing the legitimate interests of the various segments of society through a prudent and balanced exercise of the legislative function.
A cut of almost a third of the body of elected officials - established outside of an organic vision of reform and without consistent changes to the electoral law and parliamentary regulations – would instead risk making Parliament even further away from the country and heavily limited in the task of giving timely and effective responses to citizens' expectations: the opposite, in short, of what is increasingly perceived as an imperative requirement.
The enormous expansion of constituencies, resulting from the sharp reduction in the number of elected officials, would then yield the candidates increasingly direct expression of the leaders of the parties and less and less of the territory. Ultimately, a process unfortunately already underway will take effect: the oligarchical evolution of the political system. Consequently, it will become difficult for the elected (which would be more realistic to define: appointed) to exercise a critical spirit and independent judgment.
If the law subject to a referendum were confirmed, another regrettable consequence would also occur: the silent, and moreover substantial, abrogation of article 67 of the Constitution. This, as is well known, reads: “Each member of Parliament represents the nation and carries out his duties without mandate”. It is one of the guarantees of freedom that the Constituents wanted to establish for the Republic that was being born; instead it will become – as indeed openly hoped for by the 5 Star Movement – a goal that is no longer achievable.
On 20 and 21 September next we are not called to express a "Yes" or a "No" towards an abstract principle; with our file we will instead have to say whether or not we intend to implement a precise regulatory provision: the constitutional law of 8 October 2019. It is a text which, while intending to pursue an objective in itself legitimate, establishes inconsistent and counterproductive procedures and methods, harmful to the civil growth of the country and to the orderly development of institutional life. This is why my belief is that it should be rejected with a "No" vote by the voters.
On the same subject also read the positions of
Ernesto Auci
Giuliano Cazzola
Innocent Cipolletta
Rhino Formica
Emmanuel Macaluso
Julius Sapelli
Bruno Tabacci
