It's not so much Renzi who is in a hurry, but it is Italy that needs to strengthen the first timid signs of economic recovery, and to consolidate the return of confidence that is manifesting itself more and more every day on the part of Italian investors and international. Interest rates are falling, the recovery of the banks seems to have entered the final stretch of the long and tormented path that began five years ago. After so many disastrous quarters, industrial production and domestic demand maintain a positive sign. Energy prices are down, while inflation in general is so low (just 0,5%) that no other price declines can be imagined. Indeed, an "unconventional" move by the ECB is anxiously awaited to try to bring the price trend back towards the 2% annual target.
The reforms put in place by Matteo Renzi are playing a fundamental role in strengthening the change of expectations towards our country. And among these those of the labor market and those concerning the cut in public spending and the reduction of the tax burden certainly count, but above all those reforms concerning the institutional set-up are having a strong impact: the abolition of the Senate and the reform of the autonomies local governments, in addition to the electoral law necessary to ensure greater government stability.
But, as often happens in Italy, the controversy rages. And they concern not so much the certainly improvable aspects of the projects approved so far by the Council of Ministers, but precisely the general structure of the reforms, making use of general theorems that are frankly ridiculous insofar as they are unfounded. There is talk of an "authoritarian turn", of "dangers for democracy", of a lack of balance to what is seen as a potential dictatorship of the majority and in particular of the prime minister.
The truly unusual criticisms of the president of the Senate Pietro Grasso and a group of intellectuals (Rodotà, Zagrebesky, Spinelli) go in this direction, who have published a manifesto in defense of the "most beautiful constitution in the world", without taking into account that those rules have led the country not only to decision-making paralysis, but one step away from the real collapse of the state apparatus.
The criticisms of Pietro Grasso, a magistrate who has just arrived in politics on the advice of the then secretary of the Democratic Party, Bersani, are astonishing, attacking one of the central points of Renzi's project, namely that of the popular non-election of future senators who will instead be nominated by the autonomies locals. It is clear that a Senate elected by the citizens would tend to re-propose the current mechanisms of perfect bicameralism, which are responsible not only for the length of our legislative process but also for the poor quality of the laws.
In this way Grasso, who as president should be super partes and therefore not take political positions, gave a voice to the many malpancisti of the Democratic Party, the latter people who appear incapable of formulating any constructive criticism of the proposals of the party secretary, but limited to grumble against his impetuosity, invoking empty formulas such as the right to debate, or the evergreen "benaltrism", or the simple need to think carefully before launching such incisive reforms on our legal system. But if possible changes to the Constitution have been studied for thirty years, saying that we need to think about it again is at least suspicious!
While everyone's attention is concentrated on the reform of the Senate, the redesign of local autonomies appears to be even more important, from which a series of matters are removed, bringing them back to state competence. And here too the criticisms of centralist decisionism are countless. But if the Regions were (with some exceptions) the real responsible for the explosion of public spending and the decision-making paralysis caused by the confusion and overlapping of competences!
It seems clear that many want to boycott the reforms for political reasons, that is to embarrass Renzi and force him to negotiate on the division of seats, or for ideological reasons, because they are unable to see the needs of a functioning modern democracy. The attitude of those who, like Monti and Lanzillotta, but also D'Onofrio, highlight some issues that do not touch the general structure of the reform, but could improve its effectiveness, is different. In this sense go the proposals that tend to widen the audience of possible senators to include representatives of civil society, reducing the weight of the local political class which in recent years has certainly not shone for correctness and for the results achieved.
Ultimately, given the great attention with which all international observers look at what Italy is doing to adjust its institutional and economic system to the needs of modern competitiveness, whoever has the courage to boycott the reforms and push the country back into black hole of unreliable nations from which it is better to stay away? Who will take responsibility for freezing the first shoots of recovery that are beginning to be clearly visible? On the contrary, given the dramatic urgencies of the country and the discrediting of the institutions, parliamentarians should shorten the times of the debate, giving themselves precise deadlines to arrive at the final vote and working, if necessary, also on Saturdays and Sundays, as indeed many citizens they are forced to do to supplement their meager salary.
