I have always felt Ferruccio De Bortoli, whom I have known for years, a calm and thoughtful type, not partisan and moody. I am therefore surprised by your declaration of voting NO in the referendum on the reform of the Constitution which will take place in the autumn. And this is not so much for the position itself, but for the reasons he gives to justify his choice, which seem to me very weak and contradictory.
In fact, De Bortoli says in a brief note on his Facebook page, that the reform contains some important innovations and appropriate such as institutional simplification, i.e. the end of perfect bicameralism; the transfer of some powers from the Regions to the State given that in many areas (energy, transport, etc.) regional fragmentation has only led to conflicts and paralysis; the preferential lane in Parliament for the laws of the Government as happens in almost all democratic countries. They are only three aspects but very heavy and characterizing the entire reform. On the other hand there is, in De Bortoli's opinion, a serious flaw and that is the composition and perhaps the powers of the new Senate are not well defined and therefore the upper house runs the risk of not being a true representation of the autonomies but a sort of house of rest for regional councilors and idle mayors.
This it is certainly a risk, but it is by no means certain that it will actually materialize in the end. After all, already today there is a need to pass many laws through the consultation of the Regions and this creates numerous conflicts of jurisdiction that clog the courts and the Constitutional Court itself. Now an attempt is being made to rationalize the attributions of the various powers, avoiding overlaps and conflicts. There will be difficulties, and moreover many Regions are already trying to resist the loss of part of their exclusive or competing powers. After all, what was the recent referendum on drilling other than an attempt by local authorities to maintain veto power on energy issues?
From the point of view of technical merit, it cannot really be said that the weight of De Bortoli's arguments hangs on the NO side. On the contrary, there are three heavy certainties for the YES in the face of a single critical aspect, moreover based on a hypothetical fear, which pushes towards the NO.
But what is even more wrong is the criticism of the general political meaning of this reform of the Constitution intertwined with the new electoral law, the so-called Italicum. De Bortoli says that the electoral law by not leaving the freedom of choice of its representatives to the voters, and probably, I would add, due to the robust majority premium, would risk contributing to accentuating the detachment of citizens from the institutions, creating fertile ground for populism and nationalisms.
This is a really weighty argument, but once again it doesn't appear founded on the real functioning of the reforms we are talking about. The Italicum (which in any case is not directly affected by the referendum) does not kill representation at all given that only the 100 list leaders will be indicated by the parties, while preference is foreseen for the others. The majority prize is normal in all democracies (see the USA and Great Britain) and in any case in this case there is a run-off in which the winner is whoever has more than 50% of the votes.
In general, dear Ferruccio, what has led to the detachment of citizens from the institutions is not the lack of representation, but on the contrary it is the impotence of the institutions to act in the general interest, to make decisions in the right time and in transparent ways. Until a few years ago, political fragmentation favored patronage management and the distribution of money. Now the crisis has dried up this source and therefore citizens are no longer interested in this way of doing politics. And for the sake of brevity I leave out the question of corruption and widespread illegality.
So it's just one non-governing and sick democracy of party politics or dominated by local bosses, which has provoked the disaffection of citizens and the emergence of populism. The reforms of the Constitution and of the Italicum are precisely a response to this lack of true and high politics. Will he succeed? I don't know. But it is certain that by voting NO there is the certainty of thwarting any hope of change and of ending up right in the arms of those populisms (connected to a gallows justice) that one would rightly want to oppose.
PS: Nationalism is a different and more complex phenomenon that is affecting all democracies, even functional ones, in Europe and the USA. Our reforms alone will not be enough to defeat it, but they can make a small contribution to avoiding the worst.
