Bruno Tabacci, leader of the Democratic Center and long-time politician, is one of the 15 MPs who has always opposed the unilateral reduction in the number of MPs and hasn't changed his mind: for this reason he will vote NO in the referendum on 20 and 21 September. He explains why in this interview with FIRSTonline: "We are facing a constitutionally hypocritical affair without precedent in the history of our country". For Tabacci, the reduction in the number of parliamentarians is not a taboo but on the condition that it is placed within a constitutional reform that first of all overcomes equal bicameralism. Otherwise the cut of parliamentarians becomes only demagoguery, anti-politics, pure populism. But here are Tabacci's reflections on the merits.
Mr Tabacci, you are one of the 15 Members of Parliament who have always opposed it - in 4 votes out of 4, including the last one - to cutting the number of parliamentarians: what are the underlying reasons for your repeated NO?
I wanted to oppose a constitutionally hypocritical story that appears unprecedented in the history of our country. We are now facing a referendum that we are even ashamed of and even the political forums to inform voters are being deserted by some YES parties. And to think that the last vote in Parliament on the cut of parliamentarians was almost unanimous and only about fifteen of us had the courage to disagree and, as the question recalled, I was among them. In reality, there is not a shred of serious motivation that justifies the cut and there is no reflection on the functions of the Chambers, on the methods for selecting candidates, on the relationship between voters and those elected, on changes to parliamentary regulations, on the reduction of regional delegates for the election of the President of the Republic. Only the attack on parliamentarism and representative democracy remains in the background, portraying parliamentarians as a mass of slackers just to pay homage to the worst populism and thus justify the cut. Even the number of MPs who should remain after the cut is arbitrary: why 400 in the House and 200 in the Senate? There is no sense of the state and no constitutional logic.
Is yours a NO with no ifs and buts that you will confirm in the referendum of 20 and 21 September or could it still become a YES if precise political innovations mature?
There is no more time to change and there are no political conditions for correcting the course and for this reason I will go to vote in the constitutional referendum and I will vote NO as I have always done in Parliament.
Is cutting the number of parliamentarians an absolute mistake or could it become sustainable if coupled with the overcoming of equal bicameralism and a good electoral law?
The number of parliamentarians is certainly not a taboo but the precautions of the then President of the Constituent Assembly, Umberto Terracini, are still current. In the past, the proposals to reduce the number of parliamentarians were anchored to the overcoming of equal bicameralism but now there is only the demagogy of the cut of those who do not recognize the function of representing popular sovereignty in the parliamentary mandate and dream of direct democracy with an instrumentation like the Rousseau platform both superficial and ambiguous.
With what consequences?
In this climate of progressive anti-parliamentarism, there has been a bending over to the imbalance of powers with the transfer of parliamentary functions, especially the legislative one, to the Government. Let's be clear: not of this government in particular but of almost all the governments of the so-called second republic. I recall, for example, that Berlusconi had gone so far as to propose a modification of the parliamentary regulations to give the group leaders the vote on behalf of the individual member parliamentarians, as is the case in the shareholders' meetings of joint-stock companies. In essence, a bleak crisis of the parties emerges and the claim to continue appointing parliamentary representation with electoral laws that have gradually taken away the power of choice from the voters with the result of rewarding the candidate's loyalty rather than his quality.
What effects will a possible victory or even just a good popular affirmation of the NO have on the general political level? What would be the effects on the Government, but also on the Five Stars and on the Democratic Party?
This government has nothing to do with it and Conte was right to step aside but it was a serious mistake to want to consider constitutional matters in the government agreement. And now that the Five Star Movement is unable to guarantee the reforms that were to accompany the reduction of parliamentarians, the difficulties of the Democratic Party with respect to its voters are highlighted. How it will end up I don't know but, whatever the outcome of the referendum, it is a big mess that further undermines the prestige of our parliamentary democracy. That's why I just have to vote NO, maintaining the position expressed in Parliament.
If the NO were to bring back a good affirmation in the referendum, it is unthinkable that there would be no aftermath on the Government and on the two main allies.
It seems difficult for the Government to imagine upheavals because in Parliament the numbers remain what they are and the Five Stars are still the largest parliamentary group. For the two main coalition parties the situation is different. For the Five Stars, a failure in the referendum would deepen their crisis without them having real alternatives to get out of it: they would become even more prisoners of themselves. Just like Zingaretti who pushed the Democratic Party towards the YES with an authentic somersault after three votes against in Parliament, thus disorienting his own voters and questioning the constitutional heritage that a party like his has.
This referendum also seems to take on a political value that goes beyond the merits of the referendum question: the battle on the NO front is also a pickaxe against the populism of which the Five Stars are the bearers and a halt to the excess of tactics and opportunism which induces the Pd to prefer immediate conveniences rather than clear political choices and loyalty to its identity values?
Yes, the battle for NO certainly also has these more general objectives.
