The dispute about the dates of the referendum is running out, so you can start talking substance. The intent that drove the referendum to take the initiative in 2007 was more than commendable. Faced with the risk that the landscape of quarrelsome coalition of its last term to become a structural feature of our political system, proposed to liquidate those coalitions and awarded the prize of winning a majority in the single list. In each choice there are advantages and political damage. So the benefits outweighed the damage.
Now, however, to overcome that kind of happened by political coalitions. In 2008 Veltroni, with courage, united with the only IDV and Berlusconi followed him make a pact only with the League. It 'hard to think that we can go back to the caravans of the past: the first would be to rebel against the voters. Therefore, the advantages gained by political means that you wanted to achieve through the referendum, you have to deal with the damage.
The main question intends to award a prize to the list of majority who has got the most votes: the list of winning the House or the Senate, in cases with only 30% of the votes, would get 55% of the seats. Even now, not voters, but the leaders of parties, case unique in the developed world, have the power to choose members of Parliament. The referendum confirms this and indeed enhances their prerogative because it puts in the hands of one man, the leader of the winning party, whoever he is, the choice of an absolute majority of parliamentarians. The concerns are exacerbated when you look at the party statutes and practices that characterize their internal life: very few political parties today might be called democratic, as most work with the charismatic and populist mode. If the Yes wins tomorrow, only one party in the minority in the country, would become an absolute majority in Parliament and could, for example, alone, to elect the Head of State, take possession of the media, change according to your conveniences the electoral law and parliamentary rules. Parliament would become a prosthesis of the government, even the Prime Minister, whoever he is.
Today, most PDL-League provides a degree of political discourse that promotes democracy but does not block the comparison, the same would happen if he won the coalition Pd-IDV. If tomorrow, thanks to the referendum, only govern the PDL or just the PD democracy would be stronger? The bipartisanship is not blasphemy, but it requires an electoral system which gives people the opportunity to choose their parliamentary and democratic norms in all the major parties. These conditions are not present and therefore the two-party out of the referendum that would consolidate the current reality in oligarchies.
seems very risky to say that I should make is to win power and then change the law Calderoli. If indeed there was a majority to change the electoral law, because it is not changed promptly, to avoid the referendum? In reality today there is no majority for a new electoral law and is unlikely to be there tomorrow when the winners have all the power in their hands.
of Luciano Violante by La Stampa, April 16, 2009
0 comments:
Post a Comment