A Parliament that renounces its powers and the decline of democratic legitimacy
I must confess that, in the face of the recent presidential elections in our country, perhaps because it was influenced by the Scespirian term "kingmaker" used by the mass media in reference to this or that politician, with all respect and for the voters and for the elected one, the first thing that came to my mind was one of the most famous scenes of the tragedies written by the "Avon's swan", the one in which the emissaries of the nobles and communes go to Richard of Gloucester to offer him the crown and the latter after a series of insistence and refusals he ends up becoming king (Richard III, act II, scene VII). It is right to make the necessary differences: Italian politicians do not have the tragic greatness, but (fortunately) neither the all-round evil of Shakespeare's characters, and on the other hand some might say that what happened in the buildings of the institutions was not a tragedy, but rather a show with a happy ending, happy because it culminated in the decision of a very large majority of parliamentarians.
Nonetheless, some bewilderment remains. Nothing to say about the merits of the decision, which can be criticized from a political point of view (for example by those who do not approve the work of the outgoing president), but cannot in any case be challenged in its constitutional legitimacy, given that, on the contrary to what Mattarella himself had more or less covertly claimed, the Constitution does not prohibit re-election, even if there remains the inappropriateness of electing a single person for fourteen years to such a high office, even more so taking into account the political merit competences that they are increasingly exercised by those who cover it. What is perplexing is the way: even if the head of state is not elected by the people, the democratic principle requires that it is the candidate who presents himself to his constituents and submits to the risk of confrontation with a competitor, and not that it is the voters who introduce himself to the candidate, who had however (blatantly, if I may use this expression) made it clear that he did not want to be reconfirmed.
If the essence of democracy is that there are unelected candidates, the fact that there is an elected non-candidate is at least a strong anomaly, which can be justified only for exceptional emergency situations (not that of a pandemic which is now at the end. to understand) and for temporary positions, such as the Roman dictator (the most famous example is that of Cincinnato), and not for the renewal at its natural expiration of a position destined to last for a long time, even more so when it consists of a reconfirmation . Someone went so far as to say that the thing was premeditated for some time, and in fact the doubt in this sense is fully understandable, even if personally I would not feel like taking a position on the matter.
Moreover, the question is not so important in my opinion, since I believe that the thing that really worries about the whole affair is in fact something else, namely the fact that Parliament has essentially decided not to decide, confirming the status quo. In this way, however, the reconfirmed president Sergio Mattarella perhaps lacked the thing that is in fact most important from the point of view of democratic legitimacy, that is the competition with another candidate, from which he emerges victorious thanks to the vote of the electoral parliamentarians. And this competition, in which the essence of democracy lies, was not only lacking for the new president, but above all for the country, which saw a Parliament unable to confront and clash over one or more names, and linked to certainly legitimate maneuvers. , but not commendable, such as the vote of the "snipers" (why not clearly express disagreement with the directives of their party?), as well as the abstentions imposed by the parties precisely to avoid snipers within them. A Parliament divided between the "greats" of the various camps, engaged either in thunderous and useless proclamations (from "kingmakers" ) or in cautious and cunning silences, and those who are mercilessly defined as the "peons" of politics, most of whom fearful of losing their position.
The Italian Parliament (but unfortunately this is also common to many other legislative assemblies of continental Europe, not to mention the Parliament of the European Union, which has never taken on an important role) has long suffered from a progressive emptying of its sovereign powers , and is increasingly called upon to ratify the decisions of others, but in the story of the presidential election we find something even more disconcerting: the assembly has actually avoided taking on the responsibility of making its own decision, leaving almost inertia that it came to a reconfirmation of the outgoing president.
The functioning of a democratic system is based, as Montesquieu affirmed, who combined the wisdom and experience of the statesman with a profound knowledge of human affairs, on the respectful but dialectical opposition between powers ( "le pouvoir arrête le pouvoir " ), but in order for there to be an opposition it is necessary that each organ of the state exercises its tasks: if the Parliament actually gives up and prefers not to decide, what balance between powers will be created? And above all which democracy? It is human and inevitable that, regardless of personal intentions, the representatives of the other powers end up carrying out the functions that the legislature renounces to exercise in the first person.
We have daily examples of this in our country, where the most important political decisions, and even the rules governing the lives of citizens (those of the infamous Green Pass are the most striking example of this and, allow me, sadder) are issued by 'Executive with the endorsement of the head of state and, subject to their approval en bloc by the Parliament, the same are interpreted, and in fact modified, now granting something now restricting the concessions (often without any logic) by the government itself with press releases, guidelines, answers to “frequently asked” questions, etc., things that are anything but an expression of the legislative function of the organ which is the ultimate expression of popular sovereignty.
Another side effect, more hidden, but deeper and no less dangerous in the long run than what has been described, is the decline in the value of democratic legitimacy. Human societies have always, tacitly or explicitly, required those who govern them to justify their power: it was Max Weber who made a classification of the different types of legitimacy. In modern liberal-democratic societies a person is entitled to govern as a representative of the people who elected him, either directly (as is the case with parliamentarians) or indirectly (with us it is the case of the head of government as well as of the head of the State), so that it is not therefore his personal qualities that legitimize it, but the democratic procedures of election. Weber would have called it "rational" legitimation. This, at the level of social perception, humanizes the ruler and makes him subject to the judgment of all, precisely because his holding a position (and this is all the more important the more the latter is) is not linked to his personal qualities. more or less "superior", but empirically to the fact of having received the approval of the majority: in this way the concept of democratic legitimacy contributes to strengthening democracy.
If, on the other hand, the main body of people's representatives renounces the competition between candidates and limits itself to voting on a subject with no alternatives, then even beyond the intentions of the individual, it ends up putting the elected person on a sort of "pedestal" and one ends up justifying his role not on the basis of a choice based on a comparison between the majority and the opposition, but on the (real or presumed) personal qualities of the same, that is, on a "charismatic" legitimacy (this is what Weber would have defined ), with perhaps no apparent but substantial damage to the democratic principle. When the representatives of public power assume too strong a charismatic legitimacy, it becomes much more difficult to criticize their decisions.
Thus the President of the Republic, far beyond the respect that is owed to the highest republican judiciary, tends to assume an almost sacred role: "Il Colle spoke", "The Quirinal has beaten Tizio or Caio" are common expressions in the mass media, even when the head of state takes respectable but questionable decisions. At the same time, the head of government has also been in his turn for many years now (the last to boast a democratic legitimacy in the classical sense was Silvio Berlusconi back in 2008) almost always "the man best suited to face the situation", precisely by virtue of the his charismatic abilities, represented by his technical skills, sometimes actual and sometimes presumed, but always capable of legitimizing his choices as "the best possible" (sometimes, alas, as "the best in the world"), however, as choices not subject to discussion by their very nature. In this way the rulers from fallible and criticizable representatives of the people are transformed into enlightened and infallible (and as such never willing to admit their mistakes) managers of the public good by virtue of their superior virtue and competence.
Someone suggested to Mattarella to resign in the short term: I personally think that the new president has every right to keep his position as long as he deems it appropriate. More important is that the relationship between rulers and governed changes and that it is transformed into a relationship of mutual respect (for example also towards those who do not share vaccination policies) for their respective roles. Fundamental in this sense is the role of a Parliament that goes in the opposite direction to that which led to the presidential election. A Parliament in which there is finally the resumption of an effective democratic confrontation on the various issues, starting with the conversion of government decrees. A confrontation following which a majority and an opposition are created, because both are essential for the functioning of a society not based on the "charisma" of those who govern but on the choices of the voters.
In the last scene of the tragedy, Richard III, now close to defeat by his rival the future Henry VII, comes to offer his kingdom (for which he had so intrigued) for a horse, as if Shakespeare implicitly reminded us of the vanity of human things if not based on strong values. Democracy is a fundamental value and unfortunately in our country we are slowly losing it. It does not guarantee a halo of infallibility to the rulers, but guarantees them the cooperation of citizens even in dissent: in a society as dramatically divided as the current Italian one (also due to the pandemic and the way it was managed) it is one of cooperation and respect between rulers and governed (and not a power that is always right and always does "the only thing possible") that is urgently needed.
The post A Parliament that renounces its powers and the decline of democratic legitimacy appeared first on Atlantico Quotidiano .
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Atlantico Quotidiano at the URL https://www.atlanticoquotidiano.it/quotidiano/un-parlamento-che-rinuncia-ai-suoi-poteri-e-il-declino-della-legittimazione-democratica/ on Wed, 09 Feb 2022 03:56:00 +0000.