There are those who say NO

The referendum on the cut of parliamentarians is not decisive in and of itself. After all, in a truly democratic system functional to the widespread participation of the people, a reduction of the people's representatives could also be justified. As well as their increase. If there were no risk of subversive and authoritarian torsion in progress, it would be like discussing – literally – "more and less". Without worries. Being calm, as said that man who, in order not to miss anything, even wanted to scrape the senate. And it ended, thank God, scrapped. But just like in the case of that guy, we can't be calm at all. Not so much for the reduction of parliamentarians from nine hundred and fifteen to six hundred. Rather, due to the historical context in which that proposed reduction takes place.

And we cannot really understand the context if we do not start from a letter sent on the 4th of August nine years ago and to be reread today: written by the Trichet-Draghi ticket in the summer of 2011 and addressed to the Italian government of the time, but actually also to the Italian people of today. In that letter – an unsurpassed concentration of cheap neoliberalism – we also find the following advice: "Commitment to abolish or merge some intermediate administrative layers, such as the provinces". Here, this thoughtful suggestion moves in the same vein as the forthcoming referendum: apparently it tells you to cut seats to save money. In reality, against the light, concealed, it orders you to cut democracy to spare yourself the annoyance of the popular will.

In other words, the only real motivation behind this call to the polls is to accelerate the liquefaction of the overly "popular" constitutional orders already advocated by a paper by JP Morgan in 2013. And, in fact, if the Constitution provided for six hundred parliamentarians, they would propose to reduce them to four hundred. If he contemplated four hundred, he would want two hundred. If two hundred were established, one hundred would become the right measure. Since, as I said at the beginning, the problem is not the number at all. And not even the laughable savings.

The problem is the spaces of democratic viability. And they must be reduced: whether they are provincial representations (as in Draghi's letter) or parliamentary seats (as in the case of the referendum). The famous strong powers, and even the occult ones, have been asking us for decades – since the plans for the democratic rebirth of P2 – to abdicate other shares of sovereignty. Exactly like the nobles first, and then the bourgeois, in the past asked the sovereigns to renounce theirs; only, at the time, the sovereign in practice was one, now in theory we are all, but many of us, jubilant, celebrate the fatal blow inflicted on the caste it costs.

In all this we must point out a quirk. And that is the fact that the sardines and various exponents of the so-called left take sides against the yes. Which should, in fact, worry the supporters of the no. But perhaps it is not the case to be worried. For two reasons. First of all because this singular decision demonstrates how much of the "democratic" mass is not actually aware of the agenda meticulously followed by the leaders of that mass in recent years: that is to say, a deliberate project of desovranization and destructuring ( thanks to the hitman "Europeanism") of the pillars and supporting beams of our democracy. In comparison to which, today's referendum has the aesthetic significance of a puff of putty. But there is a second, simpler reason: even broken watches, at least twice a day, keep the time right.

Francesco Carraro

www.francescocarraro.com

---

---

The article Some say NO comes from ScenariEconomici.it .

---

This is a machine translation of a post published on Scenari Economici at the URL https://scenarieconomici.it/ce-chi-dice-no/ on Sun, 06 Sep 2020 07:42:04 +0000.