Minus nine
Today I was on the phone with Elisabetta and in commenting on some recent regulatory changes in the field of education (what semi-cultivated people call "education"), going from branch to branch, I found myself merging into the bed of a reflection that began here:
that on the difference between the formal Constitution and the material Constitution, a trivial topic for jurists, who however, despite being able to treat it with great refinement, can hardly understand its significance unless they are directly involved, in the first person, and not as visitors, in some constitutional bodies of the state (typically, in Parliament).
Personally, I did not understand the scandal aroused, even in many of you, by the words of truth spoken by a colleague of mine. What has been interpreted as a proposal was actually a photograph: it is not hazardous to say that in Italy there is a de facto presidentialism , in the precise sense that the Presidency of the Republic exercises, in various ways, functions of political direction that overflow from the arbitration role. drawn by the Constitution. The most urgent political theme that everyone sees, obviously lies in choosing who to send to play such a delicate and much more penetrating role than it appears, but then there is also an intellectual theme, more long-term, which was precisely that of the debate held four years ago at our annual conference. The misalignment between formal and material Constitution in fact determines a not indifferent problem in political terms: that posed by a subject who exercises significant political powers in a total void of political responsibility, because he is devoid of this according to the formal Constitution ( article 90 ), which "shields" him from political responsibility, assuming that he acts as an impartial arbiter (that is, that he cannot be accused of what he cannot do [but does!]: give a political direction). This has not been the case for many years, for many years – in fact for decades – the referee has abdicated his impartial role, perhaps it has never been like this, certainly it is human that this is not the case, and perhaps it is not really possible that things work like this (here we really need an expert in comparative constitutional law).
But then it will have to be acknowledged at some point.
Continue to sdilinquire on the "most beautiful in the world" dribbling that "my lady since there was fascism oimmèna presidentialism no because it is the high road for the advent of the strong man!" it is not, in my subdued opinion as a humble adventitious artisan of institutions (who, however, as an economics student, had also read something by Crisafulli), a particularly correct way of reasoning. Meanwhile, after having crucified one who had, with an expression that can be discussed, asked the Italians "full powers", in the sense of full popular legitimacy resulting from elections that realigned Parliament to the intentions of the electoral body, we had another one that full powers if he is caught, and it was someone so thoroughly and elegant. So, how to say: if this is the problem, four years after our debate we have seen that leaving the Constitution as it is does not solve it (Time is always a great doctor and a great solver).
However, it can be argued that it is a risky gamble to assume that the transition to a presidential republic will restore some form of accountability . Right, as long as we always keep in mind that leaving everything as it is, indeed, worsening the situation by weakening the parliamentary counterweight, leaves us with the certainty of a total absence of accountability .
Then there is another aspect, only apparently accessory: look at what efforts are being made to prevent the presidency of a right-wing country from going to a left-wing politician!
Forgive the brutal simplification, forgive me if I omit the "doilies" rituals from internal petty bourgeois ( center right and center left), forgive (forgive me the "left" ones) if by summary I define Italy a "right" country (it is certainly a country betrayed by the left and this blog is the story of that betrayal), but in short: every now and then we need to understand each other, and I think that is how we understand each other. Since the President has a power of direction and exercises it, but that the address in theory should be given by the people, it is natural to conclude that perhaps the President should choose the people. This reasoning is deliberately, overtly simplistic, and I have many friends who reject it with very good reasons. However, in this political phase in which Parliament weakly reflects the will of the voters, the fact that the election of the President is a second-level election is in my view proving to be a particularly toxic element. If the election of the President were direct, the parties, instead of enveloping themselves in an exciting (?) Game of chess, with often enigmatic implications for the insiders themselves, could simply be themselves, declare their ideas, grasp the pole of one's own flag, and confront each other in a way that is understandable for the citizens, because the latter would then be left with the choice. 99% of the strategy (and tactics) put in place in this very delicate phase would be set aside, it would become superfluous, if the choice of the President of the Republic were put directly into your hands. I inflict on you another brutal simplification of which I apologize in advance: if the ruler (i.e. the sovereign) cannot be responsible under the law, at least it would be appropriate for him to be chosen by the people, if one wishes to preserve the idea that sovereignty belongs to the people.
But in short, I don't even remember why we were talking about it, and maybe it's not such an exciting topic. Yet, if you knew how many things you are passionate about depend on this theme that you are not passionate about …
This is a machine translation of a post (in Italian) written by Alberto Bagnai and published on Goofynomics at the URL https://goofynomics.blogspot.com/2022/01/meno-nove.html on Sat, 15 Jan 2022 22:53:00 +0000. Some rights reserved under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 license.