RIGHT QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON REFERENDUM Questa è un'intervista a Giovanni Guzzetta, presidente del comitato promotore del referendum elettorale. Non ho esattamente la stessa posizione di Guzzetta (non ho anora deciso che cosa votare, vedo molti rischi anche nel sì),però ritengo che sia utile e interessante formarsi un'idea leggendo le risposte di Guzzetta.
1. Perché una riforma elettorale tramite il referendum?
L’approvazione della legge elettorale (l. n. 270 del 2005) è stata accompagnata, sin dall’inizio, da numerose critiche, delle quali, tuttavia, nessuno è riuscito a farsi carico. Le proposte di miglioramento da tutti auspicate, non hanno trovato riscontro nei dibattiti parlamentari.Lo strumento referendario, dunque, sembra l’unico in grado di raggiungere il duplice obiettivo di modificare, in senso migliorativo, la legge ed al contempo riaprire il relativo dibattito, anche in vista di un eventuale intervento legislativo.Si tenga presente, inoltre, che le uniche modifiche sistematiche delle leggi elettorali e del sistema central policy have always been approved by referendum (with the referendum of 1991 and 1993).
2. Do you not think that it is now impossible to reach a quorum?
I sincerely believe not. This referendum is a referendum whatever. Seeks, in fact, a law system, which is the basis of the functioning of representative democracy. In other words, if you approve this referendum, parliamentary life work better and, therefore, would be less and less necessary to resort to another type of referendum, those involved when Parliament was not able to meet the needs of the country . Our initiative aims to undermine oligarchic idea and paternalistic policy, hitting the heart of the mechanisms of replacement of the ruling class, and meets the pressing demand for modernization aimed at this purpose. It is also consistent with the idea of \u200b\u200bItaly as a land of opportunity and income, competition and co-optation. For these reasons there is no reason to believe that the electorate does not take the opportunity to be a part of the desired process of modernization.
3. What is the subject of the questions?
The first question concerns the repeal of the coalitions (
depth). Under the current electoral legislation in the House and Senate (as well as introduced with l. Law 270, 2005) to benefit from the majority of the premium can be either "list" or "coalitions of the lists." The questions is proposed to repeal the regulation that allows the connection between the lists. If successful the result would be that the prize would be awarded only at the majority of single list (and not the coalition's list) that has received the largest number of seats. And, consequently, would raise the thresholds for the barrier, which would have to be 4% for access to the House and 8% for the second question to be represented in Senato.Un (
depth) is on the banning of candidates multiple in more than one division for a stress candidato.Esso aims to strike a further aspect of the scandal represented by multiple applications and co-optation of the oligarchic political class. The service in most districts, cd. "Plurieletto" is indeed master of the fate of all the other candidates, whose election depends, of course, the fact that he, choosing a seat that has won, leaving other. The phenomenon described is now large enough that it seems appropriate to speak of a real system disease. Suffice it to say that well 1 / 3 of parliamentarians currently in office sonop been "elected" the grace received. All this inevitably leads to attitudes of subservience and availability the subordination of cooptandi, attitudes that harm the dignity and the strong nature of the parliamentary function. For this reason it is desirable to eliminate - always in a referendum - of the possibility of multiple applications in both the House and the Senate.
4. What are the reasons behind the proposal's referendum?
trasparenza.Quanto Unit and the first objective, the electoral system resulting from the referendum would push the current political actors to pursue, since the pre-election phase, the construction of a single group, making it impractical solutions equivocal and encouraging a significant restructuring of the party system. It would open, for Italy, a prospect tendenzialmente bipartitica, con conseguente eliminazione della frammentazione dentro le coalizioni.La proposta referendaria va incontro, inoltre, ad un’esigenza di trasparenza, la quale è realizzabile tramite l’eliminazione della facoltà di candidature plurime sia alla Camera che al Senato.
5. Che cosa succederebbe al sistema politico italiano se venisse approvato il referendum?L’approvazione del referendum produrrebbe un radicale rinnovamento dell’attuale sistema elettorale – e, attraverso quello, del sistema politico – in grado di assicurare all’intero contesto politico più trasparenza, agli schieramenti più unità, ai cittadini più opportunità di spendersi per far apply their skills and merits. The elimination of factionalism and the crumbling of representation would ensure a thorough restructuring of the party system. Who are more screwed up themselves and are reluctant to operate any parts. Select their own ruling classes on the basis of lack of transparency that often have nothing to do with merit, skills or passion disinteressata.I parties also fail to achieve unity in the camps, with a creeping, continuous war position and a clash of paralyzing vetoes within the coalition. The parties are divided and the current electoral law has further exacerbated the trend towards frammentazione.Tutto division and this is a barrier to prevent change and to achieve ambitious policies that actually improve our quality of life of ordinary citizens. The hope is to open items, sensitive to the flow of news from the company and better able to withstand the pressures of interest consolidati.Partiti responsible, capable of achieving objectives, to innovate, to invent the cambiamento.Partiti dynamic, not yield to the temptation to turn inward, to become oligarchies episodic futuro.Per deaf to what we believe there is a better way to choose members of parliament, thus avoiding 'that hundreds of members are appointed for favors received by those who already believe that this was eletto.Per existing parties have to reinvest back into the game and its traditions into something larger and more cohesive: subjects that unit to stand as candidates to lead the country, using their time in achieving the promised goals.
6. Someone may object that the referendum would be useless because the parties come together to form a big plank and then split after the elections.
objection based on the assumption that electoral systems are totally irrelevant on the behavior of parties and voters. The Italian parties, in particular, would find a way to "circumvent the rules" then divide again by joining notionally later. In other words: without the law find the loophole. However, scholars agree that electoral systems are not totally irrelevant to how you structure the party system and electoral behavior. You can discuss the incidence rate of the rules, but no one has ever doubted the connection between rules and politica.Penso that now the model of advanced democracies where two main parties are competing for political leadership of the country - an area subject to minor parties not merging - is now internalized in ItaliaTrovare tab 15 symbols for a single party coalition (which is missing, however, symbol, name, and leader) is very different than finding a symbol only a single name, the name of a single candidate for Prime Minister. Of course, parties can always "decouple" later. Especially in Italy until we introduce rules like those in Germany who interpret the principle of free parliamentary mandate in a less trasformistico. But what are the political costs of breaking combination sealed by voters who voted for the "whole" and not the individual parts? Not only that, but the absence of symbols of the individual parties to prevent them from power census consent. This is not trivial, because it deprives them of the power of blackmail so-called "certificate". The referendum, ultimately, maximize the political costs of division and reduce the litigation, voters finally have already demonstrated on several occasions that they want unity, synthesis, single view. And they're willing to reward - the list of the Olive docet - who is able to convey these values.
7. The referendum is not against the small parties and against pluralism?
This referendum is not against anyone. And, above all, is not against pluralism. If anything is dynamic and modern Italy. The aim of inducing different political parties to merge into big parties shall not prevent the minority of instances have their own role within them. In all the great democracies, even where the possibility of contending rule are only two or three parties, there are souls and different currents within them. The fact that this might discourage the multi-extreme is not to blame. It is since the days of the Constituent Assembly, in fact, that deprecate the instability and fragmentation of governments coalizione.Il electoral system that would be the approval of the referendum questions is a challenge for all parties, large and small. The latter, in particular, would have to choose to defend their case within the wider party, adding, in a synthesis process, the identity of any of them or compete independently in the elections, which would still be possible, after passing the electoral threshold (4% and 8%). It would, in other words, still guaranteed to those who decide to compete outside of the united party for the possibility of a broad "right forum".
8. This is not an initiative of abstract constitutional engineering? The
referenda, by its nature, can not introduce new laws, but only to repeal laws already existing individual standards. And if you can do this in such a way that legislation is the cd is better than the previous one, can perhaps speak of "constitutional engineering", but the definition is not at all offensiva.Basti, in this regard to quote the opening words of an essay by Sartori (Comparative Constitutional Engineering): "Bentam once said that the great 'engine' (engines) of reality are the punishment and reward. And surely 'engineering' (engineering) is derived from engine. Putting together etymology and metaphor, I came to 'constitutional engineering' to make the idea first that constitutions are somewhat similar to machines or mechanisms that need to 'work' and that should still give results, and second, that it is unlikely that constitutions work properly (as they should), unless you deploy the 'motors' of Bentham, that is punishment e premi.” Se con l’espressione “ingegneria costituzionale”, cioè, si allude alla circostanza che, mediante, la c.d. “tecnica del ritaglio” si interviene sulla legge elettorale ricavando, legittimamente, un sistema migliore di quello vigente, non mi dispiace affatto essere considerato un ingegnere costituzionale.
9. È giusto esautorare il Parlamento in una questione così delicata?
Il Parlamento non viene affatto esautorato. Il referendum è strumento nella disponibilità del corpo elettorale per esercitare un’azione abrogativa sulle leggi, ma ciò non toglie che l’organo legislativo resti pur sempre e pienamente titolare del potere di disciplinare le materie which it refers, in this case the electoral system. Rather, this instrument of direct democracy is demonstrated in terms of stimulating the political debate on the subject, which could lead even to propitiate a possible legislative action, and not crowd out Parlamento.Certo if Parliament will not be able to make a good reform and will remain paralyzed by vetoes, we say thank goodness there is the instrument of the referendum referendum.Aggiungo that claim to intercept a push for change to the existing society. The aggregation process in the Democratic Party and and the prospect of the birth of the Party of moderates are the sign that the expectation of unity is very strong in society. The referendum is an instrument to give voice to this desire.
10. So the referendum is not just about election law?
No, the referendum expresses an idea of \u200b\u200bpolitics and society, as a society based on open competition on quality, enhancement of the merits and opportunities. A society where every citizen can feel of your own life.
