Court of Parliament, in the referendum I will vote No. And I have ten valid reasons for doing so

Before expressing my point of view on the upcoming constitutional referendum on parliamentary court, I want to make a premise. The italic habit of regarding those who think differently as enemies and not good have long passed the guard limit. Part of the debate around the referendum also proves this: I mean not only the increasingly frequent fights on social media, but also the comments in the media with authorized signatures.

I understand that it is difficult to resist the fighting instinct, rekindled by the political election in recent years, however democracy It should also (and perhaps most of all) be based on tolerance. That said, on the occasion of the referendum -in compliance with (questionable) values ​​in which I recognize myself- I will vote “No” when it is cut. Here is my very personal decalogue.

one. I am going to vote “No” because I believe that the Italian people, more in this phase marked by the growing power of the leaders of the parties (or platforms that coincide with the leaders), should be highly represented in Parliament, with all its facets. By reducing the current number of parliamentarians from 945 to 600, for a total of 400 deputies (today there are 630) and 200 senators (currently there are 315), this representation: 153,685 are the citizens that each deputy would represent on average, including babies; while each senator would represent 301,223. The original text of the Constitution, born of anti-fascism, provided for one deputy for every 80,000 inhabitants (or fractions greater than 40,000) and one senator for every 200,000 inhabitants (or fractions greater than 100,000).

two. The fact that in the world there are democratic countries with a minor proportion Compared with ours between citizens and parliamentarians (since there are some with a higher ratio) I don’t care; We are not talking about the rate of pollution but about the rate of democracy. I remain convinced that the prediction of the fathers of the Constitution responded then, as today, to the needs of Italy, with its history and its characteristics.

3. The “Yes” motivation to cut based on money to be saved seems inconsistent. The state coffers, considering a lower cost of 81.6 million euros per year, would save only 0.01%. I think representation protection is worth the annual cost of a cappuccino for each of us. If you really want to save money, reduce the expenses that the state currently incurs for each member of parliament, without reducing the number of elected officials.

Four. A decline in democratic representation – especially in the absence of electoral reforms that accompany this reduction – entrusts the upper echelons of the parties more power in the selection (that of the succubus parliamentarians at the head) and in the deselection (of those who are considered insubordinate and uncomfortable). These parties are the same at the mercy, for years, of a leading drift, which instrumentally rides the moods of the people, weakens political life and increases crisis of ideas in the public sphere. This drift must be countered.

5. Most of those who vote “Yes” to the cut will do so on the wave of a feeling of revenge (widely cultivated, coincidentally, by certain leaders) against parliamentarians, considered non-productive and often corrupt parasites; if so, a percentage reduction would not alter this presumed vocation, if it would favor opportunistic, able to adapt to the expectations of those who select the candidates, and then “betray”. Therefore, in my opinion, greater representation is preferable.

6. However, a reduction of parliamentarians would not favor their selection. To give a concrete example, let us take the party currently most represented in Parliament, the 5 star movement, which is also the standard-bearer of the court. Its leaders pride themselves on having adopted the most transparent and effective system in the selection of their deputies and senators. However, between expulsions and exits, last June it had already lost 42 parliamentarians of the 343 elected in 2018; that is, about 13 percent in two years. Any reduced number of eligible people– given the difficulty in selecting candidates – it would not have decreased the percentages of the exodus and its consequences on the stability of the balance of power, because the problem is not in the number of parliamentarians but in the weakness and friability of the parties.

7. The reduction of parliamentarians does not seem to be related to a vision of organic reform. The main slogan of those who have turned it into a populist flag (linked to the need to “keep the promises”, responding to a generalized protest prejudice against the parliamentarians) is “we must cut the seats”. Why? Do what? Mystery. The premise from which the court was born is this: a seat in Parliament is an armchair from which elected members are often drawn. personal benefitsTherefore, politics cannot be considered a noble profession, indispensable to make a liberal democracy work.

With this logic, the general credibility Parliament, even though it was made up – just to make political fiction – of only three senators and three deputies; while cultivating the myth of the enlightened leader only in command (a myth refuted by the history of totalitarianism).

8. It is possible to speak of a cut in parliamentarians, it is not a taboo; However, it is also essential to know from what conception of the democratic parliamentary system is being spoken. If you do it to improve the system, it is one thing; if it is only about “cutting armchairs” to make sense of populist promise of the leaders and leaders of the day, the judgment, from my point of view, is negative.

9. This anti-parliamentary vision is proposed in a historical period in which it tends to transform the Parliament into a “vote”, too often called to inform – not only in Italy – exclusively to say “Yes” or “No” to the decrees of government on call; otherwise it seems considerate an annoying brake for executive activity. It seems like an excellent reason not to weaken the House and Senate.

10. In short, I prefer pay the cost -which is not a waste- of a strong democratic representation in Parliament, instead of voting in favor of a cut that was only demanded for propaganda purposes.