[ad_1]
Voters for the Quagliariello Bill. And yes, because the first proposal presented in this legislature to bring the deputies to 400 and the senators to 200, then adopted by the greenish-yellow government, signed by a moderate senator of whom everything can be said except that he is a populist, or a candidate to subvert the Constitution. On the other hand Virtually all parliamentary committees have called for similar cuts in parliamentarians for almost 40 years., bicameral or mono, that has been dedicated to the subject: the first reform proposal dates back to 1983, Serie A top scorer Michel Platini, and was chaired by an austere liberal with a Risorgimento goatee, Aldo bozzi. But they did not lack christian democrats (From Mita), the communists (A lot), the post-communists (D’Alema). Both the center-right of Berlusconi in 2006 that the center-left of Renzi in 2016 they included the first point of their ambitious reforms of the Constitution reducing the number of parliamentarians, even hoping to entice voters and push them to say yes to everything else, from the return to the dissolution of the Senate (Renzi even promised to distribute the 500 million he hoped to save the poor). But Italians turned out to be opposed to rewriting the Constitution, changing dozens of articles, and rejected both reforms.
This time, at least, only three articles are modified, 56, 57 and 59, and all on the same subject. another good reason, informs the former president of the Consulta Valerio Onida, to feel free to vote without fearing changes to the Charter or poisoned meatballs. I do not add, for the love of God, that the law on which we are about to express ourselves was approved by the Bulgarian majority less than a year ago in Montecitorio, with 553 s; only 14 brave enough dared to say no in the classroom. As I believe that one of the main causes of political discredit is this habit of changing your mind according to circumstances and convenience, I would like to avoid ending up in the company of the many renegade MPs who yesterday voted yes, today would vote no, tomorrow who knows. The voter also why the system of parliamentary representation it hasn’t worked for some time. For many reasons, of course, and almost all of them are absent from this reform, including the electoral law. But they taught me that the best enemy of good and benaltrism the opposite of reformism: if one thing does not stop being correct just because there would be ten more correct things to do.
Many want to vote no to give the anti-parliamentary demagoguery of the grillini a chance. Understandable. But I wonder if, by taking the side of preserving something incorrect, they are not risking to give them a hand, giving them the monopoly of change. What we must save is representative democracy. It is based on Parliament, which is in very bad shape. become invisible, and not me, but the president of the Senate. Long outmatched by abuse of statutory decreesWith the excuse of necessity and urgency, as soon as a situation of real need and urgency such as the pandemic is determined, the decree laws have also been repealed by the Dpcm. Plus the slow parliament, sounding board, pure stage for a political show that now we only remember by the kneeling of Boldrini or by the deposition of Sgarbi, the more we let it be treated as a classroom for the deaf and gray, the less democracy we will have. Of course, Parliament is not in these conditions just because it has 945 nominees, which despite being many today, do not guarantee an effective representation of the territories. And of course it will not recover by reducing them to 600, if they remain nominated. Because it would help. Could be discussed laws in permanent committees that are not composed of fifty people, return to the intervention in the classroom a value that it has completely lost, even foresee joint sessions of the two branches, thus reducing the repeatability of a perfect bicameralism only in duplications. Non-enthusiastic voter, because I’m not kidding myself: much more must and must be done. But without a doubt. And without thinking for a moment about the vulgar argument of the (mini) saving of public money. An inefficient democracy costs us a thousand times more.
August 31, 2020 (change September 1, 2020 | 00:05)
© REPRODUCTION RESERVED
[ad_2]
