One of the caricatures of Italian opera is the call to immediate action usually launched by the tenor “Andiam! Partiam!” (“let’s go, let’s leave!”), sustained heartily by a robust chorus… for the last 25 minutes of act III.
The People of Freedom (PdL), or at least part of them, are singing that tune, except that instead of the lead tenor, we have Daniela Santanché at the moment Silvio Berlusconi’s most outspoken supporter. She and the other so-called hawks have been saying that unless Berlusconi is granted some sort of agibilità politica, a neologism which more less means a “licence to act politically”, despite his conviction to gaol and a bar to holding public office on tax evasion and fraud charges, then they will bring the government down.
Forza Italia (FI), Berlusconi’s original 1994 party has in practice been resuscitated and is on an election footing; Berlusconi has declared as much and his people have promised (threatened) aerial publicity over the beaches on Thursday, Ferragosto, Italy’s second most sacred holiday after Christmas. There are already posters up in parts of Milan. It is significant, but hardly surprising that the end of the PdL and the rebirth of FI has taken place with no discussion, deliberation, motions. In that party, the boss decides and no one questions his decisions.
But even if Santanché is spoiling for a fight, we are unlikely to have a first ever autumn election.
The end of the present government, headed by Enrico Letta, would mean an automatic increase in VAT (the default setting which the government would like to change), it would mean the automatic payment of the IMU property tax which the PdL promised to abolish and the application of another local service tax, the TARES for a total of €7bn according to the reliable CGIA thinktank.
IMU is a double-edged sword. The PdL hawks threaten to bring the government down if it is not abolished but if they do, they risk taking the blame for the inevitable tax increases that would follow. Letta has said that the cabinet will deal with the IMU and other tax issues on 30 August.
Another reason for not having a snap election is that on 3 Dec., the Constitutional Court will rule on the present electoral law, nicknamed the Porcellum or Pig’s Dinner. If they declare it unconstitutional – it gives the winning coalition 55% of the the seats in the Chamber even as was the case in February, they only won 29% of the vote – then a Parliament elected in November with the old law would lose its legitimacy.
In any case, elections with the Porcellum would most likely result in a similar result, forcing another “broad agreement” between PD and PdL, or worse if Grillo were to come out with the relative majority in the Chamber, he would have the 55% premium and could call the shots – not likely but a nightmare scenario for the PdL and PD.
Then there are the divisions within both PdL and PD which would make snap elections even more uncertain. For the PdL, there is the question of succession. The further Silvio Berlusconi moves from centre stage the more the divisions in the centre-right become apparent as they did last year before Christmas when they were polling a mere 15%. This is precisely why Santanché would like elections now but of course there is no way to do it.
The PD is hardly better off. At the moment, their divisions are merely comic – at their last Directive meeting, the two party vice-presidents issued conflicting statements over the date of their autumn congress. But there are real differences over policy and leaders which they hope will be resolved by the congress but which are still open wounds.
Hovering not very far in the background is another nightmare scenario for the PdL which is Napolitano’s threat to resign if the government falls. If that were to happen, there is a fair chance that this time, the centre-left would succeed in electing Romano Prodi, Berlusconi’s nemesis.
Outside the limited sphere of direct self-interest, Italy takes over the EU presidency in July next year and no one really wants to see the country in turmoil. On the economic front, the public debt continues to grow and the GDP to fall but positively, the difference between German and Italian interest rates which govern the cost of servicing the Italian debt is at the lowest for two years. These are mixed signals and no one wants to be responsible for making them wholly negative.
But over the short term, it is Berlusconi’s agibilità politica which conditions the noise levels of Italian politics – for the government, Letta has shown himself to be even more unflappable in public than his predecessor Mario Monti.
The Senate committee on eligibility for election is due to decide “by October” on whether he should step down now under a 2012 law which bars anyone with more than a two year conviction from holding or standing for public office. They will almost certainly declare him disbarred from being a senator though he will almost certainly appeal against the decision.
Then some time over the next two or three months the Milan Court of Appeal will declare on the exact length of Berlusconi’s bar on public office, one, two or three years. Until then, even if he wanted to, Napolitano could not issue a pardon or any other measure on what is still an indetermined sentence. He has promised a statement today or tomorrow but however much he wants the government to hold, he would be foolhardy to try and overturn a Supreme Court verdict before the full sentence has been published (in Italy the verdict is given one day but the reasons for it are not made public for 60 days).
The original “Andiam, partiam” aria was in Gounod’s Faust, act II so we still have a long way to go till the grand finale. It is just possible that Letta’s government will survive its full term to 2018, but highly unlikely; he could make it to his own self-imposed term of 2015 but only if his ability and circumstance allow him to exploit the divisions in the PD and PdL (and their successors) rather than be brought down by the ever more serious bickerings within and between the two parties. Or he could last until next spring when there is a new electoral law and the two parties think that they can face elections or at least the cost of staying together would be even higher.
Showing posts sorted by date for query porcellum. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query porcellum. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Monday, December 31, 2012
Electionwatch 8 – two cheers for the centre-left primaries
The Italian electoral law, the Porcellum or pig’s dinner, has fixed party lists. The party or the party leader decides on the order. If you win 25% of the vote, then the top quarter of the list are elected; the voter can only choose a party and can do nothing to influence which of the party’s candidates should be elected. The Israelis have a similar system and will be using it next month.
After a very successful primary campaign for the leadership, the Democratic Party (PD) decided to repeat the scheme for their parliamentary candidates. They worked very quickly and effectively to draw up rules and organise elections across the country. The aim was to give voters the choice that the electoral system denies them as well as guaranteeing some gender balance (voters in the primaries can vote for two candidates; one male, one female).
On Saturday and yesterday, party members and sympathisers voted for the candidates that they would like to see fight the elections in February. My immediate presumption was that the primaries would establish the order of the fixed party list and therefore the likelihood of a candidate actually being elected.
I was wrong.
First of all, Party Secretary, Pierluigi Bersani, chooses the people for the top of the lists. There are 26 constituencies for the Chamber and 20 regional constituencies for the Senate. Then the national executive chooses up to 10% of the candidates (about a 100) on the basis of “competence and openness towards society”. That counts for almost a third of likely parliamentarians.
The rest are not ranked directly by party activists though; today’s primaries are organised on a province basis while the constituencies are much bigger, usually regionally. So, as Chiara Geloni, chief editor of the PD’s television station, YouDem, told me, “in my province of Massa Carrara, the party decided that we should have two candidates at the elections so we chose two from the four in the primaries.”
The Tuscan constituency has 38 deputies and if the PD does very well, they might win 20 seats (in 2008, they had 19) so candidates 1-15 are sure of election, 16-22 are possibles and 23-38 are no-hopers. Geloni was not able to tell me where the two winners from Massa would be placed on the list or whether the man or the woman would be first “that will be decided by the Regional and National executives”. They will also decide on the order for the Senate candidates. The final results are expected on Wednesday.
So at the end of the day, the exercise was rather less than a triumph of transparency and democracy. The leader and the secretariat did not let the activists decide who would stand the best chance of being elected as the Americans do in their primaries and, indeed as the PD did in its own leadership primaries last month.
But it would be ungenerous to carp too much and accuse the PD of residual communist control. No party anywhere in the world allows militants to decide all the posts. In Italy, only the PD and its allies even staged primaries. At a local level, the “wrong” ie non-party-sponsored candidate has won on more than one occasion. And then gone on to win the mayoral election like Giulio Pisapia in Milan and Luigi De Magistris in Naples.
Angelino Alfano proposed primaries for the centre-right in order to give himself some legitimacy beyond Berlusconi’s investiture. But then Berlusconi couldn’t resist coming back into play and the PdL was worried that they could not manage the PD’s 3 million turnout and so would be perceived as losers. Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Movement (M5S) held their primaries on line with some doubts as to the reliability and transparency of the process. In any case only 95,000 people voted.
Mario Monti and the centre haven’t given themselves enough time even to think about primaries.
So all in all, the PD primaries have been a success. The leadership process gave the party huge coverage and a big boost in the opinion polls hitting 38% briefly. They are now down to 33-35% but still doing well. Pierluigi Bersani has established himself as the clear and undisputed leader not only of the PD but of a centre-left coalition that goes from Bruno Tabacci in the centre to Nichi Vendola on the left. And finally, 3 million people turned out to vote in November and a million this weekend; they paid €2 each; €8 million is a useful start to an election campaign. Many of them left phone numbers or emails so will be contacted during the campaign and some will campaign themselves. So even if the people in my local PD office did not know exactly what everyone was voting for, the overall effect was certainly positive not just for the PD but for Italian democracy in general.
As in previous election years, the American University of Rome will be hosting a two day conference covering election issues, parties, policies and personalities, with analyses from scholars, journalists and politicians. This year it will be on 8-9 March 2013 originally a month before the likely date of the elections, now two weeks after the 24-25 Feb elections. The keynote speeches will be given by Paul Ginsborg and Gianfranco Pasquino.
After a very successful primary campaign for the leadership, the Democratic Party (PD) decided to repeat the scheme for their parliamentary candidates. They worked very quickly and effectively to draw up rules and organise elections across the country. The aim was to give voters the choice that the electoral system denies them as well as guaranteeing some gender balance (voters in the primaries can vote for two candidates; one male, one female).
On Saturday and yesterday, party members and sympathisers voted for the candidates that they would like to see fight the elections in February. My immediate presumption was that the primaries would establish the order of the fixed party list and therefore the likelihood of a candidate actually being elected.
I was wrong.
First of all, Party Secretary, Pierluigi Bersani, chooses the people for the top of the lists. There are 26 constituencies for the Chamber and 20 regional constituencies for the Senate. Then the national executive chooses up to 10% of the candidates (about a 100) on the basis of “competence and openness towards society”. That counts for almost a third of likely parliamentarians.
The rest are not ranked directly by party activists though; today’s primaries are organised on a province basis while the constituencies are much bigger, usually regionally. So, as Chiara Geloni, chief editor of the PD’s television station, YouDem, told me, “in my province of Massa Carrara, the party decided that we should have two candidates at the elections so we chose two from the four in the primaries.”
The Tuscan constituency has 38 deputies and if the PD does very well, they might win 20 seats (in 2008, they had 19) so candidates 1-15 are sure of election, 16-22 are possibles and 23-38 are no-hopers. Geloni was not able to tell me where the two winners from Massa would be placed on the list or whether the man or the woman would be first “that will be decided by the Regional and National executives”. They will also decide on the order for the Senate candidates. The final results are expected on Wednesday.
So at the end of the day, the exercise was rather less than a triumph of transparency and democracy. The leader and the secretariat did not let the activists decide who would stand the best chance of being elected as the Americans do in their primaries and, indeed as the PD did in its own leadership primaries last month.
But it would be ungenerous to carp too much and accuse the PD of residual communist control. No party anywhere in the world allows militants to decide all the posts. In Italy, only the PD and its allies even staged primaries. At a local level, the “wrong” ie non-party-sponsored candidate has won on more than one occasion. And then gone on to win the mayoral election like Giulio Pisapia in Milan and Luigi De Magistris in Naples.
Angelino Alfano proposed primaries for the centre-right in order to give himself some legitimacy beyond Berlusconi’s investiture. But then Berlusconi couldn’t resist coming back into play and the PdL was worried that they could not manage the PD’s 3 million turnout and so would be perceived as losers. Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Movement (M5S) held their primaries on line with some doubts as to the reliability and transparency of the process. In any case only 95,000 people voted.
Mario Monti and the centre haven’t given themselves enough time even to think about primaries.
So all in all, the PD primaries have been a success. The leadership process gave the party huge coverage and a big boost in the opinion polls hitting 38% briefly. They are now down to 33-35% but still doing well. Pierluigi Bersani has established himself as the clear and undisputed leader not only of the PD but of a centre-left coalition that goes from Bruno Tabacci in the centre to Nichi Vendola on the left. And finally, 3 million people turned out to vote in November and a million this weekend; they paid €2 each; €8 million is a useful start to an election campaign. Many of them left phone numbers or emails so will be contacted during the campaign and some will campaign themselves. So even if the people in my local PD office did not know exactly what everyone was voting for, the overall effect was certainly positive not just for the PD but for Italian democracy in general.
As in previous election years, the American University of Rome will be hosting a two day conference covering election issues, parties, policies and personalities, with analyses from scholars, journalists and politicians. This year it will be on 8-9 March 2013 originally a month before the likely date of the elections, now two weeks after the 24-25 Feb elections. The keynote speeches will be given by Paul Ginsborg and Gianfranco Pasquino.
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Election watch 7 – Election law basics. This little piggy is complicated…
For the last year all the political parties and their leaders agreed loudly that the 2005 electoral law was unjust and inappropriate and should be changed. The man who guided it through Parliament, the Northern League’s Roberto Calderoli, called it a porcata (pig’s mess) back then and Italy's top political analyst Giovanni Sartori immediately dubbed it with a dog-Latin tag Porcellum.
Every month or so, President Napolitano reminded Parliament and the parties that time was passing and the old law was still in place. They answered with a ritual “it’ll be ready in a fortnight”. The parties and parliamentary committees discussed nerdy and arcane distinctions between single member constituencies, double ballots and preference votes… but in the end came to no conclusions and the law is unchanged.
This should surprise no one as the Porcellum gives complete power to party leaders to decide who gets elected and it also gives a hefty premium to the largest party or coalition. Silvio Berlusconi and his PdL wanted to keep control of the candidates and Pierluigi Bersani and the PD were not averse to taking 55% of the seats with only 35% of the vote, a quite probable result.
So as the election campaign gets under way, it’s worth looking at the rules and the playing field that they are competing on.
Italy has perfect bicameralism – its two houses have equal power as in the US but very different from the UK or France, say. In order to govern, a coalition needs a majority in the Senate and the Chamber.
The Chamber has 630 deputies so the majority is 316. There are twenty six multi-member constituencies to elect 617 deputies. The other 13 come from the Valle d’Aosta single member constituency and 12 representing Italians abroad. The party or coalition that wins a relative majority automatically takes a premium of 55% on the 617 equal to 340 seats. In 2006, Prodi’s Unione won 0.1% (or c. 70,000) more than Berlusconi’s coalition and took the premium.
There are thresholds in order to qualify of seats. A coalition must poll 10% with each single component party taking 2%. A party standing by itself must poll 4%.
There seems to be an incentive to put together the broadest possible coalition in order to maximise the chances of being the biggest group and winning the premium. This is what Prodi did in 2006 but the coalition was too broad and unravelled after only two years. In 2007, Walter Veltroni gambled that a single and united party would stand a better chance; he founded the Democratic Party which was the main cause of the Prodi coalition falling apart. Berlusconi took up the challenge and founded his single party, the Popolo delle Libertà by uniting his own Forza Italia and the post-fascist Alleanza Nazionale. The PdL swept the board in the 2008 elections but it too started showing cracks after two years in practice losing its majority in 2011.
The candidates who actually become deputies are those at the top of the list, down to the percentage the party polled. In simple terms, in a constituency with 40 deputies, a party which polls 30% will have the first 12 on their list elected. The order of the list is decided by the party, not the voters.
Today it is highly likely that Bersani’s PD in coalition with Nichi Vendola’s left wing SEL (Sinistra, Ecologia, Libertà – Left, Ecology, Freedom) will win the relative majority in the Chamber.
The Senate is much less certain.
There are 315 seats up for election and the system works on the same principle as the Chamber and gives a premium of 55% to the winning list or coalition but at the regional rather than national level.
The threshold is double the Chamber’s; 20% for a coalition and 4% for each single component and 8% for parties outside a coalition. This is why Monti’s supporters have decided to present a single list in the Senate as singly they would not reach the 8% threshold.
There are 20 regions. The traditional “red” regions (Communist once upon a time - Emilia-Romagna, the Marches, Tuscany and Umbria) will almost certainly give the PD a majority. The “white” regions (Christian Democrat – Venetia, Lombardy and parts of the south) are much less certain. Now that there is a strong centrist option with Monti, the votes will be evenly split and even in the red belt, a protest vote for Beppe Grillo’s Movimento 5 Stelle (Five Star Movement) or the new Arancione (Orange) movement could cause problems for Bersani.
The electoral system means that American terms and techniques will be used. Whoever wins Lombardy takes 27 (out of 49) seats; Latium 16/28. Both regions will be campaigning for their regional governments at the same time and the centre left is hoping that disgust at the outgoing centre-right’s corruption will not only give them a regional victory but will bring them the Senate in tow. Sicily with its 25 seats (14 to the relative majority) voted in October and returned a centre left government. These are the key “swing regions”.
The coalitions must indicate a leader (not, strictly speaking a candidate for prime minister as the President has the prerogative of choosing the prime minister). The debate over the last week was whether, and then how Mario Monti would be present in the centrist coalition. In his pre-Christmas press conference he was highly critical of politics based on leaders rather than programmes. Now he has become a “leader” himself.
The last important technical element of the Porcellum is the obligation to present lists of candidates supported by citizens’ signatures… more than 120,000 for new parties (the exact number depends on the number of registered voters). Not an easy task. But two days ago, Parliament amended that section of the law reducing the necessary number by 75% for new parties outside Parliament and by a further 60% for breakaway groups within the old Parliament. That means that Grillo will have to find around 30,000 signatures and Ignazio La Russa former minister and outgoing deputy who created his own group a week ago will have to find around 12,000. The old saying in Italian is “fatta la legge, gabbato lo santo” “as soon as the law is made, the saint is made a fool”.
There is life yet in this little pig.
As in previous election years, the American University of Rome will be hosting a two day conference covering election issues, parties, policies and personalities, with analyses from scholars, journalists and politicians. This year it will be on 8-9 March 2013 originally a month before the likely date of the elections, now two weeks after the 24-25 Feb elections. The keynote speech will be given by Paul Ginsborg.
Previous Election Watch Blogs
1. 15 July Nine months to Elections.
2. 28 July Summer
3. 9 Sept. Monti succeeds Monti? The temperature rises. Berlusconi again, “The White Thing” and left in disarray.
4. 30 Sept. All aboard the Monti bandwagon.
5. 13 Oct. Elections Watch 5. Disintegrating regions.
6. 2 Nov Election Watch 6. Berlusconi unleashed and Sicilian elections.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Election watch 4. All aboard the Monti bandwagon.
It should not have been a surprise to hear Mario Monti say publically that if asked and if necessary he would continue in government but that he was not going to stand for office.
From the moment he was appointed almost a year ago, there has been speculation about what he would do after the elections. At first, the presumption was that he would “go up the hill”, the Quirinale and take over from President Napolitano whose term ends in May next year but over the last six months there has been increasing speculation that he would continue as prime minister.
If he does stay on, he would not be the first politician to “sacrifice myself for the good of the country” only with Monti, one gets the feeling that he actually means it. Certainly he does not want to jump into the electoral fray and if he does continue, it will be on his own terms.
A second Monti government would be useful for many politicians and some of them are already taking advantage of Monti’s possible second term. The centre has always supported him as have Catholics across the spectrum; so Pierferdinando Casini was explicit last week saying that his centrist UDC would campaign for a “Monti bis” which he repeated again today along with Gianfranco Fini, speaker of the Chamber and leader of Futuro e Libertà. The head of the Italian episcopal conference, Mons. Mariano Crociata was more guarded but gave Monti his implicit support for “any solution to overcome the crisis”. The more secular centre is represented by Luca Cordero di Montezemolo, the Ferrari boss. He set up a foundation Italia futura in 2009 which was presumed to be his springboard into politics but he has wavered ever since. Now he says that he will not go into politics himself but will support Monti. All together, the centre might just reach 10%; Casini and the others are hoping that with Monti as the future prime minister, they would do much better.
Angelino Alfano, the nominal leader of Berlusconi’s Popolo della Libertà, (PdL) said today that Monti should declare his candidacy but has made it clear that he and implicitly Berlusconi would prefer a Monti bis to a centre left victory. They seem to be preparing the way to tag along after Monti and maintain some say in both positions and policy for the next government. It is a rational strategy as all the opinion polls suggest that with or without Berlusconi, the PdL would come in a poor second. In any case, they are seriously divided, suffering from the Latium scandals and worried that other regional scandals will further soil the party’s sagging reputation. Like the centrists, they think that by hitching their wagon to a Monti bis, they can do better at the elections and above all after the elections.
Pierluigi Bersani, leader of the centre-left Democratic Party (PD) is in a much more difficult position. They are supporting Monti’s government today but are leading in the polls and hope to win the elections. To support Monti today would be to give up before the campaign begins. And Bersani has indeed expressed his admiration for Monti but laid his claim to at least trying to win the elections.
We are a step closer to the date; most likely 7-8 April (not a very difficult calculation given the end of the mandate, the Easter and Pesach holidays and then the 25 April and 1 May holidays). But we are no closer to an electoral system. There is a real risk that Italy will once again vote with the despised fixed party list system known as the porcellum or pig’s dinner. If that happens, turnout will plummet as voter confidence is at an all-time low and to have candidates chosen by the parties will reduce that confidence even further.
We already have Sicilian regional elections at the end of October and now the Interior Minister has said that Latium will vote within 90 days after last week’s dramatic resignation of the president, Renata Polverini. (And Rome will elect a new mayor in spring so we will have a surfeit of elections over the next six months).
One of the new Parliament’s first jobs will be to elect Napolitano’s successor, at the moment the favorite has to be Romano Prodi but obviously the result will depend on Parliament’s composition.
Much lower on the pecking order but much closer in time is the PD’s struggle to work out their own primary system to choose their own leader. Most likely Bersani but by no means certain. The 37 year old Florence mayor, Matteo Renzi, is close on his heels and there are other candidates
The Northern League is trying to re-invent itself after the Bossi family scandals. The new leader, Roberto Maroni has talked about a “renaissance” and “Forza Nord”, hoping to emulate the early Berlusconi success.
Meanwhile, with typical irony, Parliament is addressing a new anti-corruption law unconcerned that a good number of them might fall victim to a serious measure.
So much better to look for the possible winner and his bandwagon.
From the moment he was appointed almost a year ago, there has been speculation about what he would do after the elections. At first, the presumption was that he would “go up the hill”, the Quirinale and take over from President Napolitano whose term ends in May next year but over the last six months there has been increasing speculation that he would continue as prime minister.
If he does stay on, he would not be the first politician to “sacrifice myself for the good of the country” only with Monti, one gets the feeling that he actually means it. Certainly he does not want to jump into the electoral fray and if he does continue, it will be on his own terms.
A second Monti government would be useful for many politicians and some of them are already taking advantage of Monti’s possible second term. The centre has always supported him as have Catholics across the spectrum; so Pierferdinando Casini was explicit last week saying that his centrist UDC would campaign for a “Monti bis” which he repeated again today along with Gianfranco Fini, speaker of the Chamber and leader of Futuro e Libertà. The head of the Italian episcopal conference, Mons. Mariano Crociata was more guarded but gave Monti his implicit support for “any solution to overcome the crisis”. The more secular centre is represented by Luca Cordero di Montezemolo, the Ferrari boss. He set up a foundation Italia futura in 2009 which was presumed to be his springboard into politics but he has wavered ever since. Now he says that he will not go into politics himself but will support Monti. All together, the centre might just reach 10%; Casini and the others are hoping that with Monti as the future prime minister, they would do much better.
Angelino Alfano, the nominal leader of Berlusconi’s Popolo della Libertà, (PdL) said today that Monti should declare his candidacy but has made it clear that he and implicitly Berlusconi would prefer a Monti bis to a centre left victory. They seem to be preparing the way to tag along after Monti and maintain some say in both positions and policy for the next government. It is a rational strategy as all the opinion polls suggest that with or without Berlusconi, the PdL would come in a poor second. In any case, they are seriously divided, suffering from the Latium scandals and worried that other regional scandals will further soil the party’s sagging reputation. Like the centrists, they think that by hitching their wagon to a Monti bis, they can do better at the elections and above all after the elections.
Pierluigi Bersani, leader of the centre-left Democratic Party (PD) is in a much more difficult position. They are supporting Monti’s government today but are leading in the polls and hope to win the elections. To support Monti today would be to give up before the campaign begins. And Bersani has indeed expressed his admiration for Monti but laid his claim to at least trying to win the elections.
We are a step closer to the date; most likely 7-8 April (not a very difficult calculation given the end of the mandate, the Easter and Pesach holidays and then the 25 April and 1 May holidays). But we are no closer to an electoral system. There is a real risk that Italy will once again vote with the despised fixed party list system known as the porcellum or pig’s dinner. If that happens, turnout will plummet as voter confidence is at an all-time low and to have candidates chosen by the parties will reduce that confidence even further.
We already have Sicilian regional elections at the end of October and now the Interior Minister has said that Latium will vote within 90 days after last week’s dramatic resignation of the president, Renata Polverini. (And Rome will elect a new mayor in spring so we will have a surfeit of elections over the next six months).
One of the new Parliament’s first jobs will be to elect Napolitano’s successor, at the moment the favorite has to be Romano Prodi but obviously the result will depend on Parliament’s composition.
Much lower on the pecking order but much closer in time is the PD’s struggle to work out their own primary system to choose their own leader. Most likely Bersani but by no means certain. The 37 year old Florence mayor, Matteo Renzi, is close on his heels and there are other candidates
The Northern League is trying to re-invent itself after the Bossi family scandals. The new leader, Roberto Maroni has talked about a “renaissance” and “Forza Nord”, hoping to emulate the early Berlusconi success.
Meanwhile, with typical irony, Parliament is addressing a new anti-corruption law unconcerned that a good number of them might fall victim to a serious measure.
So much better to look for the possible winner and his bandwagon.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Election Watch 2
Instead of winding down for the summer break, Italy has a corruption scandal in the north, a major mafia investigation in the south and regional governments with serious budget deficits across the country. The euro crisis and Italy’s national debt are by now constants which only change by some degree day by day. And hovering over it all are the uncertainties of the general elections.
The first uncertainty is over the date of the elections. For the last fortnight rumours have been swirling around the possibility of early elections this autumn. Last week Enrico Mentana on La 7 television news even put a date to it – 4 November. Over the last few days, La Repubblica suggested 20 November. The justification is that prime minister Monti is supposed to prefer to have an elected government rather than extending the agony of market uncertainty for another six months.
Monti himself has not said a word; on the contrary, he has repeated that he will continue his mandate until its natural end next spring.
Berlusconi and the PdL have been wavering but on balance, since the opinion polls are against them, they would prefer to vote later rather than sooner in the hope that they can improve. Bersani and the PD would almost certainly come out as the biggest party but they are maintaining a position of “responsibility”, trying to create an air of calm and normality where little is either calm or normal. Only the opposition – Maroni and the Northern League (LN), Di Pietro and Italy of Values (IdV) and Beppe Grillo and his Five Star Movement (M5S) are openly in favour of early elections.
The possibility of early elections is actually hardly more than a summer storm. There is little chance of the parties agreeing on a new election law in time for November elections; elections would not resolve Italy’s economic or other problems and would risk worsening them if the M5S made a strong showing and the traditional parties were not able to formulate clear and confidence-building policies; and Italy has never had autumn elections and is a country where the system is very conservative. Finally, the parties and the would-be parties need more than three months to organise.
In theory, of course, Parliament could pass a new electoral law within a week. It needs a simple majority in both houses; the Senate speaker, Renato Schifani has offered to keep the Senate open throughout August if necessary and no doubt that Gianfranco Fini would do the same for the Chamber. The problem is that the parties cannot decide on what sort of law they want. The PdL has said they would like a 10% premium for the winning party (on the lines of the Greek system) combined with preference votes (voters express one or more preferences for candidates in a party list – this is the system that was abolished in Italy in 1991 because it made individual votes traceable). The PD is against it.
The parties which are already in Parliament actually quite like the existing law, especially the PD which would do very well with it – if elections were held today, they would take a majority in the Chamber with only 27% of the vote. The Senate would be different, but they would still do well. Party leaders would have absolute control over which candidates were elected. But neither the PD nor any of the others can admit to saying they like the so-called porcellum (roughly and politely translated as “pig’s dinner”). And until there is a new law, no one can plan possible alliances because the electoral system conditions the type of possible future coalitions. The risk is, as Antonio Polito pointed out in today’s Corriere that there will be a neo-porcellum.
So the minuet continues. Possible partners present themselves, do a couple of turns or wait till the next dance. The PdL and the LN voted together on a constitutional amendment proposal (direct election of the president and a “federal” parliament) and they are said to be working on a common proposal for the election law. Some members of both parties would definitely like to reform the old alliance.
Di Pietro suggested that far from planning a “Vasto photo” coalition as I suggested in the first “election watch”, he would now like to see an alliance between Nichi Vendola’s “Left, Ecology and Freedom” (SEL) and the M5S. Grillo replied without even mentioning the IdV, just saying that the Movement was not planning any alliances and had had no overtures.
In the centre there is also movement. Last week, the free market economist, Oscar Giannino was reported as preparing to set up a new party. It would be economically liberal, aimed at economic growth and in favour of privatisations and against across the board cuts. There was implicit support from the employers’ federation, the Confindustria which has become almost explicit today with full page ads in newspapers calling for a new centrist formation.
The trial balloon is a complicated mix. According to Claudio Tito in today’s Repubblica, the new thing (party? Movement? Formation?) would have Monti somewhere in the title even if he himself would not be a candidate. A possible candidate could be the present (young), mayor of Florence, Matteo Renzi who finds his own PD too old, too left wing and too constricting for a man of his ambitions. The former president of Confindustria, Emma Marcegaglia, is said to be on the fringes but not yet ready to take the plunge. The party might also be led by Corrado Passera and include the support of Ferrari boss, Luca Cordero di Montezemolo and his thinktank/party in waiting “Italia Futura”.
In other words there is great uncertainty and everyone is manoevering on a field they still do not know.
Issues are still thin on the ground. Civil unions and gay marriage had the PD arguing last week, giving the measure equivocal support but they have quietened. As the elections approach it will return to divide the party and others. The government issues on the economy are in practice off limits as the three parties supporting the government cannot afford to differ too stridently.
As for the opinion polls, whichever one takes, around half the Italians are either undecided or have decided not to vote. This is a huge proportion and very unusual for Italy. The proportion will decline as the elections approach but it give substance to the alienation from politics. The PD is the biggest party at 25-27%, the PdL a long way behind around 18-19%. Grillo and the M5S is not far behind them at 16-18 with all the others around 5-6%.
We have a long way to go before we can even see the profile of the election campaign, let alone the results.
The first uncertainty is over the date of the elections. For the last fortnight rumours have been swirling around the possibility of early elections this autumn. Last week Enrico Mentana on La 7 television news even put a date to it – 4 November. Over the last few days, La Repubblica suggested 20 November. The justification is that prime minister Monti is supposed to prefer to have an elected government rather than extending the agony of market uncertainty for another six months.
Monti himself has not said a word; on the contrary, he has repeated that he will continue his mandate until its natural end next spring.
Berlusconi and the PdL have been wavering but on balance, since the opinion polls are against them, they would prefer to vote later rather than sooner in the hope that they can improve. Bersani and the PD would almost certainly come out as the biggest party but they are maintaining a position of “responsibility”, trying to create an air of calm and normality where little is either calm or normal. Only the opposition – Maroni and the Northern League (LN), Di Pietro and Italy of Values (IdV) and Beppe Grillo and his Five Star Movement (M5S) are openly in favour of early elections.
The possibility of early elections is actually hardly more than a summer storm. There is little chance of the parties agreeing on a new election law in time for November elections; elections would not resolve Italy’s economic or other problems and would risk worsening them if the M5S made a strong showing and the traditional parties were not able to formulate clear and confidence-building policies; and Italy has never had autumn elections and is a country where the system is very conservative. Finally, the parties and the would-be parties need more than three months to organise.
In theory, of course, Parliament could pass a new electoral law within a week. It needs a simple majority in both houses; the Senate speaker, Renato Schifani has offered to keep the Senate open throughout August if necessary and no doubt that Gianfranco Fini would do the same for the Chamber. The problem is that the parties cannot decide on what sort of law they want. The PdL has said they would like a 10% premium for the winning party (on the lines of the Greek system) combined with preference votes (voters express one or more preferences for candidates in a party list – this is the system that was abolished in Italy in 1991 because it made individual votes traceable). The PD is against it.
The parties which are already in Parliament actually quite like the existing law, especially the PD which would do very well with it – if elections were held today, they would take a majority in the Chamber with only 27% of the vote. The Senate would be different, but they would still do well. Party leaders would have absolute control over which candidates were elected. But neither the PD nor any of the others can admit to saying they like the so-called porcellum (roughly and politely translated as “pig’s dinner”). And until there is a new law, no one can plan possible alliances because the electoral system conditions the type of possible future coalitions. The risk is, as Antonio Polito pointed out in today’s Corriere that there will be a neo-porcellum.
So the minuet continues. Possible partners present themselves, do a couple of turns or wait till the next dance. The PdL and the LN voted together on a constitutional amendment proposal (direct election of the president and a “federal” parliament) and they are said to be working on a common proposal for the election law. Some members of both parties would definitely like to reform the old alliance.
Di Pietro suggested that far from planning a “Vasto photo” coalition as I suggested in the first “election watch”, he would now like to see an alliance between Nichi Vendola’s “Left, Ecology and Freedom” (SEL) and the M5S. Grillo replied without even mentioning the IdV, just saying that the Movement was not planning any alliances and had had no overtures.
In the centre there is also movement. Last week, the free market economist, Oscar Giannino was reported as preparing to set up a new party. It would be economically liberal, aimed at economic growth and in favour of privatisations and against across the board cuts. There was implicit support from the employers’ federation, the Confindustria which has become almost explicit today with full page ads in newspapers calling for a new centrist formation.
The trial balloon is a complicated mix. According to Claudio Tito in today’s Repubblica, the new thing (party? Movement? Formation?) would have Monti somewhere in the title even if he himself would not be a candidate. A possible candidate could be the present (young), mayor of Florence, Matteo Renzi who finds his own PD too old, too left wing and too constricting for a man of his ambitions. The former president of Confindustria, Emma Marcegaglia, is said to be on the fringes but not yet ready to take the plunge. The party might also be led by Corrado Passera and include the support of Ferrari boss, Luca Cordero di Montezemolo and his thinktank/party in waiting “Italia Futura”.
In other words there is great uncertainty and everyone is manoevering on a field they still do not know.
Issues are still thin on the ground. Civil unions and gay marriage had the PD arguing last week, giving the measure equivocal support but they have quietened. As the elections approach it will return to divide the party and others. The government issues on the economy are in practice off limits as the three parties supporting the government cannot afford to differ too stridently.
As for the opinion polls, whichever one takes, around half the Italians are either undecided or have decided not to vote. This is a huge proportion and very unusual for Italy. The proportion will decline as the elections approach but it give substance to the alienation from politics. The PD is the biggest party at 25-27%, the PdL a long way behind around 18-19%. Grillo and the M5S is not far behind them at 16-18 with all the others around 5-6%.
We have a long way to go before we can even see the profile of the election campaign, let alone the results.
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Nine months to Elections. First Election Watch Blog.
By my calculations, allowing for Easter, Pesach, Liberation Day (25 April) and May Day, the Italian elections should be on 14-15/4 or 21-22/4 or maybe 28-29/4.
If I’m right, then we have nine months before Italians go to the polls to elect a new Parliament and, possibly, a new government. All elections are crucial for someone and they all are hyped as make-or-break-contests. More often than not, the results are banal and change little and there is a serious danger that the 2013 poll will be both make-or-break and change little.
This time, the elections are not just of interest to Italians. Between now and April, Italians and their politicians have a big responsibility on their hands. First of all, the country’s well-being, future growth and social peace depend on what the government does between now and April and how the political parties conduct the campaign; on those two points depend confidence in the euro and its future. Connected by a longer thread is the future shape of the EU itself because if the euro disintegrates, the Union will change shape; if the euro continues, it will mean a new integration and development of the EU.
In the much shorter term, but indirectly, Obama’s re-election depends at least partially on Europe showing signs of a recovery which would enhance an American recovery. Even more indirectly, the emerging economies depend on Europe and North America expanding again.
Most Italian voters do not realise the burden they are carrying (but some do). Much worse, most Italian politicians cannot see beyond the need to get re-elected and maintain their privileges. All important legislation in both the Monti government and before under Berlusconi has been passed as decree laws with votes of confidence. In practice the Houses have been reduced to a school playground where the children can shout and scream for half an hour and then when the whistle blows, they line up for a roll call.
Under Berlusconi, the showtime was extended to television talk shows where representatives of government and opposition would talk (or more usually shout) over each other, neither side listening or answering the other’s points. It was a Colosseum without the blood. Today, in deference to Monti’s “sobriety”, they are much more restrained but seldom any more to the point.
With Berlusconi’s promise or threat to return to active politics, television producers are rubbing their hands together at the prospect of a new series of bouts.
But whatever rules they fight by, their hands are tied. The three big groupings, known until last week by the acronym ABC after the three leaders (now perhaps BBC) are Berlusconi’s PdL on the centre-right (nominally led by Angelino Alfano), Pierferdinando Casini’s centrist UDC and Pierluigi Bersani’s PD. They have to fight a campaign in which they are rivals but are all supporting the same government. This will require considerable restraint and sleight of hand.
The present opposition groups are hardly better off. The Northern League is licking its wounds (caused by internal division and external prosecution for corruption) and the new leader, Roberto Maroni would like to manoevre back into some sort of alliance with the PdL, or at least leave that option open. On the left Di Pietro with his Italia dei Valori, and Nichi Vendola’s SEL (Sinistra, Ecologia e Libertà) are highly critical of the Monti government but they too dream of a possible coalition with the PD, the so-called “Vasto photo” (left) of Bersani, Vendola and Di Pietro smiling together at Di Pietro’s summer conference.
Then on the edge, there is Beppe Grillo, much more than a joker in the pack. The Genoese comedian’s “Five Star Movement” (M5S) is the second party in most opinion polls at the moment with around 20%. A PD leader, Enrico Letta, said yesterday that he preferred Berlusconi to Grillo which brought a storm of criticism from most of the rest of the party. All the parties, nonetheless, are terrified that Grillo might steal their votes and bring out otherwise alienated electors. And be a real force in the next Parliament.
All bets are open. The actual alliances will depend on what sort of electoral system they will use, probably more than the actual policies they propose or which leaders they choose.
At the moment, the PdL or rather Berlusconi wants a French semi-presidential system but there will not be time to pass the necessary constitutional amendment so they are aiming at a premium for the party that polls highest (like the Greek system) with 40% of the candidates in a fixed list (so chosen by the party) and 60% elected with preference votes (voters give a vote to a party and then to one or more candidates on the list, so they chose which candidate is actually elected). The PD would like the premium to go to the winning coalition and want a double ballot system like the French one which gave the Socialists a majority in the National Assembly.
Despite President Napolitano’s admonitions to get moving on electoral reform, there is a good chance that nothing will happen and Italians will again use the much criticised porcellum, the pig’s dinner law, which gives a premium to the winning coalition and has fixed party lists – those elected depend on the party (and its leader) rather than voters.
So over the next nine months I will write an election watch blog every two or three weeks (more often as things get hotter) looking at the electoral system debate, proposed policies, choice of leaders, influence outside of Europe and opinion polls, plus, of course the debate over who will take over as President, one of the first jobs for the new Parliament. Just before or just after Easter, we will host our usual Italian Election conference at the American University of Rome
If I’m right, then we have nine months before Italians go to the polls to elect a new Parliament and, possibly, a new government. All elections are crucial for someone and they all are hyped as make-or-break-contests. More often than not, the results are banal and change little and there is a serious danger that the 2013 poll will be both make-or-break and change little.
This time, the elections are not just of interest to Italians. Between now and April, Italians and their politicians have a big responsibility on their hands. First of all, the country’s well-being, future growth and social peace depend on what the government does between now and April and how the political parties conduct the campaign; on those two points depend confidence in the euro and its future. Connected by a longer thread is the future shape of the EU itself because if the euro disintegrates, the Union will change shape; if the euro continues, it will mean a new integration and development of the EU.
In the much shorter term, but indirectly, Obama’s re-election depends at least partially on Europe showing signs of a recovery which would enhance an American recovery. Even more indirectly, the emerging economies depend on Europe and North America expanding again.
Most Italian voters do not realise the burden they are carrying (but some do). Much worse, most Italian politicians cannot see beyond the need to get re-elected and maintain their privileges. All important legislation in both the Monti government and before under Berlusconi has been passed as decree laws with votes of confidence. In practice the Houses have been reduced to a school playground where the children can shout and scream for half an hour and then when the whistle blows, they line up for a roll call.
Under Berlusconi, the showtime was extended to television talk shows where representatives of government and opposition would talk (or more usually shout) over each other, neither side listening or answering the other’s points. It was a Colosseum without the blood. Today, in deference to Monti’s “sobriety”, they are much more restrained but seldom any more to the point.
With Berlusconi’s promise or threat to return to active politics, television producers are rubbing their hands together at the prospect of a new series of bouts.
But whatever rules they fight by, their hands are tied. The three big groupings, known until last week by the acronym ABC after the three leaders (now perhaps BBC) are Berlusconi’s PdL on the centre-right (nominally led by Angelino Alfano), Pierferdinando Casini’s centrist UDC and Pierluigi Bersani’s PD. They have to fight a campaign in which they are rivals but are all supporting the same government. This will require considerable restraint and sleight of hand.
The present opposition groups are hardly better off. The Northern League is licking its wounds (caused by internal division and external prosecution for corruption) and the new leader, Roberto Maroni would like to manoevre back into some sort of alliance with the PdL, or at least leave that option open. On the left Di Pietro with his Italia dei Valori, and Nichi Vendola’s SEL (Sinistra, Ecologia e Libertà) are highly critical of the Monti government but they too dream of a possible coalition with the PD, the so-called “Vasto photo” (left) of Bersani, Vendola and Di Pietro smiling together at Di Pietro’s summer conference.
Then on the edge, there is Beppe Grillo, much more than a joker in the pack. The Genoese comedian’s “Five Star Movement” (M5S) is the second party in most opinion polls at the moment with around 20%. A PD leader, Enrico Letta, said yesterday that he preferred Berlusconi to Grillo which brought a storm of criticism from most of the rest of the party. All the parties, nonetheless, are terrified that Grillo might steal their votes and bring out otherwise alienated electors. And be a real force in the next Parliament.
All bets are open. The actual alliances will depend on what sort of electoral system they will use, probably more than the actual policies they propose or which leaders they choose.
At the moment, the PdL or rather Berlusconi wants a French semi-presidential system but there will not be time to pass the necessary constitutional amendment so they are aiming at a premium for the party that polls highest (like the Greek system) with 40% of the candidates in a fixed list (so chosen by the party) and 60% elected with preference votes (voters give a vote to a party and then to one or more candidates on the list, so they chose which candidate is actually elected). The PD would like the premium to go to the winning coalition and want a double ballot system like the French one which gave the Socialists a majority in the National Assembly.
Despite President Napolitano’s admonitions to get moving on electoral reform, there is a good chance that nothing will happen and Italians will again use the much criticised porcellum, the pig’s dinner law, which gives a premium to the winning coalition and has fixed party lists – those elected depend on the party (and its leader) rather than voters.
So over the next nine months I will write an election watch blog every two or three weeks (more often as things get hotter) looking at the electoral system debate, proposed policies, choice of leaders, influence outside of Europe and opinion polls, plus, of course the debate over who will take over as President, one of the first jobs for the new Parliament. Just before or just after Easter, we will host our usual Italian Election conference at the American University of Rome
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Pigs’ Dinners and Rolling Pins – the Constitutional Court Verdict on the Electoral System Referendum
Over the last week there was a crescendo of rumour and counter-rumour on the Constitutional Court’s likely verdict on whether to allow two referendums to change the Italian electoral system. The referendums were to be another moment in process of changing the whole political system. Now the Court has spoken and the answer is No. We will know the precise legal reasoning in a fortnight when they publish the sentence but in the meantime the political consequences are already being faced.
Supporters of the referendum like Antonio Di Pietro have already cried foul accusing the Court of killing Italian democracy and suggesting that the verdict was a favour to President Napolitano. Napolitano responded rapidly and curtly saying that any connection between the Court and the President was “a vulgar insinuation”. The debate on whether and how to change the present law will start now.
Electoral systems are normally less than controversial but the way the Italians elect their Parliament has generated much heat since it was passed in 2005. As the second Berlusconi government moved towards the end of its mandate due in spring 2006, it changed the existing mixed system (three quarters single member constituencies, one quarter fixed party lists) to one which was all fixed party lists and with a premium for the majority party or coalition. It was a thinly veiled attempt to hold onto power and it almost worked.
The old law was nicknamed “Mattarellum” after its proposer, Sergio Mattarella (and mattarello means rolling pin). The new one was dubbed “porcata” or pigs’ mess by its proposer, Roberto Calderoli, giving an idea of how much its own supporters supported it. This was immediately rendered into dog-Latin by Giovanni Sartori as “Porcellum”.
In practice, the Porcellum allows party leaders to decide who will be elected and who will not. Election depends on a candidate’s rank on the list not on any link with electors. As a voter, I have no say in who is elected – I might prefer Party A but not like their candidate X but I cannot vote for candidate Y. When there is a well running party organisation, then the party debates and bickers over the order and the system works tolerably well as in Israel though even there, there are complaints. In Italy where most of the parties have a weak organisation and are heavily dependent on the single leader (not just Berlusconi), the Porcellum means that each deputy is responsible to and dependent on the leader rather than the voters.
Then there is the premium. To give a winning party a premium (a higher proportion of seats than votes polled) is not such a bad idea if all accept the way the premium is given out. It allows the winner to actually govern without having to worry about a single missing deputies. All but the Lib.Dems in Britain accept that 40-45% of the vote will normally give a party 60% of the seats in the Commons – not mathematically fair but legitimated by habit. In Italy there had been half a century of proportional representation and the only attempt to change it, in 1953 was called the “swindle law” or legge truffa. So Italians are less happy about premiums.
Hence the campaign last year to gather half a million signatures to repeal the Porcellum. Instead of the minimum 500,000 Di Pietro and the organisers took 1.2 million, a very strong signal that a lot of Italians were fed up with politicians.
Those signatures were verified by the High Court and then it was up to the Constitutional Court to decide whether the referendums are legitimate. We will know for certain in two weeks but it is likely that they turned down the referendum because of the risk of having a legislative vacuum if the Porcellum was repealed. Ie there would be no law instead of reverting to the old one. They did not accept that the Mattarellum would come back into force.
Politically this is a relief for some and infuriating for others. All parties say that there must be a new law and the Constitutional Court is likely to recommend that the law be changed, but no one agrees on what exactly should replace the Porcellum. And we know that it is always easier to do nothing than to do something, especially when we can’t agree on what something to do.
No one will admit it, but of course a system which gives all power to political leaders and none to candidates and voters is attractive to the leaders, the so-called casta or caste.
We have already some fiery statements from Di Pietro and will have many more. From the other politicians and parties, there are earnest calls for dialogue and everyone will put forward worthy proposals but without the risk of having to fight a referendum campaign next spring, the heat is off. Prime Minister Monti has made it very clear that electoral reform is definitely not on his agenda so that there is even a chance that Italians will once again have a pigs’ dinner once again for their 2013 general election unless popular pressure can persuade the politicians to act quickly.
Supporters of the referendum like Antonio Di Pietro have already cried foul accusing the Court of killing Italian democracy and suggesting that the verdict was a favour to President Napolitano. Napolitano responded rapidly and curtly saying that any connection between the Court and the President was “a vulgar insinuation”. The debate on whether and how to change the present law will start now.
Electoral systems are normally less than controversial but the way the Italians elect their Parliament has generated much heat since it was passed in 2005. As the second Berlusconi government moved towards the end of its mandate due in spring 2006, it changed the existing mixed system (three quarters single member constituencies, one quarter fixed party lists) to one which was all fixed party lists and with a premium for the majority party or coalition. It was a thinly veiled attempt to hold onto power and it almost worked.
The old law was nicknamed “Mattarellum” after its proposer, Sergio Mattarella (and mattarello means rolling pin). The new one was dubbed “porcata” or pigs’ mess by its proposer, Roberto Calderoli, giving an idea of how much its own supporters supported it. This was immediately rendered into dog-Latin by Giovanni Sartori as “Porcellum”.
In practice, the Porcellum allows party leaders to decide who will be elected and who will not. Election depends on a candidate’s rank on the list not on any link with electors. As a voter, I have no say in who is elected – I might prefer Party A but not like their candidate X but I cannot vote for candidate Y. When there is a well running party organisation, then the party debates and bickers over the order and the system works tolerably well as in Israel though even there, there are complaints. In Italy where most of the parties have a weak organisation and are heavily dependent on the single leader (not just Berlusconi), the Porcellum means that each deputy is responsible to and dependent on the leader rather than the voters.
Then there is the premium. To give a winning party a premium (a higher proportion of seats than votes polled) is not such a bad idea if all accept the way the premium is given out. It allows the winner to actually govern without having to worry about a single missing deputies. All but the Lib.Dems in Britain accept that 40-45% of the vote will normally give a party 60% of the seats in the Commons – not mathematically fair but legitimated by habit. In Italy there had been half a century of proportional representation and the only attempt to change it, in 1953 was called the “swindle law” or legge truffa. So Italians are less happy about premiums.
Hence the campaign last year to gather half a million signatures to repeal the Porcellum. Instead of the minimum 500,000 Di Pietro and the organisers took 1.2 million, a very strong signal that a lot of Italians were fed up with politicians.
Those signatures were verified by the High Court and then it was up to the Constitutional Court to decide whether the referendums are legitimate. We will know for certain in two weeks but it is likely that they turned down the referendum because of the risk of having a legislative vacuum if the Porcellum was repealed. Ie there would be no law instead of reverting to the old one. They did not accept that the Mattarellum would come back into force.
Politically this is a relief for some and infuriating for others. All parties say that there must be a new law and the Constitutional Court is likely to recommend that the law be changed, but no one agrees on what exactly should replace the Porcellum. And we know that it is always easier to do nothing than to do something, especially when we can’t agree on what something to do.
No one will admit it, but of course a system which gives all power to political leaders and none to candidates and voters is attractive to the leaders, the so-called casta or caste.
We have already some fiery statements from Di Pietro and will have many more. From the other politicians and parties, there are earnest calls for dialogue and everyone will put forward worthy proposals but without the risk of having to fight a referendum campaign next spring, the heat is off. Prime Minister Monti has made it very clear that electoral reform is definitely not on his agenda so that there is even a chance that Italians will once again have a pigs’ dinner once again for their 2013 general election unless popular pressure can persuade the politicians to act quickly.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Liberalisation, Free Trade, Kennels and Taxis
After more than a century of quarantining pets, you may now take your cat or dog into Britain by just showing a vaccination certificate. Most reports of this earthshaking piece of news concentrate on the pets; instead, they should point at the free trade element which is far more significant. When we think of controlling lobbies in the UK, most of us would look at the City, the defence industry, the unions (once upon a time). Wrong. It was the Kent kennel owners that managed to prevent the free movement of moggies and mutts for decades with far more staying power. I have no idea how they managed to literally act as gatekeeper and tollbooth to the UK but they did. Now that they have lost the monopoly, it’s a great day for the free market.
All this is a roundabout way of saying that if the UK government can beat Kent kennels, then there is now a chance that the Italian government can take on the Rome taxis and pharmacists across Italy and maybe win. Mrs. Thatcher took on the National Union of Miners and won; Mario Monti took on Microsoft and forced them to relax their software monopoly.
Now he has the really tough nuts to crack; he has promised to introduce a growth and liberalisation package for the Italian economy. In a 3 hour end-of-year press conference, Monti laid out his plans. There will be no special budgets (but he did point out that Berlusconi said the same a year ago and there were five). Over the next few months, he is going to start the much-vaunted liberalisation of the economy – not just taxis and pharmacists but also public services. That way, vested interests like taxidrivers, petrol stations and pharmacists will lose their monopolies and increase competition (paradoxically annoying the right and pleasing the left) and public services will be privatised (annoying the left and giving opportunities to the right). The theory is that Monti will be able to maintain support from both PdL and PD. He has also promised to make it easier to set up a business in Italy.
Overall, Italy does not score well on any of the economic freedom indices. The Heritage Foundation ratings have shown Italy falling over the last few years and is now on the edge of “moderately free” and “mostly unfree”, ranking 87 out 179, a disastrous showing after Berlusconi’s much trumpeted “freedom” for business. Monti would like to genuinely free up the economy.
On the other side, Monti has backtracked on the possibility of changing the 1970 Workers’ Statute in order to make firing easier. There was a threatened confrontation with the unions and even without changing article 18 of the statute (which guarantees that workers unfairly dismissed should be re-hired), there will be tension.
There are not only economic issues. He has promised to address civil law reform, an issue which is actually economic as much as social or justice. Civil cases drag on for years and often a successful plaintiff has wound up the business long before the winning verdict.
Two other issues are high on the agenda but which the government will avoid carefully – electoral reform and citizenship reform. Assuming the Constitutional Court gives the go-ahead within the next month or two, there will be a referendum next year to repeal the present fixed party list system. This means that Parliament will have to concentrate its collective mind if they want to have any say in the matter rather than leaving it to the vote. No one admits to supporting the present porcellum (pig’s dinner or worse) as the law is nicknamed but they do not know what to replace it with.
On the citizenship issue, there is a growing body of opinion in and out of Parliament which reckons that not giving Italian citizenship to children born and brought up here is not only unjust but counterproductive as it alienates useful member of society.
In the meantime, unsurprisingly, economic issues dominate.
The pre-Christmas budget will start to bite with the new property tax to be accompanied by a revision of the land registry which not only underestimates the value of most property but apparently is missing up to 600,000 properties… Also on the tax evasion side, cash payments above €1,000 are no longer legal for private transactions and €500 when dealing with the public administration. This in theory will make more business traceable. Retirement ages have been raised but there are still differentials between men and women and between salaried self-employed workers. The regional tax has been increased and already a fuel excise hike has been applied.
Combine the extra taxes with the recession and it is not surprising that almost a quarter of Italian families are risking poverty according to a recent ISTAT survey. Over the last year, the Milan stock exchange lost a quarter of its value (25.28%) and that followed a 12% drop in 2010.
The private and individual difficulties and suffering combine with the bleak public outlook with the continuing risk of Italy not being able to service its debt leading to a meltdown of the euro. So far Monti has very definitely changed the style of Italian government and introduced a level of international confidence that was not there before but the real test will be over the next 6 to 12 months. There is substance in the country’s economy but it will take very careful guidance and some luck too.
Kent kennel keepers? Rome taxis? Maybe he (and we) really can do it! Happy New Year.
All this is a roundabout way of saying that if the UK government can beat Kent kennels, then there is now a chance that the Italian government can take on the Rome taxis and pharmacists across Italy and maybe win. Mrs. Thatcher took on the National Union of Miners and won; Mario Monti took on Microsoft and forced them to relax their software monopoly.
Now he has the really tough nuts to crack; he has promised to introduce a growth and liberalisation package for the Italian economy. In a 3 hour end-of-year press conference, Monti laid out his plans. There will be no special budgets (but he did point out that Berlusconi said the same a year ago and there were five). Over the next few months, he is going to start the much-vaunted liberalisation of the economy – not just taxis and pharmacists but also public services. That way, vested interests like taxidrivers, petrol stations and pharmacists will lose their monopolies and increase competition (paradoxically annoying the right and pleasing the left) and public services will be privatised (annoying the left and giving opportunities to the right). The theory is that Monti will be able to maintain support from both PdL and PD. He has also promised to make it easier to set up a business in Italy.
Overall, Italy does not score well on any of the economic freedom indices. The Heritage Foundation ratings have shown Italy falling over the last few years and is now on the edge of “moderately free” and “mostly unfree”, ranking 87 out 179, a disastrous showing after Berlusconi’s much trumpeted “freedom” for business. Monti would like to genuinely free up the economy.
On the other side, Monti has backtracked on the possibility of changing the 1970 Workers’ Statute in order to make firing easier. There was a threatened confrontation with the unions and even without changing article 18 of the statute (which guarantees that workers unfairly dismissed should be re-hired), there will be tension.
There are not only economic issues. He has promised to address civil law reform, an issue which is actually economic as much as social or justice. Civil cases drag on for years and often a successful plaintiff has wound up the business long before the winning verdict.
Two other issues are high on the agenda but which the government will avoid carefully – electoral reform and citizenship reform. Assuming the Constitutional Court gives the go-ahead within the next month or two, there will be a referendum next year to repeal the present fixed party list system. This means that Parliament will have to concentrate its collective mind if they want to have any say in the matter rather than leaving it to the vote. No one admits to supporting the present porcellum (pig’s dinner or worse) as the law is nicknamed but they do not know what to replace it with.
On the citizenship issue, there is a growing body of opinion in and out of Parliament which reckons that not giving Italian citizenship to children born and brought up here is not only unjust but counterproductive as it alienates useful member of society.
In the meantime, unsurprisingly, economic issues dominate.
The pre-Christmas budget will start to bite with the new property tax to be accompanied by a revision of the land registry which not only underestimates the value of most property but apparently is missing up to 600,000 properties… Also on the tax evasion side, cash payments above €1,000 are no longer legal for private transactions and €500 when dealing with the public administration. This in theory will make more business traceable. Retirement ages have been raised but there are still differentials between men and women and between salaried self-employed workers. The regional tax has been increased and already a fuel excise hike has been applied.
Combine the extra taxes with the recession and it is not surprising that almost a quarter of Italian families are risking poverty according to a recent ISTAT survey. Over the last year, the Milan stock exchange lost a quarter of its value (25.28%) and that followed a 12% drop in 2010.
The private and individual difficulties and suffering combine with the bleak public outlook with the continuing risk of Italy not being able to service its debt leading to a meltdown of the euro. So far Monti has very definitely changed the style of Italian government and introduced a level of international confidence that was not there before but the real test will be over the next 6 to 12 months. There is substance in the country’s economy but it will take very careful guidance and some luck too.
Kent kennel keepers? Rome taxis? Maybe he (and we) really can do it! Happy New Year.
Sunday, October 02, 2011
The Power of Referendums
Referendums are an arcane branch of politics; electoral systems even more so – combined they are normally as stimulating as a valium-camomile cocktail. But once again, Italy is different and yesterday’s news that the promoters of an election reform referendum managed to gather more than 1.2 million signatures is news indeed, and of much more interest than Berlusconi’s latest Montenegrin “fiancée”. If passed the referendum would abolish the very unpopular electoral law (nicknamed “porcellum”, a multiple pun I won’t try to translate, but the sense is close to “pigsty”or what is in one) in which parliamentarians are in practice nominated by party bosses
.
There are immediate consequences which change the political agenda, the power relationships between the parties and the public perception of politicians and politics in general. And then there will be medium term consequences on how (and who) Italians elect to Parliament.
Referendums are one of the few forms of direct democracy that we have in modern societies. Apart from the Swiss who have them on everything from putting in a new pedestrian crossing in a tiny village to weighty national matters of religious freedom, most of the rest of us use referendums sparingly as they can easily become a bludgeon in the hands of expert and well-funded populists. De Gaulle changed France with plebiscites bypassing the other institutions. California worries that powerful lobbies and interest groups can use the referendum to further sectarian interest.
Italy’s founding fathers recognised some of the risks and ringfenced referendums. The first was not even in the constitution – in 1946, Italians voted in favour of a republic over a constitutional monarchy. Then they drew up the new constitution which allows referendums in only two circumstances. The first can repeal or confirm a constitutional amendment passed with less than a two thirds majority.
The second and much more common referendum can be used only to repeal (not propose) existing ordinary legislation and in any case, key fields are excluded: budget matters, international treaties and amnesties. In order to call for one, half a million signatures have to be collected in three months and for the result to be valid, more than half of the registered voters have to cast a vote.
This type of referendum lay dormant for 25 years until conservative elements in the Church and the Christian Democratic party (DC) had the bright idea of using it in 1974 to repeal the newly passed divorce law. The initiative backfired badly with 60% voting against repeal and began a season of civil rights reform spearheaded by the Radical Party (PR) using mainly the referendum or threat of referendum to legalise contraception and abortion, liberalise drug laws, reform family law, and reduce and then abolish military service.
As well as being a direct instrument of change, the threat of a referendum was often enough to put an issue on the agenda and push through a reform like the legalisation of abortion in 1978.
Along with the major factors which changed Italy in the early ‘90s (end of the Cold War, anti-corruption trials and the debt), the 1991 and 1993 referendums which changed the electoral systems were an important catalyst.
Then in the 2000s, those who wanted to maintain the status quo realised that the best strategy was to rely on low turnout to avoid a quorum. It worked until this June when when Italians voted on three referendums producing resounding quorums and showing once again that a majority was so fed up with the political classes that they would have voted to have sunrise in the west if the government was against it.
The 1.2 million signature deposited yesterday are proof that this tide is still flowing, and strongly. To reach half a million is not difficult but to more than double the figure is impressive and presages a very high turnout and massive ‘yes’ vote if and when the referendum is held. The next stage is for the Court of Cassation to check the signatures’ validity. There is no doubt that the half million threshold has been reached. Then in January, the Constitutional Court will pronounce on the legal validity; they will almost certainly accept it. Then, if there are no early elections next spring, Italians will vote the referendum.
In the meantime, all the parties have to decide what to do. It is a truism that referendums are divisive. Angelino Alfano, the People of Freedom’s new secretary and Berlusconi’s designated successor wants to avoid that division; instead of defending an unpopular law, he would like to change it so that there would be no referendum. While his ally, the Northern League’s Roberto Maroni has said he’s in favour of the referendum even though the law which will be repealed was drafted by a party colleague, Roberto Calderoli who also wants reform rather than repeal.
It is decision time for the opposition too. The Democratic Party (PD) (and it’s predecessors) has always been lukewarm on the idea of direct democracy and this time made little effort to gather signatures apart from Arturo Parisi who almost left the party in order to gather signatures. Now the PD support it. Other opposition parties, right, left and centre support the referendum led by Di Pietro’s Italy of Values (IdV) and Vendola’s Left, Ecology and Freedom (SEL).
There is little chance of changing the law before April so the government finds itself between a referendum rock and an early election hard place. The only way to avoid the referendum is to have early election. In the midst of a financial crisis and prime ministerial sex scandals, there will be little time for an electoral reform debate.
Which is a pity as the electoral system determines the style and texture of a democracy. The present fixed proportional representation party lists allow the party to determine who is elected and cuts any direct link between voters and the elected representative. There is a majority premium for the winning coalition in the chamber.
If the referendum passes, Italy will revert to a mixed system with 75% of deputies elected in single member, UK or US style constituencies/districts and 25% from fixed party lists. Voters will have a much bigger voice in who represents them and will at least know who it is.
But for the moment, it is all politicians who are considered fair game, a bit like lawyers in some other countries. On that score, have you heard the latest Sicilian politician joke? The Regional Government paid one of its employees 200 hours overtime in August… to clear snow. And, you’re right, it’s not a joke.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)