#1 REFERENDUM ON MPs’ CUT: PROS AND CONS
- CTZN eu
- 19 apr 2021
- Tempo di lettura: 7 min
Hi reader,
today I want to talk to you about a very relevant and controversial topic, which calls us to exercise our right to vote in a decisive manner and, because of that, asks us to express our opinion being conscious of the consequences: the referendum on MPs’ cut.
On September 20 and 21 2020, there will be a constitutional referendum in which we will vote to accept or reject the constitutional amendment on the cut of the number of the members of the two chambers of the Italian Parliament. Particularly, with the proposal it would be modified the number of MPs from 630 to 400 for the Chamber of Deputies and from 315 to 200 for the Senate. It is important to stress that a constitutional referendum does not require a quorum, that is a minimum number of participants to make the voting valid, hence it will win the option which will receive more votes, regardless of the effective percentage of the population that will have gone to the polls. Because of that, everybody, both in favour and contrary, has to remember that absenteeism cannot be used as a kind of political protest this time, and it is indeed fundamental that each of us goes to vote.
If you are interested in further exploring how the reform works in details, in how and why we have arrived at the referendum and in which parties are in favour and which are contrary, we suggest you to see these short informative videos:
But why has this amendment, which will reduce by about a third the total number of MPs, been wanted in the first place?
“Yes” supporters, and first of all the Movimento 5 Stelle, for which this is one of the fundamental points of his program, argue that the reform is foremost a saving for State coffers, initially estimated around 500 million euros a year and then reduced to 100 million euros (even though the Italian Public Accounts Observatory ha still reduced the amount to 57 million euros a year).
Furthermore, this amendment would be necessary to “favour the improvement of the decision-making process of the Chambers, to make them more capable of responding to citizens’ needs”. In short, it would be a means to speed up the parliamentary work and to give more efficiency to the Parliament by getting rid of the excessive “fragmentation between various parliamentary groups, which sometimes does not represent the political forces in the country but small groups that only serves to organize the survival on the seat” (as it is written on the party’s blog). In fact, the reform is advocated by the Movimento 5 Stelle as it is compliant to the party’s fundamental principles, and it is for them a fundamental step to go against the parliamentary “caste”, the elite which they say holds the political power, and which would be weakened by this reform. Luigi di Maio has indeed defined this reform, which for the party members would reduce the number of opportunistic and corrupt politicians who live in luxury at the citizens’ expense, as “a battle for all Italian citizens, [because] never before has there been the need to make the voice of Italians for the sake of ‘Yes’ heard, as there will be a voice of the palaces that will support the “No”.
Lastly, another aspect, less intensely advocated but still used as a reason for the “Yes”, is that by which the reform would bring the Italian representation down to the European level, decreasing the excessive number of MPs and by doing so adapting to the European standard.
However, things are not quite as simple as they could appear if we stopped here in our analysis.
First of all, one of the main criticisms of the possible reduction of the number of MPs is about the numerical ratio of representation, because with this reform we would go from around 96.000 citizens per Deputy to around 155.000 ones, and from around 188.000 citizens per Senator to around 302.000, with a dramatic drop of representativeness (about 36%). Moreover, a smaller Parliament would create greater difficulty for smaller parties and territories with a smaller population in being effectively represented in the legislative process: with the current majoritarian electoral law, such a measure, without other reforms to support it, would do nothing but rewarding big parties, punishing instead the smaller ones which would see their already weak contractual power in Parliament even more reduced. Besides, the elitism of political parties and the ruling class would be even more emphasized, widening the gap between the electorate and its representatives and encouraging the birth of new systems of clientelism and nepotism.
Also on the issue of saving the law does not do justice to its intentions: the saving for State coffers, according to experts’ evaluations, would indeed be only of the 0,007% of Italian public spending, and even if the figure was greater, it would still be a negligible saving for a country with the Italian public debt, which has recently achieved the record figure of 2.500 billion euros. The maneuvers that are done by Italian governments every year spend (and often waste) several billion euros each: just think about Quota Cento, a measure strongly advocated by Lega and approved only thanks to the complicity of Movimento 5 Stelle (the same ones that are now pushing for a saving of less than 100 million euros), which has spent 21 billion euros in 3 years. Moreover, despite all the promises about what could be done for the good with the money thus saved, we have no guarantee (and not much hope, to be honest) that that money would be really spent for the public good.
For what concerns the efficiency of the parliamentary process, in Italy there really is a problem of legislative slowness, but this is only barely linked to the number of people seated in Parliament. The real problem is linked, at least in part, to an increasingly excessive and intrusive bureaucracy which greatly curbs any type of provision, apart from having much higher costs than the parliamentary ones. The phenomenon that burdens the most the efficiency of parliamentary works, however, is the Italian parliamentary system, the so-called “perfect” bicameralism, which involves two chambers with identical powers that have thus to follow the same iter and then agree to pass a bill (fundamentally doubling the time needed by a chamber to pass a bill on its own).
Hence, the cut of MPs, to be in some ways effective in this regard, should be coupled with a wider reform of the electoral and parliamentary systems, but this reform does not try to overcome this exquisitely Italian problem: even though the Partito Democratico has theoretically subjected its support to the reform to the adoption of a new electoral law and of amendments to the rulings of the two Chambers, requirements that sadly have a poor chance of being realized, for now the constitutional law only diminish our representation and thus our already very muffled voice in the public discourse.
Also on the European level the situation is different from what “Yes” proponents argue: if it is true that, regarding the number of MPs in the European Union, Italy is one of the leading countries, it is also true that Italy is the third most populous Member State of the Union, and adapting to the European average would mean having the same MP number as States with a much lower population, and thus with much more representativeness, than Italy. Now we are one of the countries with the best representation in Europe, but if with the reform we went from around 96.000 to around 155.000 citizens per Deputy, Italy would become the country with the fewest MPs in relation to the population.
The last argument, maybe the strongest in those who favour the constitutional law, is the only one which is really comprehensible (even if not necessarily acceptable), for it is based on a transversely widespread feeling among the Italian population.
We Italians have always had a very complex relationship with our representatives: since the dawn of the Republic and even before, there has always been a disdain for our politicians, because if on one hand they should have been our voice in the decision-making process, on the other they have always been depicted as a parasitic class of careerists and corrupted that work to their own benefit, instead of to the benefit of their citizens (a popular stereotype now indelibly rooted as an Italian cultural archetype). However, it is clear that overthrowing a “caste” by reducing the number of its members is paradoxical. Instead of making it more democratic and open to those who really want to serve their community, but who perhaps do not have the connections or the financial resources to do so, with this reform we are emphasizing the difference between those who can and those who cannot afford to have a political career even more. We are creating an even greater gap between the ruling class and the common citizen, further worsening the situation rather than solving it.
But, if benefits are almost non-existent and losses not insignificant, why would anyone go to all that trouble to realize this reform?
Basically, it is because in the recent decades this vicious circle has brought the electorate to rely on a class of “anti-caste” politicians, who make being “new men”, different from the former ruling class, the focal point of their political action. All the political class has been clinging on this anti-system feeling, and that’s the reason why all the big parties (both the admittedly anti-system ones, like Lega, Fratelli d’Italia, and Movimento 5 Stelle, and those that you would not expect to do so, like Forza Italia and Partito Democratico) agree on this referendum. Therefore, the cut of MPs is nothing but the latest populist maneuver which does not solve any issue, but satisfies that Italian majority for whom politicians “are all corrupted and only want to keep their seats”, and for whom the form is worth more than the content. Our representation in the Parliament will be reduced and our weight in the CommonWealth will be further debased, and all of this will only happen to let our current politicians show themselves as different from the “caste” and thus scrape up some more public consent.
We at CTZN.eu have thought about this issue and about the causes which have led to this situation, and about why we should all feel involved and partly responsible for this vicious circle, and above all those who agree with this analysis and do not understand how people can be so blind to the evidence. By clicking here you can find the article in which we talk about this topic more in depth.
And what do you think about what we discussed today? Do you agree with our analysis?
If so, why, in your opinion, is there a large part of the population who thinks the opposite?
If not, why do you think that our objections are groundless? Or, if you think that they are grounded, why are you still going to vote in favour of the reform?
Let us know by leaving a comment here, sending us an email with your reflections or commenting on the related post on our social profiles.
Thank you for your attention,
Davide Bertot
Mail: ctzn.eu@gmail.com
Facebook: @ctzn.eu
Instagram: @_ctzn.eu_
Twitter: @ctzn_eu