M5S, no Copernican revolution with the Committee. Check … – The Daily ->
Today the Movement 5 Stars vote his Regulation , which provides, among other things, the establishment of a Appeals Committee for judging the appeals against the measures of eject . Is first to ask where is the urgency of this Regulation and because it was expected that the online voting of members did not object to the regulation itself, but only the appointment of “two of the three members of this committee within a pink proposal of five people. ” Some have spoken of a “Copernican revolution”. Affirmation not only in itself politically inconvenient (because it ends up implicitly recognize that, until now, there was a wrong system and purely arbitrary to decide the expulsions), but also in contrast to what, today, is expected.
I had already had the opportunity, during the expulsion of deputies Artini and Fin , to highlight the difficulties and inconsistencies of the Movement and its framework of expulsions. While, in fact, the expulsion from the parliamentary group is governed by the regulations of the groups of the House and Senate of the Movement, nothing – until now – was expected about the expulsion by the (ie the movement, with the loss of the quality of “writing”).
It was, thus, a double system:
a) expulsion from the Parliamentary Group , was (and still is) provided that “ the parliamentary M5S gathered , with no distinction between the House and Senate, will for obvious violations of the Code of Conduct, to propose the expulsion of a parliamentary majority M5S. The expulsion must be ratified by a vote online on the portal of the M5S between all members, also a majority. ” Therefore, because eject is the “violation of the obligations assumed by signing the” code of conduct of the Movement 5 Stars in Parliament ”, while the process for the expulsion is internal to the parliamentary group (except for the “ratification” by the participants in the network).
b) to the expulsion from ‘ Association , was no indication, however, given by the Statute of the Movement (which art. 5 regulate only the right of Return Associate), with the result that the application was art. 24 cc, for whom “the exclusion of a member can not be resolved by the assembly that for serious reasons ; the member may appeal to the court within six months from the day when it was notified of the decision. ” That meant that, for the expulsion of an associate, was necessary ‘resolution of Assembly of the Movement.
With the new regulation, things change radically.
First of all, art. 4, are indicated specifically the three cases of expulsion. 1. disappearance of entry requirements set by the “non-status” ; 2. misconduct provided for in Article 1 of this Regulation; 3. if elected to an elective office, violation of the obligations when accepting the application ), where, first, the expulsion could be granted only for “serious reasons”.
It is, then, a suitable procedure for expulsion. To order the suspension of the member and the dispute of the violation is, today, directly the “political leader” of the Movement ( Beppe Grillo ). Against the deportation order – always willing from political leader – the member has the opportunity, within ten days , to apply to Appeals Committee , set up by Regulation .
The appeals committee consists of three members :
– 2 appointed by means of a vote in the network from a list of five names proposed by the Board of Directors
– 1 named directly by the Governing Council .
The Board of Directors was planned from the statutes of the Movement (arts. 11 and 13), and, with the Constitution of the Association Movement 5 Stars of 14 December 2012, for the first three years it was determined that members of the Board of Directors are Beppe Grillo, as President, Enrico Grillo , Vice President, and Enrico Maria Nadasi , Secretary (art. 7).
To say that the mechanism provided is, in fact, entirely checked by Grillo, therefore seems an understatement. He, in fact:
a) in his capacity as political leader , determines the occurrence of a cause of expulsion, suspends writing and provide after its expulsion;
b) in his capacity as Chairman of the Board of Directors, directly appoints one member of the Appeals Committee and sets out the names of candidates to choose from within the other two members.
You paradoxical that the expelled can use , against the provision of Grillo, to a body of “guarantee” made up of members substantially determined by Grillo same. Not only that the Regulation provides that “if the appeals committee considers inadequate in the alleged infringement, give its reasoned opinion to the political leader of the Movement 5 Stars, that if it remains in disagreement places the decision on expulsion by a vote in the Assembly network of all members, which pronounce definitively on the expulsion. ” If, therefore – but appears unlikely hypothesis – the Committee disagrees with the political leader, the latter could always resort to the direct consultation on the network to obtain the expulsion of the member.
It is, then, one wonders whether – compared to the old “gaps” than before, which were still embedded in the Civil Code – this new discipline really constitutes a ‘ guarantee ‘ more for subscribers, if you make a really “transparency” absent before.
Of course, you can always, for writing, resort to ‘ court against the exclusion measure (as, in this part, art. 24 cc is not derogated). The problem, however, is that the actual control of the court will, in any event, very limited. If, in fact, prior to the approval of the regulation, the Court would have the power to check the substantial legitimacy of the expulsion with reference to the “serious reasons”. Today, in the presence of a specific description of the reasons deemed capable of causing the exclusion of the associated, verification court will be bound to stop at simple declaration of the timely occurrence of those events provided a reason for exclusion.
The Movement has, in fact, therefore, decided to have its own internal mechanisms to regulate direct causes and modes of exclusion of members. This is not objectionable, and indeed – shall we say – physiological to an association that is a movement of mass and nature of policy . It remains, however, that these mechanisms do not respond in any way to the logic of direct democracy which was the ultimate inspiration and direction of movement. Resemble, rather, to the mechanisms traditionally used by political parties , to their “centralism” and the decision “taken from above.”
->
