Tomorrow Italians are called to express themselves on a specific topic and defined. Regards concessions of assets rigs within 12 miles from the Italian coast “until all the deposits”. Although, in fact, the question has assumed, progressively, a different meaning. Much more “political.” Which calls into question the government and, in particular, the prime minister. Supporters of the referendum, in fact, related to “drill” directly Renzi. Prematurely. A delegitimize. The success of the consultation, in their view, would result in an immediate trial – ie: without mediation – the Prime Minister. Which, moreover, seems to agree with this “instrumented” approach of the referendum campaign. Given that, in turn, has called the referendum a “hoax.” Expressing its support for the choice not to choose. Siding, ie, in favor of “vote who do not vote.” Abstention. Defined, moreover, legitimate by President Emeritus of the Republic, Giorgio Napolitano. Intervened in open dispute with the president of the Constitutional Court, Paolo Grossi, who in recent days had, however, denounced the calls for abstention. And, after all, the stated abstainers.
So, who thinks it is at stake the quality of the environment and of our coasts, in fact, you are wrong. Because the stakes are different. In recent times, at least, it has changed dramatically. Vote yes or no, but, above all, vote or “no” vote will result in the “for” vote or “against” the government’s stability. “For” or “against” this government. In philosophy he speaks of “heterogenesis ends.” To emphasize the transformation of the meaning and outcome of action compared to the original objectives. Or, at least, respect the aims and objectives explicit and declared. Renzi, moreover, has started, in turn, a similar operation. On a matter of very different content. The Prime Minister has, in fact, said that the referendum on constitutional reform, which will take place next autumn, will, like stakes, the same fate of his government. Given that, if voters bocciassero its reform, Renzi would resign. Considering the choice of the voters, in this case, as an option on its work. And, therefore, as a popular vote of no confidence.
Of course, there is an obvious asymmetry between the two challenges. Not only for the content: on the one hand the drills, on the other hand the overcoming of equal bicameralism and the downsizing of the Senate. But even for the rules of the consultation. Because, in the case of the referendum on constitutional reform, it is not required quorum. No need to vote the majority of eligible voters. The outcome will depend on the comparison of votes for and against the reform. Contrary to what will happen in the consultation on the drills, which will take place tomorrow. Which will depend not only on the support to the proposed question, but, first of all, from participation in the vote. And, then, abstention. Not to vote, in this case, will take on the same meaning as a vote against. Finding that “validate” consultation must be a turnout higher than the absolute majority of voters “entitled.” Thus, the non-voting becomes a vote for all purposes. It is “the vote who do not vote”, as the title of a note Cattaneo Research Institute published in 1983 (edited by Pasquale and Mario Scaramozzino Caciagli). It is, in fact, this is the main explanation of the “failure” of a large part of the referendum in 20 years. Only one in seven, in fact, it exceeded the quorum (as reported yesterday Roberto D’Alimonte on Sole 24 Ore ). One on nuclear power and water drainage, which took place in 2011. No other. The same referendum of 1999, which aimed to abolish the proportional share of their elected representatives with Mattarellum, failed, although a few votes. Given that passed, then 49% the influx. On the other hand, the abstention cumulates different components. In addition to choosing “strategic”, who does not vote consciously, for opposition to the referendum technique, there is the component “physiological”, who does not vote by inertia, dis-interest. Devaluation and indifference. Two opposite and almost alternative orientations, which, however, converge in the same direction. About the same result.
The problem with this approach is the obvious cognitive dissonance between declared and real purpose. Latent and obvious. Tomorrow, for example, who will participate in the vote because it is sincerely convinced of the environmental damage produced by drills will vote anyway, even against Renzi. While, on the contrary, those who choose not to vote, because you feel quite alien and indifferent to the referendum question, would express its support – not only implicitly – to the government. Waiting for the next contest, around the constitutional reform. Destined to become, also, a referendum on Renzi.
I do not really know how to ensure the functioning of our institutions, and – forgive me the audacity – of our democracy itself, when referendums become forms of political struggle by other means. And when it becomes difficult to understand for whom and for what we vote. So it can happen that, on the question of drills – important, but specific – to take the floor, in polemical way, the President of the Council, but also the President Emeritus of the Republic, the President of the Constitutional Court and the same President of the Chamber. In short, four presidents.
I hate to think what will happen in the coming months, when it will start the campaign of the referendum on Renzi, pardon, on constitutional reform. To maintain the proportions between the Senate and the drills, they could take the field even Hollande, Merkel. While Obama would refrain only because it is at the end of the mandate. And why would problems to arrive from the US in time to vote. Of course, our facts do not concern them. But when they question the stability of the system of alliances at European and international level, why wonder?
No comments:
Post a Comment