With the Committee for the Yes of the freedoms we wanted to contribute to the debate on the constitutional referendum for the reduction of the number of parliamentarians, proposing a method of liberal approach. With satisfaction we can affirm that we have advanced solid arguments that have been appreciated and disseminated and that have not yet found, counter arguments capable of dismantling them. Let’s wait. THE MEDIA: ENEMIES OF PLURALISM
By enriching the debate with a liberal perspective, we have unmasked – and made it impractical – the narrative that some groups hostile to change and interested in power are carrying out: vote no to weaken the government, or rather get rid of the most inconvenient part its. We must focus on the merits of the referendum and not on who proposed it.
Except for public or private TVs, national or local, which are obliged by law to make balanced referendum propaganda for Yes and No, the paper media with which we have been confronted have never bothered to report or disavow our arguments, but they have always and only focused on the fact that we would not have a large following on social channels (the Committee has 1 month of life), of not having recruited singers or dancers, or waiters of the indignant powers of having been deprived of their usual relationships with the sub-government. Even traditional media now function like social media, polarizing on extreme positions based on prejudice and bias. IMMATURE DEMOCRACY
Our action, albeit poor in economic resources and without the support of any paper media, has thus shown that ours is still far from being a complete liberal democracy. He also made it clear that the danger to citizens is not to be sought in the greater or lesser number of parliamentarians, but in the media and elites hostile to diversity and change in order to protect their privileges. WE VOTE YES AND START FROM HERE Luigi Einaudi (1946) warned that “the greater the number of members of an assembly, the more it becomes incapable of attending to legislative work”. WHY REDUCE
Reducing the number of parliamentarians improves the functioning of the Parliament. With fewer elected representatives, we will have a more transparent Parliament that is more careful in making decisions about ideas and projects. Fewer parliamentarians are more visible to citizens and are required to respond with greater commitment to their requests.
Parliament is the heart of democracy. But today it is no longer a beating heart. Because parliamentarians no longer propose to represent citizens on ideas and projects. The reduction in the number of parliamentarians is a clear and defined action to prune a plethoric classroom in comparison with other countries and restore quality to the debate. THE CUT IS A SYMBOLIC MEASURE
To return to representing citizens, it is essential to confirm that the core of representation and quality in formulating ideas and projects, and efficiency in producing laws, are work rhythms that are appropriate to reality and not functional to corporate privileges. BETRAYAL
The current inadequacy of Parliament’s function is a fact. It produces a tangle of often incomprehensible rules that do not protect and favor us citizens, but penalize them. It manages billions of euros (citizens’ money) that parliamentarians have often directed towards works that have not benefited citizens, but have enriched groups and lobbies (clientele system). Look at the Budget Laws, Milleproroghe, etc. THE REFORM
Parliament needs to be reformed to reinvigorate it. The starting point (decided by the citizens) is the decisive reform of the cut in the number of parliamentarians, after all promoted for 40 years in turn by all the parties of the first and second republic.
Passing from 945 to 600 obviously reduces the quantity of representativeness but improves its quality. 945 no longer represent. 600 will be spurred to represent. With 1 elected representative for every 101,000 inhabitants we are on the average of advanced democracies, which are also inclined to reduce), (in Germany there is elected for every 116,000 inhabitants and even in the USA 1 elected for every 602,000). But let’s not get lost in the numbers, which do not promote quality. Each country has a different institutional structure. QUALITY Vs QUANTITY
If the quantitative formula were valid then we should perhaps multiply the number of those elected: Parliament does not work, we triple the number of those elected. We want aspiring representatives who present themselves to citizens with solid and concrete projects to respond to our needs. Representative democracy and quality. The cut promotes quality. 705 VS 945
Almost 75% of what passes through our Parliament are directives and regulations that come from the Parliament and the European Commission. 705 European parliamentarians representing 446 million inhabitants produce 75% of what 945 Italian parliamentarians receive late and badly. We have the European record for the late reception of European directives. The waste directive alone has cost us citizens about 800 million in 15 years. The list is long. Speaking of the costs and savings of a slow and inefficient Parliament. THE SAVINGS
It is not clear how much savings are made by reducing the number of parliamentarians. The metaphor of the cup of coffee saved by each Italian in a year is not very respectful. Savings can be divided by 60 million (coffee) but can also be divided by the 5 million poor or by the number of schools and hospitals. The numbers are manipulable. But in the current conditions, saving little is also a sign, a start, since there is no saving in other parts. “The waste is elsewhere”, yes, but if it is not eliminated, it is possible to start from these few million: a message to the citizens.
Saving is in any case another, let’s not fall into the deception of the cup of coffee (supinely stimulated by the same promoters of the cut). I said about the European directives, but we can remember the unquantifiable figure due to the bad management that Parliament – the clientele system – makes of our money. 945 MPs are more dangerous than 600 (more transparency and efficiency). THE BOOK OF DREAMS
Finally, to vote NO it is objected that reducing the number of elected representatives does not solve other very serious problems of the country, such as equal bicameralism. We would therefore like a broader reform.
They are dreams. You want to chase the rabbit in wonderland. Parliament as it is now has not been and is not in a position to promote organic reforms. The facts prove it. Better therefore, to promote a simple but precise reform (which moreover favors targeted reforms: new electoral law, parliamentary regulations).
By not cutting the parliamentarians, we delude ourselves that tomorrow we will be able to obtain a reform that will revolutionize the functioning of the country. Fools. Let’s focus on what we can do, which is this reform that has brought together almost all the political forces.
Voting No means postponing, giving up, surrendering in the cradle of illusions. It means telling our children that everything is fine, that Parliament works, and that the Constitution will remain so for the next 70 years as the world changes. Meanwhile, Italy and its institutions are sinking into mud and fog.
Voting Yes above all means promoting change, sending a signal to citizens that we want to improve the functioning of institutions, better represent citizens.
