And here we are again with a new referendum, the last in Italy, if we exclude those held at the regional level, the one rejected in late 2016, was the “Renji” referendum, which Asked to reform the second part of the constitution. There have been many referendums in recent times. We had a British one on permanency in the European Union, a Scottish one on independence from the United Kingdom, a Catalan one on independence from Spain, a Greek one on austerity policies, and in Italy, one on water and one on drill.
Referendums mark the passage, which ordinary parliamentary life cannot manage. It is a request for legitimacy, when it is not perceived by normal political life. The referendum can be compared to a “government of technicians”: when political forces fail to face unpopularity, it is handed over to technicians, but ostensibly voted on by parliament.
The referendum is a question or against: “Do you want this or that”. The question of referendum is not clear as to what may result from one option rather than another, but neither can. It is therefore assumed that the results were calculated before the voters voted. That is, voters must be adequately informed, or, if they are not, they have a sort of “fundamental intuition” about their own interests and those of ordinary people.
The slightest predictions of the effects of the referendum (not the results, because there are elections) increase the instability of national and international political life. What would have happened if the Scottish or Catalan separatists had won the referendum, or the Greeks opposed austerity (to tell the truth, they won, but the government acted differently then). We can’t know
Let us cut the number of “MPs” the subject of the next referendum. Parliament is a place where we “talk”, and where an agreement is sought. Parliament is, in fact, alienated by the wishes of voters who have different purposes, to seek something – “agreement” – that is usually accepted.
The rejection of the ruling classes – as mediators of conflicting interests – is the hallmark of populism. The fact that populists already have their own ruling class to oppose the weaker ruling classes is a contradiction not seen by their followers, or if seen it is rejected.
Parliament is losing its grip as a place of conflict of views even for the presence of committees, hearings. Nineteenth-century polemics are back in vogue. Spanish politician and diplomat Donoso Cortez defined the bourgeoisie as the class that (only knows) discusses (the king). According to him, one class, which faced the choice between Jesus and Barabus, held a parliamentary commission instead of immediately deciding whether good and where evil lay. Parliament is not a place of indecision by its nature. It depends on which decision you are talking about and whether the indecision is intentional or not.
The post-war decision in Italy – linked to the dual experience of fascism and foreshadowing as to the effect of the “Cold War” – was an ideal bicameral with the election on a proportional basis aimed at preventing anyone from winning. The same was true for the Prime Minister, who became only the Prime Minister, who neither appointed nor dismissed ministers, who were appointed by the President of the Republic, who were elected by the Parliament and not by the public, and Who was the only person who could dissolve America. In short, the alternative then was not merely to avoid wrong but to avoid the damage of irrevocable decisions.
Today these “existentialist” protests do not exist, as compromise is found in society’s model of free individual initiative within the broader social state – the “good” legacy of the twentieth century. The discussion is ultimately about the combination (relative weight) of personal freedom and social protection. The politeness of today’s political message lies in its “indictment”, which is considered to be contrary to the “tragic” of the past.
In a sad world, at least one person can spend better time by participating in the life of the party or to vote, a person in a plaintiff world thinks of the marginal utility of their time, which if politics If not dedicated to, can bring more profit. – “rational apathy”. We therefore add restraint to the analysis of the limitations of the referendum, thereby reducing the validity of the results.
Devoted problem solver. Tv advocate. Avid zombie aficionado. Proud twitter nerd. Subtly charming alcohol geek.