Italian Election Series - 1988 Constitutional Referendum

[Antonio the Sixth]

This is the Constitutional Amendment that has resulted from the parliamentary debate that lasted from early 1985 to late 1987. It is put to vote alongside the general elections and the regular abrogative referendums. Many proposals of all sorts have been floated around during these years, but only a few have made it to the final draft. Though indirectly, socialist leader Bettino Craxi played a key role in shaping the main points of the Amendment. Passed by a narrow majority in both Houses of the parliament, it has supporters and opponents in almost all party. Its stated goal is to give Italy greater political stability while preserving the parliamentary form of government. In the wake of the 1984 crisis, supporters claim it essential to ensure Italy a solid governance. Opponents warn against what they call "authoritarian tendencies", and heavily criticize the choice to present the whole Amendment as a bloc as opposed to several specific questions. These opponents, on the other hand, are accused of wanting to preserve the omnipotence of political parties and the old establishment.

Here are the main provisions of the Amendment:

• Establishing "constructive defiance", meaning that no-confidence motions, in order to be valid, need to indicate an alternative President of Council - who automatically takes office if the motion passes.
• Ending "perfect bicameralism" by reserving the power to pass no-confidence motions to the House of Deputies, and stripping it away from the Senate. Also, the government could allow the House to override a negative vote from the Senate on budgetary laws.
• Allowing governments that have lost the confidence of Parliament (otherwise than through a no-confidence motion) to retain their full powers until the new government is designed, instead of being just acting governments.
• Allowing the government to hold "consultative referendums" (up to two per legislature), with questions and vote options entirely at its discretion. Following the referendum's results, the government opens a parliamentary debate on the subject matter.
• Allowing the government to hasten the legislative procedure and force a final vote after two readings in each House.
• Giving the power to dissolve the parliament directly to the government, rather than to the President.
• A few more details regarding parliamentary procedures, of minor importance.

[RogueBeaver]

Enthusiastic yes.

[Supersonic]

Obviously yes. These are sensible proposals.

[Goldwater]

Yes.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Yes

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't like (de jure) giving the government the power to dissolve Parliament, but I like everything else. Yes.

[DC Al Fine]

Enthusiastic yes.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Good to see this is drawing support from all sides of the political spectrum (though I'm curious to see what other leftists think).

[minionofmidas]

The second is as excellent as the first is horrible. The others are all minor points by comparison.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The second is as excellent as the first is horrible. The others are all minor points by comparison.

What's wrong with constructive defiance? Your country proved that it works.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Anyway, I voted yes. I'm not exactly fond of "rationalized parliamentarism", but Italy is in desperate need of political stability - especially because you guys keep electing ungovernable parliaments.

[minionofmidas]

The second is as excellent as the first is horrible. The others are all minor points by comparison.

What's wrong with constructive defiance? Your country proved that it works.

It proved, back in 1972 when it was tried for the only time, that it does not work. Since then, we have in practice existed on Westminster rules.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The second is as excellent as the first is horrible. The others are all minor points by comparison.

What's wrong with constructive defiance? Your country proved that it works.

It proved, back in 1972 when it was tried for the only time, that it does not work. Since then, we have in practice existed on Westminster rules.

Isn't that how Kohl came to power in 1982?

(sure, we'd rather not it have worked that year )

[minionofmidas]

Yes. Although that would of course have been just as possible in Italy.
He then almost immediately arranged to lose another vote of confidence in order to hold new elections, of course. Which was a novel abuse of the system wholly unforeseen by the framers of 49 and condoned by the Constitutional Court (and one copied, with less success, by Gerhard Schröder) - they basically allowed Kohl to have his cake and eat it too, hold snap elections but on a date of his own choosing and while still in office as Chancellor, precisely how it's supposed to not work.

The ideas behind the concept originate from the Weimar Republic's crises of the 20s. It's a wrong analysis of what exactly was wrong then and a problematic attempt to fix the perceived problem.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Anyway, I voted yes. I'm not exactly fond of "rationalized parliamentarism", but Italy is in desperate need of political stability - especially because you guys keep electing ungovernable parliaments.

If you want us to elect governable parliaments then find some way to make Craxi go away.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Anyway, I voted yes. I'm not exactly fond of "rationalized parliamentarism", but Italy is in desperate need of political stability - especially because you guys keep electing ungovernable parliaments.

If you want us to elect governable parliaments then find some way to make Craxi go away.

Police investigation asap plz.

[Supersonic]

Anyway, I voted yes. I'm not exactly fond of "rationalized parliamentarism", but Italy is in desperate need of political stability - especially because you guys keep electing ungovernable parliaments.

If you want us to elect governable parliaments then find some way to make Craxi go away.

Italy would have probably imploded without him.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes. Although that would of course have been just as possible in Italy.
He then almost immediately arranged to lose another vote of confidence in order to hold new elections, of course. Which was a novel abuse of the system wholly unforeseen by the framers of 49 and condoned by the Constitutional Court (and one copied, with less success, by Gerhard Schröder) - they basically allowed Kohl to have his cake and eat it too, hold snap elections but on a date of his own choosing and while still in office as Chancellor, precisely how it's supposed to not work.

The ideas behind the concept originate from the Weimar Republic's crises of the 20s. It's a wrong analysis of what exactly was wrong then and a problematic attempt to fix the perceived problem.

I agree that constructive defiance and dissolution powers are a dangerous combination (though I would personally do away with the latter instead). Still, I don't think the system is as likely to be abused as it is in Germany, and the overall direction of the reform is the right one.

Anyway, I voted yes. I'm not exactly fond of "rationalized parliamentarism", but Italy is in desperate need of political stability - especially because you guys keep electing ungovernable parliaments.

If you want us to elect governable parliaments then find some way to make Craxi go away.

I can't deny it could help, but Craxi's absence wouldn't be enough to bridge the policy gap between PCI and PSI, which is the main reason behind the political instability since 1982.

[Leftbehind]

I can't deny it could help, but Craxi's absence wouldn't be enough to bridge the policy gap between PCI and PSI, which is the main reason behind the political instability since 1982.

Hasn't Craxi largely engineered that policy gap?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I can't deny it could help, but Craxi's absence wouldn't be enough to bridge the policy gap between PCI and PSI, which is the main reason behind the political instability since 1982.

Hasn't Craxi largely engineered that policy gap?

Not really. There was wide consensus among the government area about the need to take action against inflation. While Craxi decided to override PCI's objections and take action, it's likely that in some way or another the inflation issue would have triggered a political crisis.

[H. Ross Peron]

Yes

[Antonio the Sixth]

Bump.