If "good morning starts in the morning", then, the nebulous premises of this further electoral "round" can only betray every expectation in terms not only of the programmatic conclusions that should inspire its progress, but also of the consequences, on a constitutional level , which would be determined in the hypothesis of the prevalence of one or the other of the two self-styled coalitions in the field, united, indeed, by the need to express, albeit in different ways, the meta-political ideal of "full powers ”apparently declining it in a democratic sense to offer it, quite illusively, a semblance of admissibility.
However, let's be clear. If both the center- right and the center -left seem willing to almost "mystify" their intentions in order not to have them clear even internally, however, it seems necessary, not to say vital, to try to understand what each other means respectively with the the term "full powers", and with respect to what and who, or better still, with respect to which "other" powers that " fullness " must find expression, especially when considered on the results of an electoral law that seems to guarantee everything except the implementation of a " regime "of" full powers ".
In the meantime, because the clarification is not only of method, but above all of substance, as it is completely suitable to overwhelm, in its most spurious declination, the institutional profile of a country that has always made the so-called "separation of powers" the cardinal reference of own democratic representation. Therefore, why, the first and most dangerous of the degenerations that could ensue cannot but assume, and not only on the level of the common imagination, the perverse image of the " man alone in command ", identified when in presidential sauce as regards the center-right, when in a technical-juridical sauce as far as the center-left seems to belong, it being understood that the pure different nomenclature, far from wanting to be distinctive, and far from being so in fact, represents a mere linguistic simplification as an end in itself since, in fund, destined to betray the same identity of the two sides in order to be guaranteed, that identity by the same "providential" Rosatellum "saves all".
Finally, because, both on the one hand and on the other, partly by intention, partly by "foolishness", it is not possible to define the ideology that should underlie the granting of the aforementioned "full powers", whose content indeed continues to remain indefinite and therefore itself dangerous for the fate of a democratic country devoted to "freedom".
This reflection would seem almost obvious, yet it is not at all and thank goodness it is not, because even the mere fact of reasoning around it reveals that we have not yet reached the edge of the abyss even though we are close to it. If we then think that the parliament, in recent years, has seen its role progressively compromised, and ultimately probably also by its own choice, having had to defer to the invitation of the President Sergio Mattarella to impose the figure of the technician par excellence Mario Draghi, then , perhaps, we should not be too surprised. "To the good connoisseur, a few words": in the sense that by now, "full powers" are not conquered, they are simply obtained by "mutual consent": this is the real symptomatic distortion of party inefficiency and the uselessness of the role which should be his own. This is so "for many, but not for all", because evidently "some would seem to be more equal than others" in the context of the dynamic distribution of rights, duties, and powers themselves. And in a numerically reduced Parliament this institutional "non-sense" will find its moment of maximum expression, with every consequence on the level of "good governance", which has now become a pure and simple chimera since it has been interpreted for too long by a majority that seems to have exceeded that insurmountable limit to travel a different path, still undefined to be distant from the constitutionally imposed formula.
But let's face it all: who benefits from a President of the Republic, apparently, deceptively, directly chosen by the People who concentrate "full powers" on himself? And who benefits, conversely, that those "full powers" are otherwise conferred by Parliament on "anyone" to take responsibility for government decisions that are anything but "popular" in the common sense of the expression?
The answers are directly consequent: both the formula of the center-right and that of the center-left, would seem to constitute, as a whole, the joint representation of one's own inability, almost a spontaneous declaration of inadequacy to fill the disputed role.
But then with what spirit should the people approach the polls next September 25? In favor of who or what should express their preference in the awareness that the incidence of their vote will be minimal compared to a promiscuous outcome unsuitable to guarantee governability?
However, there is little consolation to the people, and both the center-right and the center-left should remember. It is not the first time that those who have tried to modify, or rather overturn, the Constitution , sacred by definition, have then collapsed on a political level.
Finally, the 5 Star Movement seems to have met its destiny, promoter of the reform of the so-called "cut" in the number of parliamentarians which will have as a direct and immediate consequence a profound vulnus to democratic principles, betraying at its root that ideal of maximum representativeness as a typical connotation of our parliament.
At the state of the art, and if there will not be a 360-degree turnaround within the contending coalitions, on 25 September we will perhaps be called to express a vote that, far from interpreting the preference for two different government formulas, could turn out to be representative of the same ideology dressed in apparently alternative sauces. Is this really the Italy we want?
Giuseppina Di Salvatore - Lawyer, Nuoro
