Differentiated regionalism: what opportunities for development?

Last 19 May Minister Calderoli, on the occasion of the meeting with the Sardinian Assembly, or rather, in the presence of only the Councilors representing the majority for having resolved, those of the minority, in the sense of not intervening, declared, according to what was reported from the media, that "Sardinia is one of the Regions that can benefit the most from the law" on differentiated autonomy, since "being a region with a somewhat particular special statute - because it has equal or lower powers than the regions with ordinary statute - it could draw benefits not only to guarantee the same services that are guaranteed throughout the national territory, but also in a growth perspective".

The affirmation is undoubtedly effective in terms of discursive impact, but, since it is not enriched with further specifications, at least as far as is known, on the practical scope of its contents, it is for most people very difficult to appreciate.

It is not a matter of necessarily wanting to be polemical but, admitted and perhaps not granted that our Sardinia would have "skills equal to or less than the regions with ordinary statute" (according to the words of the Minister), it is only a question of the need to concretely understand, if possible, what could be the direct effects of a reform of such consistency and of dubious constitutionality. And, considering the words of the Minister, it would also be a question, and above all, of understanding what our specialty and autonomy would have consisted up to now.

In other words: in the discipline of differentiated regionalism, what would be the meaning of the survival of the Autonomous Regions with Special Statutes?

Mutatis mutandis differentiated regionalism, if we really went to refine the reasoning, would probably render the simultaneous existence of Autonomous Regions with Special Statutes unnecessary.

In the meantime, and consequently, because the project of differentiated regionalism advocated by the League could not, for that very reason, and on the basis of the scope of those same declarations, be carried forward without having launched a dutiful popular consultation on the point also in consideration of the critical period that in recent years the whole country, in its entirety, has found itself in spite of having to face, and is still facing.

Therefore, because the dynamics of such a reform, far from being easy to understand even for expert and prepared minds, certainly turn out, with good likelihood, to be very difficult to accept on a general level of the population, with every imaginable consequence.

Finally, because, in any event, and also to concede everything, it appears undeniable that the approval of the project of differentiated regionalism would really have an impact in its consequences due to its undeniable impact not only on the level of rights considered individually (as by many , and on various occasions, variously underlined), which could end up being declined differently depending on the territory of intervention, but also and above all on the regulatory articulation of the different and multiple matters of incidence, which could go to be regulated when in a way when in the other.

In what way, therefore, can that Calderoli project, in its current state, bring benefits on a territorial and more specifically local administrative level? All the more when, in order to be able to proceed with such a reform, it would be at least necessary to realign the country in terms of the enjoyment of resources and the use of services, guaranteeing equal or almost equalization from north to south. And even more when, in the current state of "misalignment" existing between the various and multiple portions of the territory, the approval of this project would probably do nothing but affect the unity of the country.

The decentralization contemplated by article 5 of our Constitutional Charter, to be clear, is included in a context of much broader meaning, i.e. the pre-eminent and unsurpassable one of unity and indivisibility of the Republic also and specifically in the sharing of principles, values, rights: unity in diversity, but still unity which, evidently, far from being able to be conceived only on a purely geographical level, includes all those decision-making mechanisms useful for the best and parallel government of the national perimeter.

What should be avoided is that differentiated regionalism can in any way contribute to favoring the formation and simultaneous existence of multiple regional realities, all different in their specific competences within a single state declined at various speeds.

Nothing question, therefore, on administrative decentralization which, in its best articulation could well favor bureaucratic streamlining, but no prejudice should loom over the unitary dynamics of policies and general administration at the central level.

Differentiated regionalism therefore does not seem to be a question to be submitted to the legislator at the moment, because it requires not only a broad clarifying debate that is suitable for making everyone understand, first and foremost the citizens, the scope and effects of such a project, but also and above all, preliminarily, to "reconstruct" the functional parallelism between the different territorial realities, leading to equalization and at a single speed both the north and the south of the country and the islands. And let the floor be given to the citizens on whom the direct effects of implementing the reform would fall.

Giuseppina Di Salvatore – Lawyer, Nuoro