9
They both share the same powers and functions, and both are elected simultaneously for a term of 5 years. Both Houses, apart from amending and approving laws, can give or revoke confidence (la fiducia) in the elected Government, allowing it to go through or blocking it. The main problem with the perfectly symmetrical system is the slow pace. In the Italian legislature a bill must be approved by both houses; Senate and Chamber. If not, the law goes to and fro between the houses until they reach the final approval. This process can take years, dooming a future law in a legislative Purgatory, to use a Dantesque term. It is called ‘navetta parlamentare’ or, ‘parliamentary shuttle’.
The Constitutional Reform proposed by Renzi sought to change this situation, mainly by abolishing the ‘perfectly symmetric bicameral legislature’, stripping the Senate of most of its powers and reducing the number of senators from 320 to 100. The aim was to speed up the legislative process in Italy by making the Chamber of Deputies the only house able to approve laws. A stronger government with a faster parliament would have prevented laws from being stuck in eternal loops in search of final approval.
So, what was the problem with the reform?
The main problem with the reform was that it wouldn’t have dismantled the Senate entirely (as many Italians believed). Instead, it would have been transformed into a House composed of senators chosen internally by the regions. It would have been decided without consulting the citizens, between mayors and councillors. This would have forced councillors to effectively work two jobs; travelling between their home region and Rome every week.
Stripped of its powers, the Senate would have had no say in opposing laws that could be considered unconstitutional or badly-written. The Senate could only have advised the chamber to amend a new law. However, this could have been ignored completely.
Another fundamental problem was the perception of the Italian people on the referendum. In many cases, their vote was influenced by who was asking the question, rather than the question itself. Many Italians saw the ‘NO’ victory as a chance to bring down Matteo Renzi, whose popularity had been diminishing for years, as he had promised to resign if he lost.
The result is going to have an influence not just on Italy but also on the EU. Whilst the ruling Partito Democratico [PD] has been invited to form a new government, headed by foreign minister Paolo Gentiloni, there is also a chance there will be elections soon. Whatever the feelings about the result; this referendum gave us, the Italian people, a reason to reflect on our constitution and the importance of democracy.
They both share the same powers and functions, and both are elected simultaneously for a term of 5 years. Both Houses, apart from amending and approving laws, can give or revoke confidence (la fiducia) in the elected Government, allowing it to go through or blocking it.
The main problem with the perfectly symmetrical system is the slow pace. In the Italian legislature a bill must be approved by both houses; Senate and Chamber. If not, the law goes to and fro between the houses until they reach the final approval. This process can take years, dooming a future law in a legislature Purgatory, to use a Dantesque term. It is called ‘navetta parlamentare’ or, ‘parliamentary shuttle’.
The Constitutional Reform proposed by Renzi would change this situation, mainly by abolishing the ‘perfectly symmetric bicameral legislature’, stripping the Senate of most of its powers and reducing the number of senators from 320 to 100. The aim here is to speed up the legislative process in Italy by making the Chamber of Deputies the only house able to approve laws. A stronger Government with a faster Parliament would prevents laws from being stuck in eternal loops in search for final approval.
So, what is the problem with the reform?
The main problem with the reform is that it won’t dismantle the Senate entirely (as believed by many Italians). Instead, it will be transformed into a House composed of senators chosen internally by the Regions. It will be decided without consulting the citizens, between mayors and councillors. This
will force councillors to effectively work two jobs; travelling between their home region and Rome every week.
Stripped down of its powers, the Senate would become a House that has no say in opposing laws that could be considered unconstitutional or badly-written. The Senate could only advise the chamber to amend a new law. However, this could be ignored completely.
Another fundamental problem is the perception of the Italian people on the referendum. Their vote is going to be mostly influenced by who is asking the question, rather than the question itself. Many Italians see the possible ‘NO’ victory as a chance to bring down Matteo Renzi, whose popularity has been diminishing for years now, as he claimed he will resign if people vote against it.
The result is going to have influence not just on Italy but also on the EU. It is likely that there will be a change of government in the case of a ‘NO’ victory. Whatever the result; this referendum has given us, the Italian people, a reason to reflect about our own Constitution and the importance of Democracy.
Annalisa de Filippis
by Annalisa de Filippis