So, it is official. The 4th of December, my Italy will vote on a desperate attempt: force Italy to produce a stable government of a definite color.
Already, we have had to give up altogether the idea that the fight must be between “left” and “right”. With about 30%, the main contender against Renzi’s “left” will be Grillo’s self-described “forwards” -but still, the “right” could rally around Salvini’s “out”, and bring it to victory. Results are unpredictable.
And without the reform? Well, then the result is very predictable: no one will be able to form a stable government; not without forced compromises which will make both electorates cringe.
The problem is, it’s probably not a temporary confusion. In fact, in the West, it’s not an isolated case. New, incompatible poles are emerging everywhere. Is it an image of the times to come?
Ok, let’s ignore Syriza and a right-wing party governing together in Greece.
Let’s also skip over Spain, completely unable to form a new government in almost a year after splitting hard in four poles, despite having had just two forever. It’s the crisis, maybe?
But what about Brexit? The whole affair was the story of the emergence of a position, the Ukip, which has nothing to do with the traditional pro-busuness right. At the same time, Labour couldn’t capitalize on the other side’s division because too much occupied in its own surprisingly violent infighting.
And America, the eldest two-party system -is the same. Their Corbyn (Sanders) lost, and their Farage (Trump) won even more. But the fracture lines repeat themselves -a new uncompromising progressive movement has broken up with the moderate Left; and a crazy splinter of populism and isolationism is menacing to eat the Right whole.
Even Merkel, with her moderate right, is under attack by a completely new right, Afd.
Is all this really a surprise?
We are a complex society. And there should be a clear line dividing us neatly?
I’m not saying we’re all thinking for ourselves. Because we’re not. Still: in the age of information, your family and village are no longer the only influences. Ideas travel, contaminate. It’s all it takes to make a bipartition simply …unrealistic. Or just forced, like in the referendum’s proposal.
In the reform I’d want to be able to choose, you vote for a Parliament in strictly proportional way. And then you choose the ministers, directly.
Why should your position on external affairs be inextricably linked to how you’d administer the health system? Or your environmental policy? It shouldn’t.
So, you should be able to vote the exterior minister you want, and the health minister you want, and so on. If they come from different parties -who cares? If they have been elected, their policies have good support also in other parties’ electirate. So they should be able to find that support, in a proportionally elected Chamber, when they need to pass laws. And laws will get passed.
The Parliament being one, that’s why it won’t vote contradictory measures. Any more, at any rate, than a single government would. And for when we need a single figure to look up to, there would be a President standing for the unity of the State. But his role would be to moderate and promote dialogue among ministers, and between them and the Parliament -so an institutional figure, not a political one.
Who needs a government anyway?