"We're not British. But this does not justify the ballet - the majority, opposition, President of the Republic - that we go on stage whenever a crisis of government, "wrote Peter Ostellino few weeks ago on Corriere della Sera. He added: "Nor shall perform media are rooting for the parties to the conflict and pull the President of the Republic for his coat, pretending to defend the prerogatives or to discuss it." In short, says Ostellino 'institutions hold water on all sides. If they are not adapting to the "spirit of time" the state machine goes out of laps. "
What is the kernel of question is obvious: "Article 1 of the Constitution states:" Sovereignty belongs to the people and is exercised in the manner and within the limits of the Constitution. " It is not up to the elected by the people, who have only the exercise, put limits on popular sovereignty. What procedures should not be an obstacle, but its full realization. The subject is the sovereignty, not the forms and limits within which the people exercise it. " Ostellino says: "This is what Constantine had this death - the great constitutionalist who had put in a beautiful calligraphy paper messy - when talking about practice (what we today call improperly" material constitution "). That he intended as opposed to "formal constitution, but in its integration."
the reality of things, the Stresses notista, the trouble comes from the fact that "our institutional system of constitutional monarchy is a parody of the nineteenth century, when King had the last word and representative democracy was in its infancy. The part of the King is the President of the Republic in a political context that is not the same in which the monarchy. But his "prerogatives", as such, they end up having an even wider margin of appreciation of the "powers" codified the sovereign. " Ostellino explains: "First of all, the king was considered" above the parties ", although Then, it was not at all. Not so with the president. By the mere fact that they belonged to a political party, who has stated and voted, he is inevitably perceived as a "party man". Moreover, biased, and not infrequently they have been - more or less explicitly - all tenants of the Quirinal. Secondly, its very function is to "filter" of the legislative process - referring to the holding room bills for breach of constitutionality - ends up being perceived, rather than a guarantee, an undue interference in the work of government and independence of the Parliament itself. "
notista of The Courier compare our with the British system, where "no one would suggest that the conspiracy against the queen's first minister in charge." Among the many differences that are listed, there is also the one in England is the prime minister who decides whether the country still enjoys the consensus that has lost in Parliament, to dissolve the Chambers and call new elections. "Who, for us, has proposed such an institutional system has been accused of fascism by the custodians of the (very poor) sacred knowledge 'is the net Ostellino comment, adding:" The newspapers supporters of the center - who is afraid of losing them - are against any early elections for a parliamentary majority and an alternative to Output from the polls. Too bad that the same view when not in play is a different government, acceptable to them. They say the pure parliamentary system, without a binding mandate, it would be a guarantee for the independence of the parliamentary party than oligarchies. Too bad the reality is the opposite. Article 67 of the Constitution - "Every member of Parliament represents the Nation and carries out his duties without a binding mandate" - deprives the people of its sovereignty, as it entrusts the operation at the discretion of their representatives, giving an institutional character elitist, oligarchic, and authoritarian-change in representative democracy so understood. " Very true. But the article
of Ostellino contains an illuminating passage on the events of the past month and a half, concerning the conduct of Mr institutional. Fini. Ostellino writes: "In Anglo-Saxon institutional systems, who presides over the work of a branch of Parliament is the Speaker . His is a "work" - His or her job , he says of his role - which is to give voice to those who ask. It is quite unthinkable that will be in competition with the prime minister, build a separate parliamentary group and promotes its "political" than those of the government. If Speaker of British House of Commons he did, nobody would ask for his resignation. Would end up in a mental hospital. " According to the notista
Courier, "to defend the existing institutional system were the followers of political and social elites fundamentally hostile to liberal democracy. People believe that democracy should not be "government of the people" - even if exercised by their representatives - but the Republic of Plato's philosophy, the ethical status of Hegel, the "general will" of Rousseau, the "vanguard of the proletariat, Marxist Leninist. And reaction, senile disease of liberalism. "
Another piece of the article by Piero Ostellino be collected to demonstrate the absurdity in the center of a political attitude propagated from above and accepted by based militant uncritically. Ostellino says: "I had always thought that the (only) way to change governments without bloodshed were, in democracy, free elections. But it seems that many do not think so. My readers want to drive on the left (...) Berlusconi, but also add they do not want to vote. Count, if the government falls, the President of the Republic does not mean new elections and are confident in the "rigging" the parliamentary opposition. A peculiar case of abdication of its sovereignty. " Really! But Ostellino goes down even harder to reason: "I wonder if, at this rate, will not come to the abolition of elections when there was the prospect of a win are "Others". " You just turn a bit 'in the streets of small villages where the patrolling party, to understand that this will not put us two minutes to take shape, perhaps even for the local authorities.
0 comments:
Post a Comment