«The common thread of these reforms is the concentration of power and control. The exact opposite of what Western countries and modern constitutions provide. And I would never want to find myself living in a country that lacks checks and balances.” Maria Agostina Cabiddu is one of the 200 constitutionalists who signed the appeal against the premiership. While on Tuesday night the Senate voted to approve the related reform on differentiated autonomy, yesterday morning the students at their first final exam found a text signed by Cabiddu.
He must have thought: what am I doing there?
I was surprised, I was very pleased. But I also felt some embarrassment at finding my name among those of Pirandello and Montalcini.
What is the text to which the maturity track refers?
It was taken from a report presented at the annual conference of the association of constitutionalists. I had just written a small book dedicated to the theme of beauty, where we try to develop a universal right to beauty, accessible and usable to everyone, even to those who do not has means, based on Article 9 of the Constitution. Beauty is not ephemeral, but is important for the quality of life.
You have expressed a position against the premiership, as emerges forcefully from your appeal.
Meanwhile we have reached around 200 constitutionalists, and the number alone is news. We have overcome cultural and positional differences to give support to the concerns of Senator Liliana Segre (who says of herself: “I am a grandmother and I think about the future of her grandchildren”). Hers are those of all of us.
Can you explain what doesn’t work in the reform?
Here the principles of constitutionalism are at stake: non-concentration of powers and separation of border lines. With the premiership, the guarantees of checks and balances will disappear. The prime minister will also be able to take the parliamentary majority with him, moreover without a threshold being foreseen. The Chambers end up completely in the hands of the executive and drags with it all the other constitutional guarantees. The government can therefore take home the judges of the Consulta, the CSM as well as the Presidency of the Republic: all the guarantee bodies. In a word. The premiership denies constitutionalism and if approved, it would cause a real regime change.
Among other things, it is noted that there are no analogues in the world.
In addition to the case of Israel, which held the premiership for a short period (but didn’t work), I see more of a historical analogue with the Scelba law, renamed the scam law, or even with the Acerbo law of 1933. But the latter didn’t drag on either. a majority without a threshold. We are at the grandmother or great-grandmother of all reforms, given the analogy with the past.
Moving on to Autonomy, how do you view the fact that it is now state law?
We will see how things will go if the Regions appeal against this ordinary law. In the first instance it is not the subject of a repeal referendum, because it is connected to the Budget law. But if the Calderoli law says that it has unchanged balances, i.e. without shifts of resources, it may not be removed from a possible referendum. But coming to the substance: if the premiership overturns the form of government, this law overturns the form of state. We will have a “Harlequin State” where each region gets what it can, with regional governments negotiating with the national government. And again, the common thread is the concentration of power without counterweights.
And then it goes against the constitutional principle of unity and indivisibility of the Republic.
Calderoli refers to the application of the 2001 Title V Reform. The problem is that if the special statutes of the Regions are approved by constitutional law, even more so the others should not be able to provide themselves with differentiated autonomy through an ordinary law.
As a constitutional expert, what do you advise young people who are struggling with graduation? In addition to book knowledge, do you find it important to analyze reality and take a position towards the constitutional reforms that the government is implementing?
Having awareness is always good, then everyone draws their own conclusions. Does he know something? The appeal of the 200 was born from discussions between friends, who noted an enormous silence on the reforms, broken only by government propaganda.
