New referendum in Italy

Almost four years after the last referendum held in Italy (the one lost by Matteo Renzi, then prime minister and now senator for Tuscany), the Italians are once again being called to another such consultation. The aim is to approve or reject the "taglio" (cut or reduction) of the number of members of parliament who make up the legislative power, which will increase the number of members in the lower house from the current 630 to 400 and in the upper house from 315 to 200.

In this sense, although this referendum shares with the one promoted by Renzi the fact of modifying the legislative power, these are two very different reforms. Renzi's failure (December 2016) sought to change the nature of legislative power: with the transformation of the Senate into the Chamber of Regions, the intention was to have one Chamber (the Lower House) where national sovereignty would be represented, while the other (the Upper House) would contain the territories. Now, however, the fundamental principle behind this other reform is none other than to save on political expenditure, as the State would no longer pay between 345 and 350 national parliamentarians. However, this would by no means spell the end of the so-called "perfect bicameralism" instituted by the 1948 Constitution, which establishes the existence of two chambers with equal legislative power, an anomaly not seen in any other country in our environment.

In fact, this reform can be interpreted in a "populist" manner, as it was the party of populism in Italy (the Cinque Stelle Movement) that promoted it. This party considered it necessary to reduce expenditure on political personnel, and they were certainly right, but recent studies, such as that of the reputed execonomist-head of the International Monetary Fund Carlo Cottarelli (who was on the verge of becoming prime minister at the end of May 2018) have shown that, of all the state's expenditure, a reduction in this number of parliamentarians would amount to only 0.001%. A simply derisory figure.

What is happening, however, is that this reform, unlike Renzi's (which never had any real chance of succeeding), could be supported by a majority of the population, which is fed up with a political class that is as expensive as it is inefficient. At least if we consider the political positions, which say that the victory of the "yes" vote would be guaranteed: Within the current government coalition, as many as three formations (Cinque Stelle Movement, Democratic Party and LeuU, as Renzi and his Italia Viva are more in favour of a "no" vote or abstention) are in favour of a "yes" vote, while in the opposition two of the main members of the centre-right (Salvini's Lega and Meloni's Fratteli d'Italia) are also in favour of a "yes" vote for the "taglio". If we add up the voting intentions of these five formations in the current polls, we are talking about around 80 percent of the votes, which in practice would mean a resounding victory for those in favour of reducing the number of members of parliament, a reduction which, moreover, would not be immediate but would occur when the next general elections are called (in February-March 2023 at the latest).

But one question is what a majority of parties will say and another, quite different, is what voters will do in a referendum which, incidentally, should have been held on 29 March, but had to be postponed because the circumstances of the coronavirus epidemic prevented it. 

Indeed, although a majority of parties support it, public opinion is more divided than it appears. First of all, it is no secret that this is the reform sought by one party, the Cinque Stelle Movement, which won very clearly in the general elections of March 2018 but has been in free fall ever since. Following the resignation of its leader, the foreign minister, Luigi Di Maio, on 22 January, is still with a manager and no consultation of his militants is on the horizon to choose a new leader. It is surviving as a party because it still has the largest group in both chambers and the PD, which is really governing the country (it holds the two most important portfolios, namely Economy and Finance (Roberto Gualteri) and Infrastructures and Transport (Paola de Micheli)) together with the person of Prime Minister Conte (who has never been a militant of Cinque Stelle even though they offered him to be "premier"), and needs their votes to direct national policy.

So, although several formations support the "taglio", this reform is the one wanted by Cinque Stelle, although it should be remembered that it was Salvini's Lega that, through the so-called "government contract" (signed by both formations in May 2018), allowed him to push it through in the Italian Parliament. So there are many Italians who know that the victory of the "no" vote would be the final straw for a formation without a leader, without a direction and with practically no political future. Moreover, Salvini would also be touched by the victory of the "no", which would damage his image in the face of his attempt to become the new President of the Council of Ministers.

But there is another powerful reason for the "no" vote to finally prevail, and that is the fact that, as the size of the polling stations increases, so does the number of votes needed to allocate a seat (it would be around 270,000). This would give rise to a very serious problem of lack of representation, given the very unequal distribution of the Italian population. The country is indeed divided into 20 regions, but the population is concentrated in the northernmost area, which is by far the most prosperous from the economic viewpoint. By way of comparison, while Umbria in southern Italy has barely two million inhabitants, Lombardy in the north of the country has no fewer than 16 million, or 26-27% of the total population of a nation of 60 million. We could therefore find some highly populated regions (such as Veneto, Lombardy or Emilia-Romagna) widely over-represented in the new Parliament, while others (Umbria, Calabria, Puglia, etc.) would lose their presence and, with it, power and influence in political decisions. 

Because, in reality, what the country needs is to turn one of its two chambers into a place where the territories are represented, and not to reduce the number of parliamentarians. In other words, for the Senate to really be that place where demands of a territorial nature can be channelled. And that is precisely what is not happening: to think that Matteo Salvini is currently a senator for Calabria when in fact he was born and still lives in Lombardy (over 1,000 kilometres away from the southern region he supposedly represents) speaks, and very clearly, of where the constitutional reform should be heading. Whatever happens, by the third weekend of September we will know whether there is a reduction in the national parliament, or whether everything remains as it was established over seven decades ago in the current Italian constitution, which is the one that marked how many members the legislature should have.

Pablo Martín de Santa Olalla Saludes is a senior researcher at the Fundación Civismo and author of the book Italia, 2013-2018. From chaos to hope (Liber Factory, 2018).