|
Agenzia
Giornalistica Italia
February 7, 2004
http://www.agi.it/english/news.pl?doc=200402071330-1049-RT1
-CRO-0-NF82&page=0&id=agionline-eng.italyonline
Reforms: Mazella proposing new format for ruling
parties
Rome, Italy, Feb 7 - Luigi Mazzella, the minister for
public administration, is suggesting a reform to the voting law and
the Constitution which entails an advantage in parliament for the
party governing. A formula that differs from the advantage of having
a majority. Speaking in the School for Public Administration in
Bologna, the Rt. Hon. Mazzelli confirmed, "Now is the time for
me to announce my own personal 'corrective' theory of majority
advantage that differs from that to which the theorists on the
subject are proposing. The sort of correction that I have been
suggesting for over ten years now is what I can a 'Government
advantage'. To better distinguish how it differs from the 'majority
advantage', I will from now on speak of an 'advantage that
guarantees governability'. Of course, to reward the winning
coalition with a 'plus' that is patently not wanted by the voters,
you need constitutional changes that allow the number of
Parliamentary components to be adjusted. But these changes do not
impinge on the essence of democracy in our country and serve only to
provide a greater effectiveness and efficiency in the government's
term of office. "There would be many advantages, in my opinion,
of having a proportional voting system that has been improved in
this way compared to the current system of majority rule. The
resulting 'advantage for the government's stability' together with
the 'majority advantage' would rest in the fact that the winning
coalition of parties (or even the single ruling party) in the
elections would have the sole responsibility of forming the cabinet
or of forming, at any rate, part of its own Parliamentary majority.
This means it would have the right to a further 'patrol' of
Parliamentary 'reserves', if the margin of votes between the ruling
party and the opposition turned out to be lower than a certain
proportion of the total number of votes in each of the two Houses.
In a corresponding proportion, obviously, to that needed to
re-establish a sufficient percentage to guarantee a true, workable
government stability. And in proportion to the numeric ratio of each
party or political group forming the majority. The 'patrol' of
'reserves' would be drawn from a single national list of non-elects
from the same political groupings. As in the case of the majority
advantage, the 'advantage for governmental stability' would be to
shelter the executive from ambushes or from impoverishing
contingents of parliamentary forces trying to form a majority purely
for reasons of legitimate absence (illness, leave of absence, trips
abroad and the like)". "The difference between the
'advantage for governmental stability' and the 'majority
advantage'", continued Mazzella, "would lie in the fact
that the 'call' of parliamentary 'reserves' in 'surplus' could
happen once and only once during the government's term in office and
would depend on the length of this term. When the government or its
majority was defeated, it would determine for the outgoing party,
and obviously only for them, the automatic and final termination of
the 'surplus' of 'reserves' obtained'. The mechanism would be
brought back in with the same rules for another or other parties
coming into government in the same winning coalition, on condition
that the new victors had the same percentage of the vote, obviously.
Majorities, yes but at the same time with an insufficient number of
votes in the existing parliamentary majority for an effective,
stable and definitive ruling government. "The remedy would
definitely function for an effective and long-lasting government in
the country without compromising the various parties' freedom of
choice or action. This is because the remedy would come into action
only after the agenda had been finalized and approved, with the
voters' support, meaning the majority of Italians. The essential
representation of the various parties in parliament wouldn't
change..."
|
