Rome, 3 January (askanews) – The government is right to take the initiative on presidentialism, Italy needs a “systemic reform” and the French model is the one to refer to, because it was designed for a situation similar to the one lives here. Giovanni Guzzetta, jurist and professor of public law at the University of Tor Vergata in Rome, also founded the ‘I change’ movement to support the cause of the direct election of the head of state.” Personally – he explains to Askanews – they have been for decades supporter of French semi-presidentialism, not for ideological but analytical reasons. The premiership has also been proposed in Italy, we also have an example – mayors and regional presidents – but it risks being either too rigid or too mild. If it is interpreted in the sense strict means automatic dissolution in the event that the premiership should change, if implemented in a mild sense it becomes only an indication of the premier who does not solve the problem of government stability”. Question. But not even with constructive distrust could a functioning chancellor be achieved? Reply. “Constructive distrust is the institutionalization of turnarounds. In serious systems, as in Germany, it has fallen into disuse. In fragmented systems it has not resolved ungovernability, as in Belgium or Israel. Instead, the French system has many arguments to its favor: the first is that it guarantees stability in the direction expressed by the president and flexibility at the parliamentary level. Secondly, it is a system that has solved problems very similar to those of Italy. Finally, it has guaranteed alternation by bringing even those who were radically opposed to the presidency to de Gaulle’s model: Mitterrand wrote a book entitled ‘The permanent coup’, only to be the greatest beneficiary of the system, he was the longest-serving president in French history..”.D. So is the government right to take the lead on this? A. “Of course. But the problem with the reforms in Italy is above all the method: in our country the reforms have all failed. They failed when they were carried out by a majority, they failed when they were carried out in a bipartisan way. The times are too long , the political convenience that existed at the time of the initial agreement and the landslide reform changes. Suffice it to recall the Nazarene pact between Berlusconi and Renzi. This is why I support, with the ‘I change’ movement, that the process should precede reformer from a consultative referendum to say in which direction to go. Whether to stay where we are or whether to move towards a presidential system. We should apply the method that De Gasperi chose for the monarchy-republic referendum”. But choosing between monarchy and republic was a fundamental question, understandable to anyone. Can voters weigh between the premiership and presidentialism? A. “This is exactly the argument that the Popular Front opposed to De Gasperi. He replied that the choice was too important not to entrust it to the voters. The point is whether or not one believes in democracy and therefore in the fact that there are citizens to choose. I don’t think that in Italy a serious debate on institutions cannot be understood by Italians. It seems to me a very paternalistic and opportunistic argument”. To give stability to the government, however, one could intervene with targeted interventions, without rewriting a large part of the Constitution: acting on the electoral law, regulations and perhaps better regulating the relationship between government and parliament… R. “The road to electoral law we tried and also the reform of the parliamentary regulations. But they proved inadequate to solve the problem, above all considering a situation that in Italy is coeval with the birth of the state, from 1861 to today. I am sure that an electoral law is no longer enough, yes he tried to follow this path in the early 1990s, but it didn’t work. The problem is of a constitutional nature, it is the security of the majorities at the parliamentary level that needs to be done”. To introduce presidentialism, or semi-presidentialism, would it be necessary to review the whole system of checks and balances provided for by the Constitution? A. “Certainly, if a constitutional reform is carried out, an overall reform is carried out. But I don’t see the problem”.D. Well, the experience of cutting parliamentarians is not encouraging: it was said that it would be accompanied by a series of adjustments and instead nothing was done. R. “This confirms what I say: the idea of surgical reforms is a mistake. Even surgical reforms require adjustments. The reforms must be systematic because otherwise we will leave a whole series of unresolved problems on the table”.D. The left is cold, and moreover has always been hostile to presidentialism, fearing the ‘strong man’… A. “It is a recent position of the left, a U-turn that has no justification compared to the past. Around in the 2000s the left was absolutely in favor of reforms, the D’Alema commission even launched a semi-presidential system, there were openings from Veltroni, from Prodi himself.It is a recent closure, which I attribute to a difficult situation in which the Pd. I hope that this closure will be overcome because the country needs all the political areas to compete”. D. And is it right for Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni to say: we are looking for sharing, but will we go ahead in any case? A. “To say the opposite would be to hand over veto power to the opposition. It seems reasonable to me that the Prime Minister should say: let’s sit down at the table, after which if there is no agreement we also have the duty to try to implement the reform anyway”.
