Da Il Fatto Quotidiano del 16 settembre 2010, il testo della video intervista su "La Questione morale", promossa dall'associazione "Il libro ritrovato", presentata mercoledì 15 settembre Teatro Carignano in Turin.
federalism, electoral law, rules on a personal moral issue, system Tax: Marco Travaglio interview Gustavo Zagrebelsky, president emeritus of the Consulta.
The first question is to do in a former chairman of the Constitutional Court that insists on defending the Constitution is: what is the state of health of the paper today? The impression is that many fear that the Constitution is changed, disrupted, modified, but that the worst has already happened, that the Constitution has already been changed without even touching it, emptied from the inside leaving only the bark. In fact, it is assumed that, on the one written, one prevails unspecified "material constitution" ...
This speech on the Constitution that you could do more on democracy in general. Constitution and democracy are the casings need to see what's inside is more important what's out there or what's inside? This is a question that you would Socratically. Wanting to use another image: are more important than formal rules or the men who run the rules? It is an old question: are more important than the institutions or the quality of men? Normally it is said: the institutions are very important, but there is no worthwhile institution, or the Constitution which may give good results if it is in the hands of a political personnel of the lowest level. Conversely
a mediocre Constitution may lead to acceptable results if it is manipulated, used by a political staff, in turn, is ethically acceptable. Ethically because I say we must have the courage to restore some categories, some words: When you say "ethical" about politics, morality does not, it simply indicates the need for those who occupy public positions are aware of and consistent with the ' ethos that this function entails. In general, the Constitution provides, provides, in hopes that those who occupy public positions to fulfill its functions "with discipline and honor": words that are obsolete, almost like teasing ...
and Article 54, but no one knows.
In fact, during many years of university exams, I do not think I ever mentioned as a possible subject of the application. Honor and discipline, unfortunately, are those standards which are not fine, even showing the condition of a decent public life, first of all, even before democracy. So, back to us, the health status of the Constitution: the formal point of view, our Constitution is proving to be very strong, more than 30 years that we strive for change in the essential parts, no one has ever succeeded by astravolgerla formal point of view. But the matter is of course things are different. So my idea is that today it is not just to defend the Constitution, but to restore it: it is a lot more challenging because today 90 percent of our political forces in parliament want to change it.
But not enough to want to change: we should agree on how to change it, and there you create the block. This gives great strength: the Constitution as a formal document that remains is important because it is still an ideal reference point, whereby it can lead to certain civil rights battles. But the object of the battles is not the constitutional text, but the constitutional reality, the ethos, principles that the Constitution means. The main point is the conception of democracy.
We have built, in fact, a transformation that would define a reversal of his conception of democracy. Consider the electoral law as a symptom: it is the clearest expression of the overthrow of the principle of sovereignty. Sovereignty in a democracy means above all that the representatives elect their own representatives. But with the current electoral law, for the reasons we all know, the heads of the party shall appoint their rappresentanti.E the electorate is there to do that? To distribute the shares of shareholders of the top political parties.
Forse un punto debole della Costituzione, o almeno di chi dovrebbe garantirne i principi fondamentali, è che assistiamo continuamente alla coesistenza di una Costituzione che dice una cosa e di leggi che dicono esattamente il contrario, consentendo una serie di prassi che sono totalmente antitetiche rispetto a quello che prevede la Costituzione. Allora una persona semplice si domanda: ma com'è possibile che non sia intervenuto nessuno a bloccare o a cancellare o a fulminare una legge elettorale così palesemente incostituzionale? Manca qualche valvola di salvaguardia, nel sistema costituzionale?
Qui si entra in una discussione molto tecnica. Che questa legge sia palesemente incostituzionale non saprei dirlo: qual è la norma che viene violata? Bisognerebbe tenere distinto il giudizio di costituzionalità freddo, scientifico, giuridico. Dunque qual è la norma che viene violata dall'attuale legge elettorale? Sono decenni che si dice, per esempio, che le preferenze sono una cosa negativa, perché quando c'erano le preferenze plurime si facevano "cordate" molto permeabili agli interessi mafiosi. Poi si è passati alla preferenza unica, che però ha scatenato la lotta di tutti contro tutti: l'elezione è diventata molto costosa e questo ha favorito in linea di principio i gruppi di potere che disponevano di risorse economiche. Dunque l'abolizione delle preferenze and the majority of the premium does not appear to be unconstitutional, because abolition of preferences does not mean that the democratic parties are open to civil society with some mechanism that gives voice to the citizen-voters by making them feel in control of the mechanism and not just customers who go to vote options already taken up by others. Instead, it was not so, and this reversal of relations between citizens and elected did degrade the quality of our representation: When are the leaders who chose their own representatives, gives priority to people of faith, men and women of fatigue. And it's democracy has little to do.
Applicants are co-opted in according to the servility and loyalty ...
So then, the balance between the constitutional powers, the Parliament today, the figure does not even say dell'incomodo, but the superfluous. So much so someone said: do not aboliamolo per se, but ...
... we vote only the group leaders.
Team leaders in proportion to the weight of election ... And the fact that Parliament is sidelined with the votes of confidence ...
No one remembers him anymore, but the Parliament should be the first organ of government control we have lost the very essence Parliament, now considered as a place where you put your stamp on decisions taken elsewhere. What then are mostly personal issues or legislation to fix a few cliques ...
We all, or many, certainly two of us, the feeling that this election law is a distortion of the principles of democracy. But it is not easy to identify the specific rule being violated. It's all a concept that is put into crisis. The same applies to the ad personam laws: they are all formulated in general terms. If you shield a criminal for the current president of the Council becomes a law concerning the Prime Minister, that the charge and not the person. When making the "Short trial", is said to be in the interests of the majority of citizens have short processes (although "short trial" èuneufemismo: questoèilprocessomorto ...). All of these laws - and could not be otherwise - are presented formally in terms Overall, it is clear that, if you were a law that explicitly refers to Tom or Dick, with the first and last name, would have no chance to go ... It would be a disgrace that the supervisory intervene. Everyone knows that certain laws are made by Tom or Dick, as is all right: the substance is individual, particular, but the form is general. And how does the Constitutional Court to fail? The fact that there are laws that we all consider to be produced by a diseased mentality, but it does not violate a constitutional provision specifically states, not at all mean that these laws go well: it means that even violate the assumptions, principles that are so fundamental there 's no need to make explicit.
If they had planned this political class, perhaps the Framers would have added some introduction to the Constitution ...
The difficulties of our democracy and our Constitution, I believe, are rooted in a primeval land. Poi ci sono questioni che dovrebbero essere affrontate con gli strumenti dell'etica politica, della diffusione di una cultura politica. La vita costituzionale ha bisogno di questo humus. Infatti questo nostro incontro s'intitola "La guardia è stanca"...
La "guardia stanca", se non erro, è il popolo russo che protesta con Lenin perché la rivoluzione tarda a partire. Oggi forse possiamo leggere questo motto come la stanchezza di una parte della società civile nei confronti delle vergogne che ci vengono ogni giorno rovesciate addosso. Ma la guardia stanca potrebbe anche essere la metafora di tutti quegli organi di controllo che dovrebbero montare la guardia per controllare power, but in recent years have been weakened, perforated, neutralized, or maybe just got tired and do not exercise their duty of care ...
Yes, it could be. In that sense you are tired? We are tired of waiting and tired so it's a prelude to action, to a renewal? Or the guard is tired because it is spent? I believe our country is a bit 'on this ridge: at certain times or in certain environments can take a weariness that would also find the forms of association to react, but the other side is understood as the fatigue exhaustion , as a waiver of such pessimism. C'è un punto su cui credo che le forze politiche dovrebbero fare una riflessione: quelle che, almeno a parole, dichiarano che la situazione attuale non corrisponde alle loro aspirazioni, cioè l'opposizione. L'Italia è l'unico Paese in cui le forze di governo perdono consensi e le forze di opposizione non li guadagnano: questo dicono i sondaggi. Non ti pare che questo sia un sintomo di stanchezza, purtroppo nel secondo senso?
La gente che non si riconosce più nelle forze di maggioranza non trova un approdo in altre formazioni, in altri schieramenti, questo forse è il segno dello scoramento, che sfocia nell'astensione. Io credo che sia vero che molti elettori votano per le forze di opposizione perché la this majority. The day when there was not this majority with these leaders, even with this recognized leader, not a great result for the opposition.
Maybe that's why for years the bulk of the opposition so lovingly supports the Prime Minister: if there were more than him, nobody would vote more.
know many people who say this is the last time I go to the polls. Then we go again, trying to avoid or minimize the worst. But the day when there was no longer the worst there would be a meltdown for the opposition. So we in this paradoxical situation: the defeat of the majority does not turn into victory for the opposition. Instead, each well-functioning democracy is based on this law: if it loses the majority, the opposition wins. When this law is belied by the facts is democracy at risk, because it takes over the posting of citizens. So I would not be so happy if I were a political opposition, before the decline of consensus of the majority, because I would ask: where are these votes? And if you do not go to the opposition, there is to do a very deep reflection.
Television has imposed only one of the Master the country a series of words and slogans sick: for example, the one that "reforms are good if shared." I never understood why a reform should be good only if they share many: if it is a disgusting and is shared by many, I feel worse, rubbish is rubbish even if all the voters, and yet we are told every day that if the reforms are shared by many or all of then are good regardless. Among the reforms that we are almost obliged to share, for example, is that fiscal federalism that no one knows exactly what it is: someone sees it as an antechamber of separatism, some as a panacea that would liberate us from the bureaucracy. But you can still say "I am against federalism," or you may swear in church?
You want an answer dry, but you asked two questions and two problems: the corruption of the words and the question of federalism. First, as politically responsible citizens who do not enjoy seeing the amazing situation that has been created, but we feel an obligation to do something to improve it, to reclaim, we know that one of the main points of the degradation and corruption of the Italian words. For example, there is an expression that is widely used by people in government, but also the opposition: "We have not put their hands in tasche degli italiani". Pare sempre una trovata brillante. A parte la veridicità o meno del contenuto, questa espressione ha avuto un grande successo, purtroppo, a destra come a sinistra. Ora, io la trovo di una volgarità senza pari, perché sottintende – questo è il messaggio subliminale – l'idea che uno Stato che chiede ai cittadini di partecipare alle spese pubbliche sia un ladro sempre e comunque. Quindi, se lo Stato è ladro, ben si giustifica l'evasione fiscale. E il cerchio si chiude.
Mettere le mani in tasca? Ma in un paese civile tutti i cittadini dovrebbero essere chiamati responsabilmente a far fronte, secondo criteri di giustizia, alle esigenze della collettività. The Constitution provides for progressive tax system: no one remembers anymore, but "progressive taxes" means that those who have more must contribute more than those who did not. We apply this simple mindset fiscal consolidation under way, and we see that should lead to a problem that nobody dares ask: capital tax on large fortunes, the taxation of financial speculation ...
Instead of thieves, this maneuver puts his hands in his pockets to the guards: police, judges and law-abiding citizens ...
Unfortunately, we have to think about rebuilding our coexistence on the basis of words nonmalate, because the corruption of any political regime is accompanied by the corruption of words. There is a very interesting book published by Mondadori a few years ago and recently republished in larger version: the author is Victor Klemperer, a German philologist jew, the husband of a woman Aryan (use these categories there are proper), which followed the transformation of the language under the Third Reich. An interesting study on how to poison the minds by changing the meaning of words or inventing words. Now a sequel has been out for Giuntina: LTI. The language of the Third Reich. We should read to understand the venom that words can contain. You now
said "reforms shared." It is a has a slogan that looks sick if we all agree, this would be the proof that what we are doing is good. But in a liberal democracy to disagree is a good thing, because the dissent creates the gap and gives the depth of the problem. In liberal democracy the unanimous, being together and all agree, is not a value, indeed. But in this formula there is also a positive factor that should not be underestimated: the constitutional reforms should be shared because they can not be imposed in the interests of one party, otherwise the end result would be a Constitution on a personal basis.
And each if the change in its use and consumption at each change of majority.
As in certain South American regimes in which political forces (for example, some colonels) are present at the elections with their Constitution in section 1 of the program. Our concept of the Constitution, rooted in centuries, is that instead of a text, a document of principles stable, more stable politics. Why is the policy that is subject to the Constitution and the Constitution can never become an instrument of policy. From this point of view, I would see the words "constitutional reforms shared" an aspect positive, this, and not the other, the one that we must necessarily all be in agreement. Even then because this discourse on reform is part of a shared context in which it is said, the reforms need to be done, "res publica reformanda east," and those who are against certain reforms is a crazy, irresponsible, a traditionalist. In my opinion, you should be able to say that the reforms secularly, in itself, is neither good nor bad. You have to see what you put into it.
Given the experience of recent years ...
Vista experience ... if one wanted to do some 'of indifference may even say a political class so degraded that it can produce good? Qualunquistico will be a speech, but the Gospel is known by its fruit tree, so ... We come to the issue of federalism: here I would say that we live in a climate of thought only. Who now dares to proclaim non-federalist? I say "proclaiming that" because we know that the concerns or doubts in this regard are very common, but there is this ideological cover for which is against federalism is not à la page ... These speeches on federalism, I think, have something based on the problems we have: now the size of the political issues no longer coincides with the size of national states, then federalism should be used to create supranational dimensions. Instead, by the way, federalism which is spoken in Italy is reversed: it is not to create political units piùampie, but to break or reduce or limit the national policy drive down. On the other hand, it is said, there are needs for closeness and less bureaucracy.
What are your concerns about federalism?
While the need for federalism that will appeal to a supranational dimension I see it clear (although unfortunately it seems to me that Italy in general is not particularly active in creating forms of solidarity supranational, European, and not only European, indeed our political life seems very provincial), I can not share those hopes down federalism. Not like the motto says U.S. constitutional ex pluribus unum, a process for upward toward creating political unity, but rather an ex plures. It is this: Where will this plures not sappiamo.Temo that could be a first step towards the division of our country.
The balkanization of Italy.
The balkanization. The idea that moves the Italian federalism is that the southern regions are underdeveloped and polluted by crime (as if they were not those of the North ...) and therefore must be subjected to shock, to empower the ruling classes freeing them from the protection of the central government and forcing them to heal themselves and their flaws solve their problems by themselves. And if they resolve them? What we have reasons to hope that the southern regions, let alone be able to fight such wrongdoing, organized crime, better than they manage to make the central government?
fact personally are not only anti-federalist, but I'm beginning to feel a certain nostalgia for the prefects, possibly German.
Adesso non esageriamo. Tra le ragioni che oggi muovono il pensiero federalista in Italia, ce ne sono di apprezzabili: chi di noi non vorrebbe una maggiore vicinanza delle classi dirigenti ai bisogni delle popolazioni? Chi non vorrebbe una burocrazia pubblica più limitata? Chi non vorrebbe – anzi, mi viene freudianamente da dire: chi vorrebbe – classi politiche più oneste? Tutto questo fa certo parte delle nostre speranze. Ma che la risposta sia il federalismo, questo non mi è chiaro: vedo un salto tra le speranze, i bisogni e la risposta. Invece vedo chiaro il pericolo: il giorno in cui si dovesse constatare che il federalismo, invece di promuovere quel movimento virtuoso di rinnovamento delle regioni più povere, also lagging behind in terms of political culture, would cause the opposite effect, at which point the increase secessionist impulses.
A Sicilian prosecutor, Roberto Scarpinato, in the book-length interview with Saverio Lodato " The Return of the Prince ," says that our Constitution is born in an exceptional period, for the good things in Italy are made only in exceptional periods, when the figure of the Prince is very weak and therefore in this interval of history - the Renaissance, la Resistenza, laCostituente,Manipulite–che piccole élite illuminate riescono a prendere il sopravvento e a imporre a un Paese che non le vuole soluzioni più avanzate della cultura media nazionale. Quindi la nostra Costituzione fu una camicia di forza calata dall'alto sulle culture autoritarie che dominano da sempre nelle classi dirigenti italiane, infatti, non appena tornò il Principe,cominciò a picconarne i valori fondanti. Non a caso, da 15 anni, il centrodestra e il centrosinistra, al di là di quello che dicono di volta in volta secondo le convenienze del momento, sono entrambi allergici alla Costituzione. A cominciare dall'articolo 3 sull'eguaglianza, dall'articolo 11 sulla guerra, dall'articolo 21 on freedom of expression, not to mention the independence of the Judiciary. I am 15 years that the political right and left are trying to change the constitution to give more power to dismantle the political and regulatory bodies. Perhaps that is a thesis of Scarpinato a bit 'extreme, but by the Bicameral craxismo to Berlusconi, have been inhabited in the government a bit' all parties, and no one has picked up the banner of defending the Constitution. But then, in 2006, when we went to vote in the referendum on devolution, we found that people appreciate the Constitution much of their ruling classes, reflecting the fact that these are a bit 'worse that expresses the company.
worse or better, it seems to me quite physiological ruling classes have an attitude, a ratio of impatience with the Constitution, because the constitutions were written and designed to limit ' omnipotence of politics and policy. The constitutions of the liberal tradition are composed of citizens, not the political classes. That is an interpretation of Scarpinato a bit 'elitist, but there is a good deal of truth where it is said that the political elites have always done. But democracy is not oligarchy, oligarchy, and even enlightened democracy lives as le regole costituzionali sono interiorizzate dai cittadini. L'esempio che facevi del referendum del 2006 è sotto certi aspetti consolante. Ma di lì bisognerebbe partire per dire che la difesa della democrazia e della Costituzione è un compito che devono assumersi i cittadini.
Possiamo concludere con una verità lapalissiana: la democrazia è il regime dei cittadini, dunque la difesa della democrazia è in mano ai cittadini. Non possiamo fare distinzioni tra cittadini e forze politiche. Un sistema ben funzionante è quello in cui le forze politiche interpretano effettivamente le istanze dei cittadini in rapporto continuo di rappresentanza vera e vitale. Ma, nei momenti di crisi come quello che viviamo, questo rapporto vive a fracture. And then this is the time when the "guardiastanca", ie citizens, must make a move and find the reasons for his political commitment.
And give life to the party of the Constitution.
Yes, even if "the party of the Constitution" is almost a contradiction, because the Constitution should be for all citizens, not a party. We say that public opinion must be born constitutional.
