The idea that a majority system is the path to stability is a myth from the 1990s

It is regrettable to see that a poor electoral law – though the one currently in force is hardly any better – is being rejected across the board precisely because of its one almost positive aspect, namely the very partial and flawed (hence the “almost”) reintroduction of preferential voting, the absence of which turns Italian political parties into semi-despotic regimes. It is therefore also regrettable to see an opposition celebrating what is certainly a tactical victory, but one that has nothing to do with its programme – if indeed it has one – but rather with what seems almost a passionate rejection of the spirit of renewal pervading a country that is not for the young. And for me, it is even sadder to see even the most intelligent elements of the opposition sharing in this victory, despite the fact that, in words at least, they are supporters of preferential voting – but that is a mere detail.

Some argue that part of the majority vote that scuppered the proposal came from female MPs concerned that the new provisions would not safeguard women’s representation. I do not know if this is true, but it is true that they did not do so, and that was a serious problem and a mistake. Recognising this leads us to one of the essential aspects of the crisis in the liberal-democratic system affecting all countries that once described themselves as advanced, which for me is precisely that of representation in an increasingly pluralistic society, such as Italy’s, but also – with rare exceptions – that of Europe. Under these circumstances, continuing to seek stability – which is certainly a worthy aim – through electoral engineering aimed at a majority system, which for a long time seemed to be the very symbol of maturity achieved, is, I believe, downright irresponsible. Such schemes presuppose cohesive countries operating within a stable international political and socio-economic framework – the world we deluded ourselves into believing we had reached after 1991, but which we are certainly not in.

To think that societies, which are always plural and diverse, can be forced into a bipolar framework is to undermine the possibility of relying on politics, which is, in theory, the only tool capable of navigating the vast and rapid transition we are currently experiencing. In this situation, it would instead be crucial to facilitate the representation of the diverse forces (in terms of social class, gender, religion, culture, geographical area, ideological conviction, etc.) that are emerging, and to strengthen politics’ room for manoeuvre, so that it can find a way to bring them together. Preferential voting, therefore, to ‘represent’ those who are already strong, but also measures to protect those who are not yet so; and then, above all, a proportional representation system – certainly with an electoral threshold, but not one that is too high – which allows almost everyone to have ‘their own party’, a party which, in parliamentary life, as well as immediately before and after elections, will certainly have to negotiate with others to reach agreements.

But this would undermine governability, some might say. Of course, that may well be the case in the short term, and it would certainly make governance less ‘immediate’. Perhaps, however, it would also make it more genuine. What sort of victory was Starmer’s, whom everyone hailed as a winner, when he was simply – and quite clearly – the one who had lost the least? And isn’t it reasonable, for example, to help large immigrant communities enter Italian politics – not least to support their ‘Italianisation’ (or ‘Europeanisation’) – rather than forcing them into pacts that are as obvious as they are ‘covert’, as the Muslim communities did with Mélenchon in France? And what price are we paying – and will we pay – for a first-past-the-post system which, in the new world we live in, has driven the MAGA movement to attack and take over the Republicans, and is now driving Mamdani’s socialists towards entryism within the Democratic Party, causing a radicalisation of the US political landscape that already comes at a very high cost today and could prove even more costly tomorrow?

These are processes at work in France and Italy too (one need only think of the infiltration of the PD by forces alien to it), and one can only hope that they do not also erode the German political landscape. I do not know whether a proportional system with preferences and safeguards is really the answer, or even the solution, to all these problems, but moving away from the certainty that the first-past-the-post system is the right way forward seems to me to be essential, if only to discuss the options and their pros and cons seriously.