The electoral law in the Senate. The government on the brink of a split over preferential votes. Renzi: “Meloni must not be intimidated”

The general debate on the electoral law has resumed in the Senate, having begun yesterday when the Senate chamber rejected the four preliminary rulings tabled by the PD, M5S, AVS and IV. Shortly after midday, however, proceedings were suspended and are due to resume at 2.30 pm. The request for a suspension, put forward by the leader of Fratelli d’Italia, Lucio Malan, to ensure “continuity in the voting”, was accepted by the opposition. “As I can see that the majority senators are already worn out and tired, I believe this break is appropriate,” quipped the leader of the Democratic Party, Francesco Boccia. Following the majority meeting in the Senate’s government chamber – attended by the Minister for Reforms, Elisabetta Casellati, the majority group leaders, the centre-right sherpas and the Chair of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, Andrea De Priamo – the united coalition is reported to have decided not to vote with the opposition on the amendment concerning preference votes. This was confirmed by the leader of Forza Italia, Maurizio Gasparri, himself: “The agreements stand.” Meanwhile, Minister Casellati stated that “on certain amendments to the electoral law, the government defers to the Chamber. Parliament is sovereign, as always.”

Following the debate, the Senate will vote on the amendments to the Stabilicum, but all attention is focused on the one tabled by the opposition, led by Nicola Irto of the Democratic Party, which provides for a pure preferential voting system, in which voters can write up to two names to be elected. It is a model that would effectively abolish the ‘fixed-list’ system, which is instead provided for in the amendment tabled – following a lengthy internal debate – by the government. However, yesterday’s development was that Senate President Ignazio La Russa granted admission to the opposition’s text as a sub-amendment to the amendment tabled by Senator Marco Lisei of the Meloni-led party.

However, the opposition’s move has split the centre-right because FdI had already voted in favour of the text tabled by Futuro Nazionale MPs in the Chamber of Deputies just a few hours after a number of mavericks, mainly from the Lega and Forza Italia, had voted against the Meloni-led amendment – also on the issue of preferences. In that instance, it was the only party in the coalition to do so, and indeed the only one in the Chamber. Initially, it was thought that the same scenario might unfold again – namely, the leading party in the coalition voting in favour of a motion tabled by the opposition – except that in this case, unlike in the Chamber of Deputies, the amendment would have passed and split the majority. As reported by Il Foglio, Meloni is said to have instructed her party members this morning to vote in favour of the sub-amendment tabled by the PD, M5S and Italia Viva. This has been confirmed by FdI senators themselves. However, both Matteo Salvini and Antonio Tajani instructed their senators to vote ‘No’. Yet, following the majority meeting, it would appear that the rift has been resolved.

Meanwhile, Vannacci, still on the subject of preferences, is once again hot on the heels of the centre-right, attempting to split the majority. He is doing so on his social media profiles: “Today in the Senate, there is a vote on preferences in the electoral law. There is an amendment that reintroduces pure preferences, without closed lists, similar to the one we in Fn had tabled in the Chamber of Deputies. To date, FdI has introduced a hybrid system of preferences – that is, with fixed list leaders – which is a massive mockery of the Italian people. I appeal to the entire right and, above all, to Fratelli d’Italia, who voted for our amendment in the Chamber of Deputies: vote for this one too,” he wrote on Facebook.  “FdI’s consistency is at stake,” he added, “why vote ‘yes’ in the Chamber of Deputies and ‘no’ in the Senate on the same proposal?” For Vannacci, “beyond ideological barriers, the corridors of power, political manoeuvring and a stale, rancid political system, one thing should matter above all else: the aim of acting in the best interests of Italy and Italians. Italians want to return to directly electing their own representatives, without closed lists and without reserving seats for those ‘anointed’ by party secretariats. Let’s give Italians back the right to choose who represents them. Let’s give sovereignty back to the people,” he concluded.

“We have shown that there is no opposition that simply says ‘No’ because there is a sub-amendment that is terrifying you, one that introduces preferential voting into the electoral law.” This was stated by IV leader Matteo Renzi whilst speaking in the Senate during the general debate on electoral reform. The opposition’s sub-amendment, explains the former prime minister, “corresponds entirely and fully to the political history and political battle of President Giorgia Meloni”Today, in the face of this amendment, the IV leader reflected that the right has a choice: "Either you vote for it, or the Prime Minister will, for the umpteenth time, betray the Italian people and betray herself." So, Renzi continued, "I appeal to Giorgia Meloni: do not let yourself be intimidated by Salvini and Tajani, who are opposed to it. Have the courage to see this through to the end: vote for our sub-amendment, introduce preferential voting into the electoral law, and if, by any chance, Forza Italia and the League vote against it in an open vote here, or vote against it in a secret ballot in the Chamber of Deputies, let Giorgia Meloni take us to the polls.” “This is the moment of truth,” concludes Renzi, “either Giorgia Meloni has the courage to remain true to her political record, or, for the umpteenth time, she will prove that the government does not even keep its election promises.”

However, Senator Carlo Calenda has criticised the opposition’s text: “The broad-based amendment on preferences is fundamentally flawed because it essentially says you can only express one preference; if you express two, the second must be of a different gender. But we know that, at that point, only one preference will be expressed, and if this amendment were to pass, the vast majority of those elected would be men. Therefore, we must make it compulsory to cast two preferences, alternating between genders," the leader of Azione told reporters in the Senate.