The dance of hypocrisy surrounding preferences

Today, all political parties and public opinion regard multiple preferences as a tool that allows voters to escape the control of party leaderships. Thirty-five years ago, when the referendum proposed by Mario Segni to limit preferences to one in the Chamber of Deputies election was put to the vote, the prevailing view was exactly the opposite, and preferences were seen as a means for parties to control the electorate. It was right then and it remains so today, even if it seems contradictory, because the relationship between the parties and their electorate has changed radically. At that time, the parties – especially the larger ones – had hundreds of thousands of members, and the local branches of the Italian Communist Party (PCI) and the factions within the Christian Democrats (DC) were able, through organised preferential voting, to determine – with rare exceptions – which candidates were elected.

Today, however, polling stations are virtually deserted, and voters’ choices are largely influenced by the candidates’ personalities and, often, their connection to the local area – a connection that extends beyond their relationship with the party fielding them. In truth, the control exerted by the party organisation over voters’ behaviour, by the time of the referendum – which coincided with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and all the consequences this had for the political system, including in Italy – was already beginning to weaken due to internal dynamics. In any case, the high turnout in the referendum proposed by Segni – voters clearly did not take up Bettino Craxi’s invitation to ‘go to the seaside’ – was clear evidence of how the political climate was changing and marked the start of a phase of party decline that has lasted to this day. Segni’s aim was more ambitious: he sought to transform the political system along the lines of the French model, based on a two-party system and a two-round voting system. Today, even the French model, due to the rise of Le Pen’s sovereigntist movement, can hardly be held up as an example, but that, of course, is another story.