Electoral law and appeals by the forgetful

The Constitution is marvellous. Especially when it serves to condemn others and excuse one’s own lapses of memory. On Saturday, at Il Foglio’s party, Giuliano Amato summed up this age-old habit: ‘Anything I don’t like is unconstitutional’. A creative principle: the legitimacy of the rules depends on who proposes them. Among those backing the appeals against the electoral law are Prodi, Finocchiaro and Bindi. Before the Constitutional Court rules, it would be useful to consult the archives. In 1996, the Olive Tree coalition’s key proposal was to include the name of the prime ministerial candidate on the ballot paper. Prodi therefore wanted to include it there, yet today he is backing appeals that even challenge the obligation to include it in the party manifesto.

Was the Ulivo perhaps an offshoot of the Fascist era? In 2012, Anna Finocchiaro, together with Luigi Zanda, tabled Bill 3477: a fixed allocation of 15 per cent of seats, with no minimum vote threshold required to secure it. It also provided for the Prime Ministerial candidate to be named in the party’s manifesto, whilst leaving the prerogatives of the Quirinale unchanged. In 2013, Rosy Bindi signed the Nicoletti proposal, number 1116: a national bonus in both Houses, requiring at least 40 per cent of the vote, otherwise a run-off would be held. Democracy, evidently, coped very well with the left’s attempts to stabilise majorities. None of these precedents confirms the constitutionality of the Stabilicum: the appeals challenge specific mechanisms. The texts are different; in the meantime, the Constitutional Court has intervened and the objections must be judged on their merits. Thresholds, proportions and safeguards matter. Amato himself criticised the increase in the number of signatures required to stand for election. But it is precisely for this reason that the bonus cannot become a relic of fascism depending on the majority proposing it: it is also part of the history of progressive reformism. One can change one’s mind. It is harder to pretend that yesterday’s ideas are subversive today simply because the opponent is using them. The Constitution is not a notarial stamp of approval for our political preferences. And before exercising the right to appeal, it would be advisable – with all due respect – to fulfil the duty of remembrance.