Second post of the day, Authan . The first was Paul .
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Giuseppe Cruciani, Friday, November 26: " These reforms must be imposed by the government without listening to anyone, otherwise it combines a fuck .
Now with the best will in the world, with all respect due to others' opinions, how do you not think that those who conceive in this way run a country is nothing but a reactionary? A modern reactionary, a reactionary of the third millennium, but still a reactionary.
Warning. To some extent there is nothing to be ashamed of being reactionary. You can aspire to a plebiscite democracy in which all the instruments of mediation (the parliament, trade unions, the authority, the guarantee institutions, which are all tinsel conductor puffing our friend as you know the hard core audience of Mosquito ) lose significance for the benefit government and Presidentissimo figure of "popularly elected" (and then re-elected the next election if it has worked well, or sent home if it worked correctly) which is concentrated in the hands of the decision-making chain. It 's a concept as another. For me aberrant, but still a concept that must be recognized as fully legitimate, however, that sinks its roots in the sacred principle of popular sovereignty.
There is only one small problem. Those who believe in a plebiscite democracy should start from a basic assumption from which one can not under any circumstances whatever. To lead a strong country and a superpower without the need to "not listen to anyone" serving at least 50% plus one of the votes. Absolute majority. Not on. Absolute . For without an absolute majority is less than the fundamental assumption of the popular will prevails.
And here, gentlemen, the donkey falls. The political landscape pole that has taken shape in recent times slams against the unanimous view. If citizens have more than two choices, there is no certainty that one of the poles to reach an absolute majority, and the idea that the majority coalition on (any color's), although with only, for example, 35 % of votes may, by virtue of the majority of the premium under the current electoral law, taking 55% of parliamentary seats should, and I stress must , to horrify any self-respecting democracy. Reactionaries including the third millennium, I want to wish me. There is the myth of "governability" that takes in the face of such blatant defiance of popular will and solar. That the so-called
porcellum is the target of many is therefore understandable. Let this, then, that many of those who want to change the electoral law are the same as that law had passed in his time is frankly childish, given that until not long ago, the bipolar system, which alone could justify porcellum seemed Unbreakable. But situations change, evolve, change. The toy of the bipolar ours (which, alas, could not / would evolve in perfect bipartisanship in American sauce) is broken and all that remains is to acknowledge them.
Go to vote with this electoral law is, paradoxically, and whatever the "winner" at the end, an attack on democracy. It seems an oxymoron, but it is the truth. The logic says, they say the numbers of all the polls. If this happens, there is only one way to prevent a minority (in the sense of an absolute majority is not ) will take the entire country for five years to make sure that an absolute majority in the end there. The center pole and the left (ie, those who today are in favor of amending the law) should form a cartel election clearly explaining the reasons for the citizens of their respective electorate reference. Citizens in large part, I am sure, understand. Berlusconi wins then maybe the same, but must do so by obtaining the majority as-so-lu-ta, it is capable of.
Only when the majority of the premium was eliminated (or allocated to those who have still got to her at least 50% of the vote) we think in terms of each pole play itself, with its leaders and program and may the best win "the game of elections. but then, presumably, to give life, however from time to time in coalition governments with the post-election agreements, since there is no other alternative. Yes, sir, post-electoral agreements . Just as has recently happened in civilized and admired by all UK and as always happens nell'altrettanto civil and admired Germany.
0 comments:
Post a Comment