Where were we? It seems like yesterday, but it has already been a week since my last article on the resigning council president Paolo Gentiloni who "deliberately ceased to carry out - as all the governments had done ... until today, the function of ... the one who holds ... the overwhelming forces Euroburocracy and other European regional powers ... (ie) has deliberately triggered ... the end bomb of the world "to block which" the political forces must coalesce or accept that the country is overwhelmed by the huge explosion ".
Here, a week after the president Sergio Mattarella fears a scenario in which "there would be no time to prevent the increase in VAT, to launch the financial maneuver by the end of the year and would consequently trigger the provisional exercise for the 2019 "In addition to fearing a sterile Italian participation in the June European Council in which the future of the European Union is played and the same governability of the Italian economic and political system. It does so by leaving the country in the hands of those same political forces that have held Italy hostage for two months, due to absurd vetoes, the result of a neurasthenic propaganda, an anti-Italian sectarian spirit and an electoral campaign that does not now runs out of 4 December 2016: Berlusconi no, Renzi no, Di Maio no ...
The head of state did not want, so to speak, remove the smartphone to some drugged kids social media that confuse virtual reality with the real reality and more than ever need to detoxify: while recognizing, rightly, that "it is right to give life to a new government" and that it is not possible to extend the Gentiloni cabinet ". a majority that no longer exists ", concludes, with a logic of the eighties, that intends to let" choose the parties, with their free behavior, in their own seat, the Parliament, among these alternative solutions: give fullness of functions to a government that is in charge until an agreement is reached between them for a political majority, and in any case not later than the end of the year; or new elections immediately, in July or in autumn ". Already, the ball remains in the hands of the parties: it is like asking the drunkard to become a teetotaler with the sole force of will ...
Unfortunately, Sergio Mattarella is neither Giovanni Gronchi, nor Oscar Luigi Scalfaro, nor Giorgio Napolitano: he does not want to impose anything on the parties, he lets them play their game. He continues, in short, to give a "notarial" reading of his role, which is not reflected either in the Republican history or in the present scenario of our country. Yes, because he could (owed?) Say his: "I'm not here", could (owed?) Turn not to administrative superstructures but to real stakeholders of the current Parliament, which are not (or at least are not) those who have marched at the Quirinale and Palazzo Giustiniani in these two months. Just think of the relationship between Matteo Renzi and the Democratic Party to understand what I mean. Yes, because this was the Piedmontese Scalfaro in the 1994 and 1998 when he built the governments of Lamberto Dini and Massimo D'Alema assembling them as a new Dr. Frankenstein. So did the Campania Napolitano in 2011 and 2013, on the ruins of Berlusconi IV and the failed exploration of Pierluigi Bersani.
It seems that we already hear the objection of any citizen, Mr. Mario Rossi (who is a relative of everyone, not only of the writer): but the head of state cannot that much in a parliamentary regime. "Italy, unfortunately or fortunately, is not a presidential republic", he tells you: here the system is different and the head of state has much more limited powers than the American or French president. He remembers the USA and his transalpine cousins because they are the first that come to mind from the (sporadic) reading of international news and from bar geopolitics: if he is a little aware of international issues, he will also mention the Russian Federation and Egypt, as presidential republics. Yes, because in the United States it is the president who has the power to act as ministers as he likes: this is what Mr. Rossi thinks ... Except then to note that in reality Trump - like all his predecessors - can only appoint ministers, who acquire full powers and duties only after the Senate Advise & Consent. Instead, in the Italian "parliamentary" system, ministers are appointed by the President of the Republic and take office ... once they have taken an oath in the hands of the head of state. And that's that.
The President of the Council (commonly, the head of government) has only the power to "propose" the ministers. In short, the composition of the ministerial cabinet in Italy is often decided by a negotiation between the head of state (when he is a Testosterone) and the prime minister, without the president having to deal with Parliament.
At this point, Mario Rossi is perplexed: he has never heard that Merkel or Rajoy have dealt with the appointment of their ministers with the President of the German Federal Republic or with the King of Spain. To give himself a tone and not lose the certainties, Mr. Rossi at this point begins to list the powers that Trump and Macron - like their predecessors - have and of which, according to him, Mattarella is devoid of a car without important accessories: dissolve the Chambers without too many formalities, send messages to Parliament, authorize the presentation of laws to the Houses, refuse to enforce the laws and decrees of the government, appoint state officials, establish diplomatic relations with foreign states, ratify international treaties, to command the Armed Forces, to direct the judiciary, to declare war with the consent of Parliament, to grant pardon.
At this point, Mario Rossi is so pleased to have highlighted the "minority" of the role of Mattarella, who did not even realize that he had listed his powers, many of which Trump or Macron dream of them at night. Yes, because the head of state has, so to speak, the keys of the Parliament: if he does not think it is useful for the country to hold elections, he can hold senators and deputies to fry in the golden world of the Roman palaces of power as the Viterbo people did when they locked the cardinals in the building while they were waiting to decide to elect a pope. And who would assume the burden of managing the country during the captivitas of our politicians politicians? Well, it does not take much to say: since we are not talking about questioning Parliament to declare the state of war, it is obvious that we could get out of the crisis related to the safeguard clauses and producing recessionary effects ... by decree, which in the Italian legal system, they are just normative acts of a temporary nature having the force of law, adopted in extraordinary cases of necessity and urgency by the Government, pursuant to art. 77 and 72 of the Constitution of the Italian Republic.
Do you want a more serious emergency than the one in progress? He would like to say, to paraphrase Sidney Sonnino: Let's go back to the Statute! Which in this case is the Constitution and presents the president as guarantor and symbol of unity and strength of Italy: if the parties do not make the interest of the country, the president must act, do not follow the current, do not leave (which is tantamount to giving up).
Now, president, act now: there is no more time.
(photo: Quirinale)
