When the deputy Mattarella bocciava “reforms majority” – the newspaper

Rome “is a mistake to change the electoral law to every legislature. And even more wrong is to do it by a majority. “

If the Quirinal had sought a reason to keep on track Italicum parliamentary harmony would find. Soon, without forcing his hand. It would have been enough a call from the President of the Republic to former deputy Sergio Mattarella, with the invitation to deliver the highest among the hills of the Italian institutions a copy of the reports of the House. Those in which are noted the chronicles of battles consumed at the time of the approval of Porcellum, including the current head of state – even when he sat in the House – was among the protagonists, giving strength to the theoretical questions then treated by Sergio Mattarella constitutional judge called to declare the unconstitutionality of rules Calderoli brand.

One of destinies in a strange history that to this day has been lost memory. The cards tell: is 13 October 2005. In the House arrives electoral law crafted by Senator League. From the banks of the unborn Ulivo Prodi they rise critical merit. “Expropriated citizens the right to choose”, accused by Democrats Anna Finocchiaro, putting targeted blocked lists. However, it is the choice of proceeding with strokes of majority that the climate is red-hot. “No one will change the electoral laws to their own use. The changes, when there are, based on a consensus of all major political forces, “complains the concerned party colleague Piero Fassino. It’s up to Mattarella, petal Margherita: “This reform suppresses local colleges and provides very large electoral districts, with closed lists of candidates: it’s all in the hands of party secretaries.” A burn, however, is always the method. In this regard, a week later, during the discussion of amendments to the Constitution, the future president will not spare criticisms: “Government and most sought agreements only within them and every time they have reached an agreement have armored. This is because you did not want to risk change chords within you. Again, the concept emerges which is characteristic of this government and this majority, according to which whoever wins the election has the institutions, it is the owner. It is a concept deeply flawed. The institutions are all, of those in government and those in opposition. “

But already 13 October 2005 mena blows:” There are many defects, caused by the frantic haste with which is proceeding, without even having, or allow others, time to reflect adequately on its content and its consequences, through a procedure highly questionable. They do not do so to pass a law that should regulate the democratic life of the country. It should be emphasized that this electoral reform is vitiated by numerous grounds of unconstitutionality. “

Ten years later, the Porcellum already crippled by Consultellum was blown away dall’Italicum, with its 100 maxi colleges by 600 thousand and 100 voters list headers elected safe and designated by Roman secretariat, as by law passed in solitary (with three votes of confidence) by the Democratic Party even in one piece, in the silence of the proud defenders of democracy. Probably just the fault of the phones – as well their dumb – or delays Postman: when reports arrive at their destination, the Quirinale will hear his voice. There is to swear.