@@bemusedpanda8875All democratic systems walk a balance between efficiency and democracy. First past the post systems are more efficient but less democratic.
@@BigmanDogs That is definitely what we should strive for. However, an automatic 55% of all seats is far too undemocratic. A good system would be the Australian system where the lower house is elected by ranked choice voting , leading to it being dominated by the two major parties whilst the upper house is elected proportionally to so minor parties have representation and can influence policy.
Just a clarification. In Italy the number of governments isn't equal to the number of Prime ministers. Since 1946 we had 68 governments and 31 Prime Ministers because some people presided various governments especially during the First Republic, all short-lived though. Generally PMs led no less than 3 govts, some people 4 like Berlusconi, other even 5, some 6 and even 7, then there is De Gasperi who led 8 govts as PM that represents the undisputed record. And no the majority of these govts, were the product of political games in Parliament rather than the result of elections
I must point out that even if it's true that there has been far less prime ministers than governments, it isn't always true that each prime minister managed to achieve a coalition with the parties that won the electoral vote. Proof of this is the last Draghi government. Therefore in my opinion it's a good reform because it guarantees far greater stability which is exactly what the market want!
@alessandrof.6546 if the people want a stronger economy… then yeah, you do what the people want and what the market wants 😂. Those things aren’t mutually exclusive, and 95% of the time they go hand in hand.
To give anyone an idea of how bad that system is in the last election the five star movement got 32% of the votes and, if this reform was active at the time, it would have been able to form a government and hold 55% of the parlament. Italy is not the USA, it's extremely rare for a single party to get more than 30% of the votes so this reform is insanely anti democratic.
Yeah, this will force a two party system (which isn't very democratic) because any vote in a smaller party will be a waste. The voters loose power, the political elites gain power.
@@cancerino666 "This will force a two party system and any vote to smaller parties will be a waste." Wait a second, hasn't it been this way for.. the last.. no, since the end of ww2. And nobody said antidemocratic.
Imagine the following scenario: 1. In the parliamentary election, five parties receive a roughly equal number of seats (~20%) 2. 5 candidates run for Prime Minister, and each get a roughly equal share of the vote (~20%) but one candidate gets slightly more. Say, 21%. 3. This candidate then becomes Prime Minister, and gives their party an instant 55% of the seats, a more than 200% increase. This is wacky, but it gets worse. 4. The PM's party could've remove the PM, but they never would. Why? Because then they'd lose their 200% increase. Essentially, this would transform Italy into a Presidential system in all but name, where there is an a person called 'The President' with no powers and a 'Prime Minister' who is the actual President. Meloni’s ideology aside, this is either really stupid or an intentionally vaguely worded law to give herself more power.
Its worse - if I'm reading it right, the PM could be from any party, even one that doesn't win many seats. Even if they win only 1 seat from the election, they get a bonus for having the PM, and all of a sudden they have a majority even when the voters had resoundingly rejected the party's platform. All they'd need was a popular figure to install as PM. Heck, they could have a popular PM that is a political dunce, and the party basically controls them from behind the scenes
She already have the absolute majority in parliament, she isn't giving herself more power but you argument falls immediately because who is so stu*** to run alone when you know you cannot win? They would create coalitions and then run one against each other instead of creating those coalitions after.
I'm surprised no one compared this bill to Mussolini's "Acerbo Law". It is the same mechanism, only exception is that Acerbo gave victor 67% instead of 55%.
Regarding Renzi stepping down after the 2016 referendum: he said he would f off if it failed, BEFORE the referendum took place. Many say the referendum failed BECAUSE he said he would step down if the referendum failed. Some people wanted to vote yes, but wanted him gone even more. That's why it failed. Many of the proposals were widely popular and were reintroduced with the 2020 referendum and the current Mother of all reforms
Yeah that's sounds absolutely insane. Either choose a parliamentary or a presidential system, not whatever this is. Total power grab and completely undemocratic.
Indeed no, since in Italy we have already similar system I.e. the ones that elects the government of the regions. The winner candidate for governor gets a bonus in seats that will allow him to govern with stability until next elections, even if few elected change side during the course of the legislature.
It exists in Greece as well. And first-past the post systems like the UK has are also advantageous to the winner. But none of these tie it with a "democratic mandate" of the prime minister. It's basically a dictator election every five years
@@schnitzelsemmel Macron stays in power for 5 years isn't it? So why can't Italy do the same? The political instability has an economic cost and as a result Italy grew much less than France and Germany.
@@vesk4000 A similar system is in place in Greece. The current government did not get over 50% of the vote. But the electoral system allows the winning party to receive 50 more seats in the Parliament to form a majority and govern. So if it is not undemocratic in Greece, it will not be undemocratic in Italy either.
Wait a second. So with the seat bonus guaranteeing 55% of seats for the winning PM’s party, how would this NOT be a massive power grab that would take away nearly all power from the opposition parties and even make the other parties within the ruling coalition effectively irrelevant? Frankly these reforms are giving me Enabling Act (the legislation that allowed Hitler and the Third Reich to enact legislation without the consent of the Reichstag) vibes, especially considering her party Fratelli d’Italia is literally a descendant party of Mussolini’s fascist regime with several members who have been caught on camera praising Mussolini. So is it a surprise that Meloni and her party would attempt to grab power in such a brazen way? Not one bit!
Mind you the Italian right always tried to pass something like this since the time Berlusconi first came to power (eventually rejected by nationwide referendum). Their idea is the winner takes it all, basically legalising a 5 years dictatorship
@Dances-st6idAnd time proved that the 5th republic (albeit better) still have a lot of horrible flaws (just look at Macron and how he weaponize every institution), we should also have a new one, hope Italy finds a better system too
This is a presidential system (doesn't matter that the president is called a "prime minister"). With the parliament acting as a facade. Technically still a democracy, but not a representative one.
A 55% seat presence is insane. If you didn't vote for that party, you are not represented. You're right: this might be democracy but definitely not a representative one.
Nope. It's classified as semi-parliamentarian. There are four mai systems for rappresentative-like democracy: presidenzialism, semipresidentialism, parliamentarianism, and this one. Nobody knows semiparliamentarism because It's used nowhere
Actually, it's called the President (in Italy, we have "two presidents," but one is the head of state, and one is the pm). If we reform toward electing directly the head of state, like in France, we will get semi-presidential. If we reformed towards electing directly both (and uniting the job as one), we would get presidential, like America. But in this case meloni is trying to make the president that has the PM function to be directly elected.
What's the point of voting for a parliament if the PM election decides who gets 55% anyway? Wouldn't this system be a de facto end of national democracy in Italy?
It would turn it to a presidential system in all but name, but it would have the bonus of a 55% majority government. It’s essential if you want a chance of sweeping reforms or dictatorship 😅
They already have something similar in several of their states, Greece also has the same. Several African countries actually get parliament decided based on the vote for president,as well, so if a president gets 54% of the vote his party gets 54% of seats, the second place if he got 38% of the votes gets his party 38% of the seats, etc. It's not that unusual. Google "majority bonus system" for more examples
It's strange she didn't just outright create a French style semi-presidential system where the president has a near monopoly on foreign affairs and proposes the long term agenda, whereas the PM-led government manages day to day affairs and the parliament is a check on power though weaker than the executive. The main issue is the lack of judicial independence
Meloni don't do that because for us italian the President of Republic (expecially Mattarella) is like a divinity due to the impartiality he has and, since the italian has no long since 1994 impartial politics, the wouldn't pass because that reform would mean loosing the status of impartial figure the President of the Republic has at moment also if Meloni prefer the french presidentialism
yeah let's call everyone that's not on a left a fascist.... it's an electoral law, so whoever wins the next election will have more control over parliament, it could be her opposition for all we know. If you don't agree with people's vote then you're more fascist than who you accuse to be
This is not at all a presidential system. The whole point of a presidential system is having an executive that’s independent of the legislature, votes of no confidence aren’t a thing. Under this system the prime minister and rest of parliament must be of the same party even though the parliament is elected separately.
@@wenterinfaer1656 Is it? This coalition only got the 43% of the votes. If it was another party in power with the same numbers, Giorgia and all her fanboys would be screaming and crying about how undemocratic and "not elected by the people" this governament is. We'll see.
The Italian political system is broken, some fix is necessary. There have been too many fragile coalition govts which result in temporary unelected govts. The reforms can help solve this, but to award the fratellis such a big automatic parliamentary majority seems a bit authoratarian and ill advised.
@@peterfireflylund That way, each province will have their own hung parliament changing every year or so. Great idea, how has no one thought of this? Make this man a PM already!
Rationalized parliamentarianism with constructive votes of no confidence, the end of perfect bicameralism and, optionally, a 5% electoral threshold. Having a functional and democratic parliamentary system is not that complicated, it's been done all over Europe except for basically France and Italy.
@@ArturoSubutexyou mean like sweeden, germany, holland, denmark, etc. The problem is when there is 3 opposing view and no one want coaliton or help each other its bound to be broken, now most nation have left vs right vs “far right” left and right dont want coalition with “far right” yet they cant find majority. So dont get your nose up so high
Im afraid, that some authoritarianism is sometimes needed. Especialy when voters are so much fragmented, that its basicaly 2+ diferent worlds in one country.
Hi, to add some context: The direct election of the prime minister is a constant talking point of the right in Italy. It was originally planned already in 1976 by the secret lobby "P2" and has since been proposed zillion of times from Berlusconi and his acolytes. Given the widespread functional illiteracy in Italy, many voters already now think they are asked to elect the government rather than the parliament. BTW, the aforementioned illiteracy is also part of the explanation for the outcome of the 2020 referendum that proposed a reduced number of representatives: "less politicians, less privileged people" was the equation in many italians' heads. Regarding the senators for life, fact is, those senators are nominated by the parliament based on their distinction and outstanding achievements in the international landscape, like nobel laureates or prominent authors. This means that they are, on the average, more resilient to populist agendas. It happened already that a single senate vote has precluded Berlusconi of getting his plan done and they will surely be a thorn in the side of any future populist movement. TLDR these proposals are not "neutral", they are clearly right-biased. Therefore it's pretty easy to forecast another round of polarised debate.
Macron stays in power for 5 years isn't it? So why can't Italy do the same? The political instability has an economic cost and as a result Italy grew much less than France and Germany.
Meloni is by far the better candidate for Italy. I know you desperately want her to become Mussolini. She just isn’t. She’s pro European, she’s subverted your expectations with Ukraine and she kept the pathetic theater show in check which is extremely hard. Our politics doesn’t just need reforming it needs a kick up the balls
@@Elghast I didn't say anything about Meloni being a bad candidate, just that exactly this type of electoral reform leads to too much concentration of power. Above mentioned was the semi-presidential French system, which is much more stable but doesn't need to give such significant bonuses. The proposed system would basically mean that whoever gets plurality of votes is elected as the sole ruling party.
If I had a nickel for everytime a far-right Italian party has changed the electoral law to assure themselves control of parliament I'd have 2 nickels. Which isn't a lot but it's weird that it happened twice.
Macron stays in power for 5 years isn't it? So why can't Italy do the same? The political instability has an economic cost and as a result Italy grew much less than France and Germany.
I hate my prime minister in my country, but if he would do this I would see it as an absolute Godsend. Like italy, we don't have much democracy in australia, instead the party chooses its crony, and we choose between two cronies only.
@@Red1Green2Blue3 What are you talking about? I know of no policy she holds that is fascist, unless you have changed the definition and it is based on double standards for different countries.
@@pebblepod30 I meant exactly what I said. She was in Movimento Sociale Italiano (Brothers of Italy, her current party is a successor party) a fascist organisation that celebrated Mussolini (literally the original fascist dictator) and she doesn't shy away from that. She's self-declared. You look like a clown trying to deny something she owns herself.
3:00 as an Italian I must to clarify something. When we say "dissolve" the parliament we actually mean that President Mattarella is going to physically dissolve parliamentarians.
At first glance, this proposal looks like the system used in Italian regional elections. The elector has two votes, the president of the region, and the council. The presidential candidate who wins is guaranteed a majority in the council, with his coalition. Many regional legislatures have held for the full 5 years since it's been implemented some 25 years ago, so it's probably where she got that idea.
We not only had experience with fascism, we invented fascism, there is nothing to be proud of, but the world that now is used to describe that power structure is Italian
Presidential republics have existed for over a century, France has an extremely powerful President and in those U.S.A. the President is only slightly less powerful than Congress. Meanwhile no European wants to see a presidential republic anywhere, Europeans seem to be allergic to non-ceremonial presidents which is why European countries are always so slow to take action.
@@d.m.5510 25 yr old with boomer mentality... My God. You are one of those ppl that blames who leaves and blames who stays. Basically, a fuckin woman on period
Still do. Coalitions don't work here we've always been extremely divided. The winning party therefore gets a bonus of up to 50 seats to govern alone. All it needs is 37% minimum.
Anyone else getting "Accerbo Law" vibes from this? It might not be the exact same, but its function is basically identical. The gutting of representative, parliamentary democracy in the name of "ending weak governments".
The Acerbo law was passed in an environment of armed PNF militiamen watching over the Chamber of Deputies. Given how opposition parties haven't been cowed into silence by armed militia, there is good reason to doubt this will pass in the Chamber. As for a referendum ... I lack sufficient data on local Italian feelings about their constitution.
Good. The government need those power to lead a nation that has lost its way. One thing that people forgot is that Italy and Germany prospered and had massive growth in the 1930s under strong rule.
@@kawaiikoto8800yeah, they 'prospered', nothing as prosperous as changing definitions of words such as 'unemployment' to not include women so you assume prosperity on paper. In all seriousness, though, that 'strong leadership' is not really necessary considering Germany is an inherently prosperous nation with some of the best engineers in the world behind its powerful industry. It is only the circumstances of the Great Depression and the fact that they have to pay a crippling amount to the entente that led to its decline, if given more years, the German economy could've rebounded because of its strong industrial capabilities and highly educated population. As for Italy, Italy has always been divided ever since Roman authority disintegrated, but that never really stopped it from becoming the powerhouse that it is today, despite the fact that they never really had a consistent government for a significant periods in its postwar history.
I'm italian and we are not worried in the least. Each constitutional reform must pass the referendum, and each time it happened the referendum was lost. This reform will fail like all the others. The only time the referendum succeded was for a simple reduction of the number of parlament seats
And what's the point of elections if a technocrat nobody voted for can be appointed at any time by a president who also wasn't elected by the people? Because that's the system we have right now.
@@SirAlric82 So instead of abolishing the presidential position or reducing its power you decide to give absolute power to the prime minister? Brilliant move
About the majority bonus, this wouldn’t be a first for Italy: in 1923, a law was passed that gave the winning party list 2/3 of the seats in parliament. Guess who was the prime minister then?
I find it funny how many Americans call for a directly elected chief executive even though no other country does that (or at least no other country they’d like to compare America to)
Kinda funny how Meloni got elected to finally tackle illegal mass migration and since she is in power she's doing everything but that all the while the illegal migration numbers are at records high
Because she isn't fascist..... A fascist would deploy the army and "deal" with the migrants..... Also it's easy to speak, i followed what happened in Tunisia and there it's clearly the EU fault, they did everything imaginable to anger the Tunisian president and didn't sent the money so he basically said f*** off Anyway she can do other things such as not giving them citizenship and not recognizing them legally given that according to italian law illegal immigration is a crime....
What a great idea! A presidential system with a president of the Republic and one of the Gov, where there is a parliament elected but whoever gets the highest percentage of the vote goes up to 55% of representation. Man, our constitution fathers must be rolling in their so much that they could be use to turn Europe energy consumption to all-green
Technocrat governments in Italy have not been that bad, if you consider that they normally came in situations when others had run everything down to such a degree, that the only government they could agree upon were these technocrats 🤣 Perhaps they should change the constitution to have a permanent technocrat government with a parliament just as a support and a chance to have great speeches...
@@-haclong2366 I agree to a wide part. Parliaments seem to have lost power in many countries. But giving the government automatically 55% of the seats will not change this trend at all 🤔
Well Mario draghi had the popular support to win an election..... The problem is that he didn't want, not even technocrats want to rule Italy for long. 😭😭😭 but they are the ones who actually solve the problems 😂😂 I'll be all for a kind of centrist technocrat government to decide what really matters, and let the politicians debate between themselves about lgbtq and all those social things that don't really matter for the economy and the finances of the state.
The guaranteed 55% majority is absolutely insane and destroys the idea of checks and balances. I would argue that instead there is a 5% boost in the amount of seats held by the PM’s party as a more suitable compromise, bolstering the standing of what would likely be an already strong party. If that extra 5% can’t get you enough votes, it’s simply the fault of the party and not the constitution
@@lelobest we're ashamed of every government that rises to power, all cater to themselves or for the ageing population of the country. No wonder why our fertility rates are the lowest in the world, people in their 30s still living with their parents, and young people constantly moving out of the country
@@lelobest this government is dividing the country even more. Some changes would basically mean the end of a truly unified Italy, I would say. Not considering other major fallancies.
It may as well be the deal breaker for her coalition: a proposal that, with the 55% bonus for the winning party, undermines the coalition concept in on itself, would promptly divide the center-right, and of course align with the opposition parties And even so, historically, constitutional reforms have never been popular enough to have support... not that she couldn't change that trend, of course, but still I have to find someone that doesn't share my confidence in saying this one shouldn't pass either
_In order to ensure the security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire!_ _For a safe and secure society!_
"It provides for the party or coalition of the sitting Prime-Minister to be granted a seat bonus that guarantes them 55% of seats in parliament." Ah, there it is. I was waiting for the catch. Didn't Mussolini propose a similar law during the early days of fascism to ensure his party would rule unchallenged?
Some may see it as a threat to Italian politics, but as an Italian, I can say, WE BADLY NEED THIS(ASAP). Even if I fully don't support this government I see that this reform will help to gain us political stability will stimulate our economic proliferation
This "bonus" system exists in Greece for the last 50 years and is an absolute disaster. It esensially makes the first party absolute King, even if it has 30-35% of votes. It gives absolute power to people that neither deserve it, nor win it. They are not checked by their coalition, because there is no coalition and they are not checked by the oposition, because the oposition is completely powerless. It's truly ridiculous.
Agree with what Meloni is trying to do but sounds like they haven't consulted sociologists or constitutional lawyers. It lacks good checks and balances on popularity contest candidates or least disliked candidates. Sounds like a recipe for state capture and simultaneously unimaginative leadership. Also great product placement. They sound like an ideal 21st century company!
Quite literally, considering the brain drain. The number of Italians I've met in Germany who said they left because Italy shows little to no promise to them is alarming.
@Dances-st6id Except that the current prime minister and the current party in power don't really care about demographic collapse. They aren't doing anything to make young people stay in the country or to convince people that "eventually" want a family that they can have one now or in the near future. And I assume you know or can imagine what they think on immigration. This is exactly why it's not only a power grab but misplaced prioritization too. This change would make the problems you have listed worse. I don't think it will happen, but one objection to this might be that the majority of the country might vote for a different party in the second election with this hypothetical system. But 5 years is a long long time, and these problems exist now.
@Dances-st6id we come from decades of the far right weakening the state. This is just a drop in the ocean but it would mean the end of the Italian democracy. We have no future because we have no brain power left. We can’t face any challenge.
A mandatory 55% seat reward for the PM's party regardless of the actual vote of Italy's constituents is insanely undemocratic, especially in a country where no single party can really get more than 30% of the seats.
I think it's frankly a bit nuts that Italy routinely has prime ministers who are not heads of their parliamentary parties or even politicians and not even known to voters at the time of elections. The idea that Italians elect parties and then those parties just decide amongst themselves behind closed who the nation's prime minister should be - the most important and powerful politician in the country - strikes me as an extremely elitist system of government, and I can definitely sympathize with the need to give voters more direct control over who holds this important job.
Why? Neither Americans elect their President, that have even more powers. They elect the so called "great electors" that later elects the President. That single passage makes the whole american democracy not democratic. It's not the will of the citizens. They have voted for one guy, the great electors can't vote for another one or even for a candidate of the opposite party. Not to mention the fact that America basically applies just two parties politics. While all the rest are left in such poor numbers to have just a role of parading.
Hi JJ, always watched your videos. I have to disagree. Our politicians are really hungry for power, even a century after fascism. Berlusconi tried multiple times to damage the juridical system to give more executive power to himself. The subdivision of the three powers (propositional, executive and juridical) are especially important here, since we’ve had a dark history when it comes to corruption and power monopoly (both before and AFTER WW2).
The only country that did something similar to this proposal is Israel in the late 1990s and it backfired so badly, they went back to the old system a few years later. Those problems wouldn't exist if a single party got 50% of the vote, but since no one gets it, I don't think it is wise to create an artificial majority that could make things worse.
This most important person in Italy is the President of the Republic. Italians can vote, but their vote is only to provide more money to certain people, then the President and the people close to him decide who holds this or that position. Democracy has never come to Italy. It is all fakecracy.
This does sound like a power-grab. I would say make the president elected by the people while the prime minister is still selected by the parliament and appointed by the president. I don't know, maybe give the president some more powers like a semi-presidential system so if prime ministers are changed often, there could still be a consistent force in the executive. This might not work, though.
I hope for the sake of Italy and it's citizens that they are able to clearly see that giving more power to one person is, and always has been, a huge liability for the long term prosperity and well being of a country. Sure, sole leaders have at times during history been good but it certainly isn't the norm, even if they were democratically elected
It's definitely a choice not to add the context that the concept of a majoritarian bonus was first implemented by Mussolini and has an even longer fraught history in Italian politics.
Especially the "removal" of technocrats was for me the weirdest thing. I'm more inclined to believe a technocrat as a subject matter expert (although other motives could still play) for good policy, rather than any politician who more than often lacks any accountability on a personal level or party level.
Direct presidential elections in Italy would be good idea. Examples of countries that transitioned from indirect to direct elections: France (1962), Poland (1990), Slovakia (1998), Czechia (2012), non-EU member state Moldova (2016).
If they are rewarded an automatic majority then that's less reason to form a coalition and rather could lead to a more duel party system in the future since that basicly makes it first past the post since if you win you get auto majority
@@Besthinktwice yeah, but these systems also tend to get crazy fractioned. Like, in Israel, and Bulgaria where they had like 4 elections in 5 years because nobody can agree to anything. And Belgium where they form government 250 days. Many "recent" changes to government systems were modeled after French. Like, in Portugal, Poland, Ukraine etc.
Hello Tldr. ¿Any plans to talk about the situation in spain? You have been oddly silent on this regarding the recent political deals and the protests. What is happening here is deeply controversial and a great mayority of judges and other magistrates are heavily condeming the deal.
Short answer: yes. Long answer: yes, although I don't think this is going anywhere and this pathetic excuse of a Prime Minister is by far the very worst leader of the very worst, most incompetent, nepotism-rigged governement I've ever seen in my whole life and I grew up during Berlusconi era, so that's saying a lot...
Adesso che ci hai detto questa cosa andremo subito a votare per Elly "centro sociale" Schlein e per Giuseppi "Superbonus" Conte. Ma ci faccia il piacere !!! E se tu sei cresciuto durante l'era di Berlusconi dovresti sapere che la Meloni a differenza del Cavaliere non ha processi, conflitti di interesse, e scandali (Bunga Bunga),
@@pand9293 aah, che bello quando non si hanno argomenti e quindi l'unica risorsa a disposizione è disprezzare gli avversari. Niente scandali o cose scabrose eh, ok: - ex compagno apertamente sessista e molestatore piazzato in tv nazionale; - parenti piazzati in tv nazionale e in ministeri; - figura di letame internazionale dove ha spifferato informazioni riservate ai Pio e Amedeo russi; - nomina a ministro del turismo data a una delinquente che ha truffato l'Inps e speso 9 milioni per una campagna pubblicitaria per l'Italia con foto stock e immagini della Slovenia; - mancato taglio delle accise e mancata "chiusura dei porti" con gli sbarchi degli immigrati quasi raddoppiati; - nessuna conoscenza del diritto internazionale dimostrata con una vaccata di proposta irrealizzabile di fare hotspot migranti in Albania; - riforma che puzza di autoritarismo lontano un kilometro... Davvero, c'è bisogno di continuare?
@@micheleportatadino5919 Ma secondo lei CENTOQUARANTA MILIARDI di deficit per il Superbonus di Giuseppi non sono un argomento concreto? Stiamo parlando di una cifra pari a CINQUE finanziarie. E lei stai lì a parlare di Arianna Meloni e dell'attacco hacker russo? Che la Schlein sia una sprovveduta stile "Alice nel paese delle Meraviglie" è una semplice constatazione della realtà. Poi se lei non vuole fare nulla contro il diluvio di migranti che ci viene addosso e vuole solo criticare questo è un suo limite. Che cacchio c'entra Ciuffetto con la Meloni?? Raggiunta la maggiore età ognuno è responsabile delle proprie azioni o no?
Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s original expression ‘mother of all’ begs the question whether this iteration should be seen as a double entendres-with an indelicate translation.
Rather than to have prime ministerial elections like what Israel did in the late 1990s (and terribly failed), Italy should implement constructive vote of no confidence like in Germany where the prime minister can only be replaced if there is a new prime minister candidate elected by majority required in the parliament or else the parliament will be dissolved for a fresh election if the vote of no confidence get no new candidate. It can provide much needed stability and prevent the immediate downfall of the government.
Dear TLDR any upcoming videos about the recent Spanish amnesty thing? That's just as much of a power grab where executive and legislative are not separated anymore just to stay in power
Those are... words. It is a negotiation to form a government after a democratic election, you are free to disagree with that (I do not love it myself), but a "power grab"? Well, it is a coalition to form a government, so I guess it kind of is, but not more than any other coalition.
Spain has always had fusion of powers between the executive and the legislative. That's the point of parliamentary systems and it's not a real problem imo. In regards to the amnesty, it's as much as an invasion of the judiciary's powers as a pardon would be. That is, an exceptional measure that isn't really that much of an issue, that does not affect the great majority of the population, that might work in making Catalonia more integrated and relax tensions, and that is being given too much importance by the right to have an excuse to protest against the government for losing the elections
What's pretty f'ed up about this entire situation is that Meloni is using a good point (i.e. the fact that Italy has proved to be unmanageable with the current government system) to attempt the institution of a horrible system. I'd argue that political instability in Italy is primarily caused by an electoral system that satisfies no one. The first issue is that it promotes coalitions over single parties: this causes governments to be formed by zombie alliances made up of parties that are ideologically opposed to each other, ironically giving the smaller parties in the coalition enormous power as they can threaten to leave the coalition and cause it to lose majority (e.g. UDEUR in 2008). The second issue is that it's a hybrid system with elements of first past the post and proportional representation, leaning into neither well enough to either create stable and/or representative governments. Italy has a major issue with strategic voting, with parties consistently elected not because they represent their voter base, but because they oppose the "other". It might be worth trying some form of ranked choice (like single transferable vote) to address both issues: by having a better representation of the Italian voter base in power, and removing the need for strategically voted opposition parties, there is also a better chance that party coalitions will be strategically and ideologically aligned. The end result would be more representative and stable governments.
8:34 that seems really idiotic. If a cow had to die to make the leather, it is by principle bad for the enviroment. Artificially made leather that doesn't require the killing of animals is far less resource intensive to make.
The electoral reform, we know, gives to the party that has a relative majority an overall majority. A similar law was already enforced in italian history. It is called "Legge Acerbo", of 1923, the same law that allowed Mussolini to gain total control of Parliament. I hope italians wake up in time...
The so called instability of Italian politics doesn't take count of the fact that our system was lead by the same single party for almost 50 years from 1948 to 1993, that was the Christian Democratic party and its alleys. Yes, prime ministers did come and go, but the power dynamic didn't change at all. So here goes your "Italian instability" myth.
I just don't get it, we learn NOTHING from history, absolutely nothing... how is it possible that people keep making the EXACT SAME mistakes? what exactly do we need to do to make ourselves learn from past failures? what are we missing? How is it still possible that someone comes along, sells you the idea that in order for things to get better you just need to give them more power and people simply ignore every single past situation in human life that this happen and ended up badly? Are you an Italian? can you explain to me why THIS TIME is the time it will work?
Honestly, the thing that baffles me the most about this proposed constitutional reform is its hybrid nature between a presidential and parliamentary system. I mean, it would essentially change Italy into a presidential republic (which is not something I inherently dislike), but without the check and balances that an independent parliament provides to this system (see, for example, the US or France). I don’t know, I’d rather have a purely parliamentary or presidential system
Why? The parliament can always revoke the PM with a no confidence vote. Moreover any new law or decree before being implemented needs signature by the president of the republic, which has many times sent it back for alleged unconstitutionality. And even after the constitutional court can deem it unconstitutional. So the powers of the government remain in check as much as now.
@alessandrof.6546 they already have 55% of the seats. The bonus for the winning coalition is already there and wasn’t made by Meloni. So what does it change?
The automatic majority is just plain power grab! The entire point of a Parliamentary system (monarchy or republic) is that the House can reject the Government - implying that the will of the people can reject the government if they deem it hostile. The 55% extra seats will actually ruin this whole concept upon which representative democracy in a parliamentary system is based on. From whatever I’ve seen of Italian politics it seems their issues can be solved if they a) decide on a standard parliamentary system of government with elections every 5 years. b) reducing the power of the Senate. Probably can also make the senate as a body elected by the regional assemblies (question who has more authority comes up when both houses are popularly elected). c) MMP system with both geographic and list seats. d) Technocrats. More of them. Maybe just allow technocrats to become ministers, not random politicians.
They should concentrate on the justice reform. If they really want a stronger executive branch, we need then a deeper reform and transform the government into a semi-presidential one, like the French one.
That majority bonus is simply insane. It basically reduces parliament into a rubber stamp chamber of the majority party.
Honestly that how it should be. If you win an election you should be able to govern
In Germany, we have this really ridiculous and ineffective system that could use some of these reforms. Grand coalitions are undemocratic
Well imagine if the SPD got 55% of the seats simply for coming 1.6% ahead of the CDU. That's such an unfair overrepresentation.
@@bemusedpanda8875All democratic systems walk a balance between efficiency and democracy. First past the post systems are more efficient but less democratic.
@@BigmanDogs That is definitely what we should strive for. However, an automatic 55% of all seats is far too undemocratic.
A good system would be the Australian system where the lower house is elected by ranked choice voting , leading to it being dominated by the two major parties whilst the upper house is elected proportionally to so minor parties have representation and can influence policy.
Just a clarification. In Italy the number of governments isn't equal to the number of Prime ministers. Since 1946 we had 68 governments and 31 Prime Ministers because some people presided various governments especially during the First Republic, all short-lived though. Generally PMs led no less than 3 govts, some people 4 like Berlusconi, other even 5, some 6 and even 7, then there is De Gasperi who led 8 govts as PM that represents the undisputed record. And no the majority of these govts, were the product of political games in Parliament rather than the result of elections
I must point out that even if it's true that there has been far less prime ministers than governments, it isn't always true that each prime minister managed to achieve a coalition with the parties that won the electoral vote. Proof of this is the last Draghi government. Therefore in my opinion it's a good reform because it guarantees far greater stability which is exactly what the market want!
@@giambi1980seconded
@alessandrof.6546 if the people want a stronger economy… then yeah, you do what the people want and what the market wants 😂. Those things aren’t mutually exclusive, and 95% of the time they go hand in hand.
@@giambi1980technically that was a coalition with the elected party, as pretty much every party was part of it
To give anyone an idea of how bad that system is in the last election the five star movement got 32% of the votes and, if this reform was active at the time, it would have been able to form a government and hold 55% of the parlament.
Italy is not the USA, it's extremely rare for a single party to get more than 30% of the votes so this reform is insanely anti democratic.
Yeah, this will force a two party system (which isn't very democratic) because any vote in a smaller party will be a waste.
The voters loose power, the political elites gain power.
Okay good
@@cancerino666 "This will force a two party system and any vote to smaller parties will be a waste."
Wait a second, hasn't it been this way for.. the last.. no, since the end of ww2.
And nobody said antidemocratic.
Letsss goooo fuck democracy
@@ilFrancottiItaly was never a bipartisan state.
Imagine the following scenario:
1. In the parliamentary election, five parties receive a roughly equal number of seats (~20%)
2. 5 candidates run for Prime Minister, and each get a roughly equal share of the vote (~20%) but one candidate gets slightly more. Say, 21%.
3. This candidate then becomes Prime Minister, and gives their party an instant 55% of the seats, a more than 200% increase.
This is wacky, but it gets worse.
4. The PM's party could've remove the PM, but they never would. Why? Because then they'd lose their 200% increase.
Essentially, this would transform Italy into a Presidential system in all but name, where there is an a person called 'The President' with no powers and a 'Prime Minister' who is the actual President.
Meloni’s ideology aside, this is either really stupid or an intentionally vaguely worded law to give herself more power.
lol "either really stupid", that statement is really stupid
Its worse - if I'm reading it right, the PM could be from any party, even one that doesn't win many seats. Even if they win only 1 seat from the election, they get a bonus for having the PM, and all of a sudden they have a majority even when the voters had resoundingly rejected the party's platform. All they'd need was a popular figure to install as PM. Heck, they could have a popular PM that is a political dunce, and the party basically controls them from behind the scenes
She already have the absolute majority in parliament, she isn't giving herself more power but you argument falls immediately because who is so stu*** to run alone when you know you cannot win? They would create coalitions and then run one against each other instead of creating those coalitions after.
@@Doge811 Robert F Kennedy Jr.?
@@Doge811 her party only has a quarter of seas in the chamber and a third in the senate. her party is still compromising with other parties
I'm surprised no one compared this bill to Mussolini's "Acerbo Law".
It is the same mechanism, only exception is that Acerbo gave victor 67% instead of 55%.
Bull bull bull left shit trash
Regarding Renzi stepping down after the 2016 referendum: he said he would f off if it failed, BEFORE the referendum took place. Many say the referendum failed BECAUSE he said he would step down if the referendum failed. Some people wanted to vote yes, but wanted him gone even more. That's why it failed. Many of the proposals were widely popular and were reintroduced with the 2020 referendum and the current Mother of all reforms
mother of all reforms lol 😂
Tactical Voting at it's finest!
@@prplt Friendly MOAR inbound!
Now this sounds like total bullshit. Whats the point of a percentage based parliamentary system if the PM gets a bonus?
Yeah that's sounds absolutely insane. Either choose a parliamentary or a presidential system, not whatever this is. Total power grab and completely undemocratic.
Indeed no, since in Italy we have already similar system I.e. the ones that elects the government of the regions. The winner candidate for governor gets a bonus in seats that will allow him to govern with stability until next elections, even if few elected change side during the course of the legislature.
It exists in Greece as well. And first-past the post systems like the UK has are also advantageous to the winner. But none of these tie it with a "democratic mandate" of the prime minister. It's basically a dictator election every five years
@@schnitzelsemmel Macron stays in power for 5 years isn't it? So why can't Italy do the same? The political instability has an economic cost and as a result Italy grew much less than France and Germany.
@@vesk4000 A similar system is in place in Greece. The current government did not get over 50% of the vote. But the electoral system allows the winning party to receive 50 more seats in the Parliament to form a majority and govern. So if it is not undemocratic in Greece, it will not be undemocratic in Italy either.
Wait a second. So with the seat bonus guaranteeing 55% of seats for the winning PM’s party, how would this NOT be a massive power grab that would take away nearly all power from the opposition parties and even make the other parties within the ruling coalition effectively irrelevant? Frankly these reforms are giving me Enabling Act (the legislation that allowed Hitler and the Third Reich to enact legislation without the consent of the Reichstag) vibes, especially considering her party Fratelli d’Italia is literally a descendant party of Mussolini’s fascist regime with several members who have been caught on camera praising Mussolini. So is it a surprise that Meloni and her party would attempt to grab power in such a brazen way? Not one bit!
Mind you the Italian right always tried to pass something like this since the time Berlusconi first came to power (eventually rejected by nationwide referendum). Their idea is the winner takes it all, basically legalising a 5 years dictatorship
@Dances-st6id in your system the President doesn't automatically have absolute majority in Parliament, unlike in the reform proposed by Meloni
@Dances-st6idAnd time proved that the 5th republic (albeit better) still have a lot of horrible flaws (just look at Macron and how he weaponize every institution), we should also have a new one, hope Italy finds a better system too
This is a presidential system (doesn't matter that the president is called a "prime minister"). With the parliament acting as a facade. Technically still a democracy, but not a representative one.
exactly.
Elective dictatorship
A 55% seat presence is insane. If you didn't vote for that party, you are not represented. You're right: this might be democracy but definitely not a representative one.
Nope. It's classified as semi-parliamentarian. There are four mai systems for rappresentative-like democracy: presidenzialism, semipresidentialism, parliamentarianism, and this one. Nobody knows semiparliamentarism because It's used nowhere
Actually, it's called the President (in Italy, we have "two presidents," but one is the head of state, and one is the pm). If we reform toward electing directly the head of state, like in France, we will get semi-presidential. If we reformed towards electing directly both (and uniting the job as one), we would get presidential, like America. But in this case meloni is trying to make the president that has the PM function to be directly elected.
What's the point of voting for a parliament if the PM election decides who gets 55% anyway? Wouldn't this system be a de facto end of national democracy in Italy?
as a matter of fact, yes.
It would turn it to a presidential system in all but name, but it would have the bonus of a 55% majority government.
It’s essential if you want a chance of sweeping reforms or dictatorship 😅
@@zurielsssin a presidential system you don't automatically have control of the parliament. This one gets rid of all checks and balances
No it's just a democracy where you elect a semi dictator every 5 years.
They already have something similar in several of their states, Greece also has the same.
Several African countries actually get parliament decided based on the vote for president,as well, so if a president gets 54% of the vote his party gets 54% of seats, the second place if he got 38% of the votes gets his party 38% of the seats, etc.
It's not that unusual.
Google "majority bonus system" for more examples
It's strange she didn't just outright create a French style semi-presidential system where the president has a near monopoly on foreign affairs and proposes the long term agenda, whereas the PM-led government manages day to day affairs and the parliament is a check on power though weaker than the executive. The main issue is the lack of judicial independence
I think that's the idea, I've heard several journalists in the news here in Italy comparing the proposed system to the French one
In France we have judicial independence. It’s completely separate from government.
Meloni don't do that because for us italian the President of Republic (expecially Mattarella) is like a divinity due to the impartiality he has and, since the italian has no long since 1994 impartial politics, the wouldn't pass because that reform would mean loosing the status of impartial figure the President of the Republic has at moment also if Meloni prefer the french presidentialism
>fascist gets elected as prime minister
>proposes reform that gives the prime minister’s party absolute power
>hmmmmmmm
Makes fast friends with EPP & VonderLeyen
yeah let's call everyone that's not on a left a fascist.... it's an electoral law, so whoever wins the next election will have more control over parliament, it could be her opposition for all we know. If you don't agree with people's vote then you're more fascist than who you accuse to be
Ah yes, Meloni is totally a fascist
"fascist"
You're a tankie tbh if you have think she's fascist
So this would essentially create a presidential system, but also make the parliament pointless... this isn't gonna go through lol
An elective dictatorship
Have you thought this is what people want?
@@wenterinfaer1656 Is it? There will be a referendum to approve it we'll see it then
This is not at all a presidential system. The whole point of a presidential system is having an executive that’s independent of the legislature, votes of no confidence aren’t a thing. Under this system the prime minister and rest of parliament must be of the same party even though the parliament is elected separately.
@@wenterinfaer1656 Is it? This coalition only got the 43% of the votes.
If it was another party in power with the same numbers, Giorgia and all her fanboys would be screaming and crying about how undemocratic and "not elected by the people" this governament is.
We'll see.
The Italian political system is broken, some fix is necessary. There have been too many fragile coalition govts which result in temporary unelected govts. The reforms can help solve this, but to award the fratellis such a big automatic parliamentary majority seems a bit authoratarian and ill advised.
Several mini Italies might work better.
@@peterfireflylund That way, each province will have their own hung parliament changing every year or so. Great idea, how has no one thought of this? Make this man a PM already!
Rationalized parliamentarianism with constructive votes of no confidence, the end of perfect bicameralism and, optionally, a 5% electoral threshold. Having a functional and democratic parliamentary system is not that complicated, it's been done all over Europe except for basically France and Italy.
@@ArturoSubutexyou mean like sweeden, germany, holland, denmark, etc. The problem is when there is 3 opposing view and no one want coaliton or help each other its bound to be broken, now most nation have left vs right vs “far right” left and right dont want coalition with “far right” yet they cant find majority.
So dont get your nose up so high
Im afraid, that some authoritarianism is sometimes needed. Especialy when voters are so much fragmented, that its basicaly 2+ diferent worlds in one country.
Hi, to add some context:
The direct election of the prime minister is a constant talking point of the right in Italy. It was originally planned already in 1976 by the secret lobby "P2" and has since been proposed zillion of times from Berlusconi and his acolytes. Given the widespread functional illiteracy in Italy, many voters already now think they are asked to elect the government rather than the parliament. BTW, the aforementioned illiteracy is also part of the explanation for the outcome of the 2020 referendum that proposed a reduced number of representatives: "less politicians, less privileged people" was the equation in many italians' heads.
Regarding the senators for life, fact is, those senators are nominated by the parliament based on their distinction and outstanding achievements in the international landscape, like nobel laureates or prominent authors. This means that they are, on the average, more resilient to populist agendas. It happened already that a single senate vote has precluded Berlusconi of getting his plan done and they will surely be a thorn in the side of any future populist movement.
TLDR these proposals are not "neutral", they are clearly right-biased. Therefore it's pretty easy to forecast another round of polarised debate.
That bonus for leading party is exactly what Mussolini did and it's exactly what gave him the power to establish his rule.
Macron stays in power for 5 years isn't it? So why can't Italy do the same? The political instability has an economic cost and as a result Italy grew much less than France and Germany.
@@pand9293 But his party doesn't automatically get majority when he's the president.
the plan is great except for the bonus
Meloni is by far the better candidate for Italy. I know you desperately want her to become Mussolini. She just isn’t. She’s pro European, she’s subverted your expectations with Ukraine and she kept the pathetic theater show in check which is extremely hard.
Our politics doesn’t just need reforming it needs a kick up the balls
@@Elghast I didn't say anything about Meloni being a bad candidate, just that exactly this type of electoral reform leads to too much concentration of power. Above mentioned was the semi-presidential French system, which is much more stable but doesn't need to give such significant bonuses. The proposed system would basically mean that whoever gets plurality of votes is elected as the sole ruling party.
So it's a new version of the Acerbo law, basically.
I don't want to be terribly pessimistic, but we all know what it looks like... 55% is not 2/3, but it's frighteningly close
or a new "scam law"(legge truffa) of 1953?
Italy, my Country, is a weird place. I only live here permanently because I have a great house and the food is lovely.
If I had a nickel for everytime a far-right Italian party has changed the electoral law to assure themselves control of parliament I'd have 2 nickels. Which isn't a lot but it's weird that it happened twice.
You would Have lots of nickel if you expand out of Italy and include Austrian Painter and Russian Putler
how does this assure them control? it would be from the next election, they're not guaranteed to win...
Macron stays in power for 5 years isn't it? So why can't Italy do the same? The political instability has an economic cost and as a result Italy grew much less than France and Germany.
@@arpandas2243 butler?
@@pand9293 Italy is a parliamentary democracy France isn't that's why
Short answer: yes.
Meloni wants to grab as much power annd privilege as she can because she knows nothing guarantees her further terms.
It is giving her more power only by making it more democratic: she as prime minister would be directly elected by the people.
I hate my prime minister in my country, but if he would do this I would see it as an absolute Godsend. Like italy, we don't have much democracy in australia, instead the party chooses its crony, and we choose between two cronies only.
I mean she's pretty much a self-confessed fascist. She told everyone her intentions.
@@Red1Green2Blue3
What are you talking about? I know of no policy she holds that is fascist, unless you have changed the definition and it is based on double standards for different countries.
@@pebblepod30 I meant exactly what I said. She was in Movimento Sociale Italiano (Brothers of Italy, her current party is a successor party) a fascist organisation that celebrated Mussolini (literally the original fascist dictator) and she doesn't shy away from that. She's self-declared. You look like a clown trying to deny something she owns herself.
That's her goal, for sure.
Wow, what a surprise. Who would´ve thought that an far-right politician would behave like that? Crazy world, huh?
They are not "far.right". And in Spain the far left is doing something even worse. The Spansh far left is ending the judiciary independence.
Tankie says whattt
3:00 as an Italian I must to clarify something. When we say "dissolve" the parliament we actually mean that President Mattarella is going to physically dissolve parliamentarians.
Ah, taking inspiration from down south I see
"Is it a Power Grab"? If it's proposed by a neofascist, you don't need to ask....
She is not a 'neo fascist' this is just crap talk from lefties
At first glance, this proposal looks like the system used in Italian regional elections. The elector has two votes, the president of the region, and the council. The presidential candidate who wins is guaranteed a majority in the council, with his coalition. Many regional legislatures have held for the full 5 years since it's been implemented some 25 years ago, so it's probably where she got that idea.
Nothing changes in Italy that benefits the people.
Nobody in power gives a damn about the people and they never will
4:07 you said Sergio MOZZARELLA instead of Mattarella😂
With love from Italy❤
An advertisement taking up more than 20% of the video's duration is not acceptable, even less so if it is dishonest.
We not only had experience with fascism, we invented fascism, there is nothing to be proud of, but the world that now is used to describe that power structure is Italian
yeah we know
Presidential republics have existed for over a century, France has an extremely powerful President and in those U.S.A. the President is only slightly less powerful than Congress. Meanwhile no European wants to see a presidential republic anywhere, Europeans seem to be allergic to non-ceremonial presidents which is why European countries are always so slow to take action.
@@d.m.5510many do, for good reasons
@@d.m.5510 u sound like one of those boomers just insulting others
@@d.m.5510 25 yr old with boomer mentality... My God. You are one of those ppl that blames who leaves and blames who stays. Basically, a fuckin woman on period
Didn't Greece have something like it (of course not exactly) of giving the majority a bonus to be able to govern without coalition?
Still do. Coalitions don't work here we've always been extremely divided. The winning party therefore gets a bonus of up to 50 seats to govern alone. All it needs is 37% minimum.
Majority bonus was introduced by New Democracy (iirc) then undone by Syriza then reintroduced again by ND
@@mk9650 And it's got you exactly where you started
And Greece's political system is doing soooooo well
It seems very inappropriate for a winning person to have their party a guaranteed majority
Anyone else getting "Accerbo Law" vibes from this? It might not be the exact same, but its function is basically identical. The gutting of representative, parliamentary democracy in the name of "ending weak governments".
The Acerbo law was passed in an environment of armed PNF militiamen watching over the Chamber of Deputies. Given how opposition parties haven't been cowed into silence by armed militia, there is good reason to doubt this will pass in the Chamber. As for a referendum ... I lack sufficient data on local Italian feelings about their constitution.
Good. The government need those power to lead a nation that has lost its way. One thing that people forgot is that Italy and Germany prospered and had massive growth in the 1930s under strong rule.
@@kawaiikoto8800yeah, they 'prospered', nothing as prosperous as changing definitions of words such as 'unemployment' to not include women so you assume prosperity on paper.
In all seriousness, though, that 'strong leadership' is not really necessary considering Germany is an inherently prosperous nation with some of the best engineers in the world behind its powerful industry. It is only the circumstances of the Great Depression and the fact that they have to pay a crippling amount to the entente that led to its decline, if given more years, the German economy could've rebounded because of its strong industrial capabilities and highly educated population.
As for Italy, Italy has always been divided ever since Roman authority disintegrated, but that never really stopped it from becoming the powerhouse that it is today, despite the fact that they never really had a consistent government for a significant periods in its postwar history.
Acerbo Law 2.0 not surprising given who it's coming from.
@@kawaiikoto8800 Name and profile picture check out.
I'm italian and we are not worried in the least. Each constitutional reform must pass the referendum, and each time it happened the referendum was lost. This reform will fail like all the others. The only time the referendum succeded was for a simple reduction of the number of parlament seats
0:23
*standing here I realize, You are just like me, trying make history*
"Making the mother of all reforms Elly can't fret over every tankie"
Giving extra sits to make sure you have a majority is the opposite of Democratic. You literally force your win when you didn’t get one.
Sounds unnecessarily complex. And what is the point proportional representation if you'll just get a bonus as PM?
And what's the point of elections if a technocrat nobody voted for can be appointed at any time by a president who also wasn't elected by the people? Because that's the system we have right now.
@@SirAlric82 So instead of abolishing the presidential position or reducing its power you decide to give absolute power to the prime minister? Brilliant move
@@SirAlric82the president is indirectly elected through the parliament that represents the people. So no, it's not someone nobody voted.
So basically Parliament becomes useless and the PM does what they want because every MP owes their career to the PM.
Yeah fuck that.
Might aswell opt for a Presidential system if you're having an elected PM.
No because that doesn't guarantee the president always has majority in parliament, just look at the US, France, Brazil
About the majority bonus, this wouldn’t be a first for Italy: in 1923, a law was passed that gave the winning party list 2/3 of the seats in parliament. Guess who was the prime minister then?
Right wing parties and undermining democracy, name a more iconic duo
Removing their Monarch didn't really change their Government. Because it seems haven't changed that much.
*their
@@Joso997but what would the monarchy have to do with this? The powers of the monarch were,(mostly) given to the President
I find it funny how many Americans call for a directly elected chief executive even though no other country does that (or at least no other country they’d like to compare America to)
This is basically a step towards fascism. Which is unsurprising but still concerning
How many laws did they change in america to make biden win? in 2020?
Oh you bigot! it's ok when we do it!
So france and the USA are fascist country ?
Kinda funny how Meloni got elected to finally tackle illegal mass migration and since she is in power she's doing everything but that all the while the illegal migration numbers are at records high
Why would she want to fix it? It is her main campaign topic. Solving it would remove her best way into power.
Because she isn't fascist..... A fascist would deploy the army and "deal" with the migrants..... Also it's easy to speak, i followed what happened in Tunisia and there it's clearly the EU fault, they did everything imaginable to anger the Tunisian president and didn't sent the money so he basically said f*** off
Anyway she can do other things such as not giving them citizenship and not recognizing them legally given that according to italian law illegal immigration is a crime....
@@Doge811so as usual it is someone else fault am I right?
What a great idea! A presidential system with a president of the Republic and one of the Gov, where there is a parliament elected but whoever gets the highest percentage of the vote goes up to 55% of representation.
Man, our constitution fathers must be rolling in their so much that they could be use to turn Europe energy consumption to all-green
😔
Well her government is very far right so I’m not surprised
It's centre right really.
@@DGoldy303she is a fascist who hates democracy as this reform proves
@@DGoldy303 C'mon man, her governement is centre-right only for Noi Moderati, a small pary allied with her coalition but it don't really count
Technocrat governments in Italy have not been that bad, if you consider that they normally came in situations when others had run everything down to such a degree, that the only government they could agree upon were these technocrats 🤣
Perhaps they should change the constitution to have a permanent technocrat government with a parliament just as a support and a chance to have great speeches...
Most governments in the world are already like that...
If they do that, they'd be kicked out of the EU.
@@Jayvee4635 You know there is no way to kick a member out? Hungary has been playing this game for some time now...
@@-haclong2366 I agree to a wide part. Parliaments seem to have lost power in many countries. But giving the government automatically 55% of the seats will not change this trend at all 🤔
Well Mario draghi had the popular support to win an election..... The problem is that he didn't want, not even technocrats want to rule Italy for long. 😭😭😭 but they are the ones who actually solve the problems 😂😂 I'll be all for a kind of centrist technocrat government to decide what really matters, and let the politicians debate between themselves about lgbtq and all those social things that don't really matter for the economy and the finances of the state.
The guaranteed 55% majority is absolutely insane and destroys the idea of checks and balances. I would argue that instead there is a 5% boost in the amount of seats held by the PM’s party as a more suitable compromise, bolstering the standing of what would likely be an already strong party. If that extra 5% can’t get you enough votes, it’s simply the fault of the party and not the constitution
There should be no boost they should do negotiations with other parties.
As an italian, I'm ashamed of my government.
Were you ashamed of the lefties one?
@@lelobest we're ashamed of every government that rises to power, all cater to themselves or for the ageing population of the country. No wonder why our fertility rates are the lowest in the world, people in their 30s still living with their parents, and young people constantly moving out of the country
@@francescoceresani3343 thank you for responding instead of me. I would say that this government is among the worst of the late republic.
@@lelobest this government is dividing the country even more. Some changes would basically mean the end of a truly unified Italy, I would say. Not considering other major fallancies.
It may as well be the deal breaker for her coalition: a proposal that, with the 55% bonus for the winning party, undermines the coalition concept in on itself, would promptly divide the center-right, and of course align with the opposition parties
And even so, historically, constitutional reforms have never been popular enough to have support... not that she couldn't change that trend, of course, but still I have to find someone that doesn't share my confidence in saying this one shouldn't pass either
_In order to ensure the security and continuing stability, the Republic will be reorganized into the first Galactic Empire!_
_For a safe and secure society!_
The Mussolini particles have yet to be fully cleared from her party I guess.
"It provides for the party or coalition of the sitting Prime-Minister to be granted a seat bonus that guarantes them 55% of seats in parliament."
Ah, there it is. I was waiting for the catch. Didn't Mussolini propose a similar law during the early days of fascism to ensure his party would rule unchallenged?
Some may see it as a threat to Italian politics, but as an Italian, I can say, WE BADLY NEED THIS(ASAP). Even if I fully don't support this government I see that this reform will help to gain us political stability will stimulate our economic proliferation
This "bonus" system exists in Greece for the last 50 years and is an absolute disaster. It esensially makes the first party absolute King, even if it has 30-35% of votes. It gives absolute power to people that neither deserve it, nor win it. They are not checked by their coalition, because there is no coalition and they are not checked by the oposition, because the oposition is completely powerless. It's truly ridiculous.
Water Meloni
Agree with what Meloni is trying to do but sounds like they haven't consulted sociologists or constitutional lawyers. It lacks good checks and balances on popularity contest candidates or least disliked candidates. Sounds like a recipe for state capture and simultaneously unimaginative leadership.
Also great product placement. They sound like an ideal 21st century company!
Lack of checks and balances is not something that is accidentally part of this "reform". It's the whole reason behind it.
TLDR speak out about the Spanish government amnesty law, regional disbalances and the use of the justice system for political benefits.
Might as well make the role of 'president' a public voted position instead of the Prime Minister. Funny how this benefit her and her party currently.
As an Italian I am deeply worried. I see my country is losing brain cells by the day. This power grab will be devastating.
but if biden wins in america because they changed laws in their favour, it's suddenly fine!
Quite literally, considering the brain drain. The number of Italians I've met in Germany who said they left because Italy shows little to no promise to them is alarming.
stessa opinione
@Dances-st6id Except that the current prime minister and the current party in power don't really care about demographic collapse. They aren't doing anything to make young people stay in the country or to convince people that "eventually" want a family that they can have one now or in the near future. And I assume you know or can imagine what they think on immigration. This is exactly why it's not only a power grab but misplaced prioritization too. This change would make the problems you have listed worse.
I don't think it will happen, but one objection to this might be that the majority of the country might vote for a different party in the second election with this hypothetical system. But 5 years is a long long time, and these problems exist now.
@Dances-st6id we come from decades of the far right weakening the state. This is just a drop in the ocean but it would mean the end of the Italian democracy. We have no future because we have no brain power left. We can’t face any challenge.
Should this get passed and Fratelli d‘Italia loses power, Meloni will be the first to rue her actions.
A mandatory 55% seat reward for the PM's party regardless of the actual vote of Italy's constituents is insanely undemocratic, especially in a country where no single party can really get more than 30% of the seats.
I think it's frankly a bit nuts that Italy routinely has prime ministers who are not heads of their parliamentary parties or even politicians and not even known to voters at the time of elections. The idea that Italians elect parties and then those parties just decide amongst themselves behind closed who the nation's prime minister should be - the most important and powerful politician in the country - strikes me as an extremely elitist system of government, and I can definitely sympathize with the need to give voters more direct control over who holds this important job.
Why? Neither Americans elect their President, that have even more powers.
They elect the so called "great electors" that later elects the President.
That single passage makes the whole american democracy not democratic.
It's not the will of the citizens.
They have voted for one guy, the great electors can't vote for another one or even for a candidate of the opposite party.
Not to mention the fact that America basically applies just two parties politics. While all the rest are left in such poor numbers to have just a role of parading.
Hi JJ, always watched your videos. I have to disagree. Our politicians are really hungry for power, even a century after fascism. Berlusconi tried multiple times to damage the juridical system to give more executive power to himself. The subdivision of the three powers (propositional, executive and juridical) are especially important here, since we’ve had a dark history when it comes to corruption and power monopoly (both before and AFTER WW2).
@@konradsartorius7913 yes but many of the previous prime ministers were not.
The only country that did something similar to this proposal is Israel in the late 1990s and it backfired so badly, they went back to the old system a few years later. Those problems wouldn't exist if a single party got 50% of the vote, but since no one gets it, I don't think it is wise to create an artificial majority that could make things worse.
This most important person in Italy is the President of the Republic.
Italians can vote, but their vote is only to provide more money to certain people, then the President and the people close to him decide who holds this or that position.
Democracy has never come to Italy.
It is all fakecracy.
This does sound like a power-grab. I would say make the president elected by the people while the prime minister is still selected by the parliament and appointed by the president. I don't know, maybe give the president some more powers like a semi-presidential system so if prime ministers are changed often, there could still be a consistent force in the executive. This might not work, though.
I hope for the sake of Italy and it's citizens that they are able to clearly see that giving more power to one person is, and always has been, a huge liability for the long term prosperity and well being of a country. Sure, sole leaders have at times during history been good but it certainly isn't the norm, even if they were democratically elected
Best reform for italy = any amount of corruption bans a person for being a politician for life. Simple as.
Matteo Renzi is gonna be PISSED if this passes
he is in favour of this draft bill lol
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees.
It's definitely a choice not to add the context that the concept of a majoritarian bonus was first implemented by Mussolini and has an even longer fraught history in Italian politics.
This transitionless advertisement, though.
Yeah I've never been a fan of it
Especially the "removal" of technocrats was for me the weirdest thing. I'm more inclined to believe a technocrat as a subject matter expert (although other motives could still play) for good policy, rather than any politician who more than often lacks any accountability on a personal level or party level.
Apart from the quite accountable part of being voted out
None of these reforms get at the heart of their problems. A first past the post with a larger minimum percentage for parties would be better.
Direct presidential elections in Italy would be good idea.
Examples of countries that transitioned from indirect to direct elections: France (1962), Poland (1990), Slovakia (1998), Czechia (2012), non-EU member state Moldova (2016).
Short answer: Yes
Long answer: No.
If they are rewarded an automatic majority then that's less reason to form a coalition and rather could lead to a more duel party system in the future since that basicly makes it first past the post since if you win you get auto majority
Only Berlusconi would had dream to pass such reforms
Why not having the Chamber of Deputies elected with FPTP, and a weaker Senate elected with proportionnal representation?
Why not just borrow French system where President have substantial powers and directly elected and appoints the government with the parliament?
@@Besthinktwice yeah, but these systems also tend to get crazy fractioned. Like, in Israel, and Bulgaria where they had like 4 elections in 5 years because nobody can agree to anything. And Belgium where they form government 250 days. Many "recent" changes to government systems were modeled after French. Like, in Portugal, Poland, Ukraine etc.
Hello Tldr.
¿Any plans to talk about the situation in spain? You have been oddly silent on this regarding the recent political deals and the protests.
What is happening here is deeply controversial and a great mayority of judges and other magistrates are heavily condeming the deal.
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: yes, although I don't think this is going anywhere and this pathetic excuse of a Prime Minister is by far the very worst leader of the very worst, most incompetent, nepotism-rigged governement I've ever seen in my whole life and I grew up during Berlusconi era, so that's saying a lot...
Adesso che ci hai detto questa cosa andremo subito a votare per Elly "centro sociale" Schlein e per Giuseppi "Superbonus" Conte. Ma ci faccia il piacere !!! E se tu sei cresciuto durante l'era di Berlusconi dovresti sapere che la Meloni a differenza del Cavaliere non ha processi, conflitti di interesse, e scandali (Bunga Bunga),
She’s definitely better than Berlusconi come on
@@ad_astra468 from what I saw these months, nah, not really. I mean, no impending judgements but still...
@@pand9293 aah, che bello quando non si hanno argomenti e quindi l'unica risorsa a disposizione è disprezzare gli avversari. Niente scandali o cose scabrose eh, ok:
- ex compagno apertamente sessista e molestatore piazzato in tv nazionale;
- parenti piazzati in tv nazionale e in ministeri;
- figura di letame internazionale dove ha spifferato informazioni riservate ai Pio e Amedeo russi;
- nomina a ministro del turismo data a una delinquente che ha truffato l'Inps e speso 9 milioni per una campagna pubblicitaria per l'Italia con foto stock e immagini della Slovenia;
- mancato taglio delle accise e mancata "chiusura dei porti" con gli sbarchi degli immigrati quasi raddoppiati;
- nessuna conoscenza del diritto internazionale dimostrata con una vaccata di proposta irrealizzabile di fare hotspot migranti in Albania;
- riforma che puzza di autoritarismo lontano un kilometro...
Davvero, c'è bisogno di continuare?
@@micheleportatadino5919 Ma secondo lei CENTOQUARANTA MILIARDI di deficit per il Superbonus di Giuseppi non sono un argomento concreto? Stiamo parlando di una cifra pari a CINQUE finanziarie. E lei stai lì a parlare di Arianna Meloni e dell'attacco hacker russo?
Che la Schlein sia una sprovveduta stile "Alice nel paese delle Meraviglie" è una semplice constatazione della realtà.
Poi se lei non vuole fare nulla contro il diluvio di migranti che ci viene addosso e vuole solo criticare questo è un suo limite.
Che cacchio c'entra Ciuffetto con la Meloni?? Raggiunta la maggiore età ognuno è responsabile delle proprie azioni o no?
Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s original expression ‘mother of all’ begs the question whether this iteration should be seen as a double entendres-with an indelicate translation.
Is it just me or is this a modern version of the Acerbo Law?
Rather than to have prime ministerial elections like what Israel did in the late 1990s (and terribly failed), Italy should implement constructive vote of no confidence like in Germany where the prime minister can only be replaced if there is a new prime minister candidate elected by majority required in the parliament or else the parliament will be dissolved for a fresh election if the vote of no confidence get no new candidate. It can provide much needed stability and prevent the immediate downfall of the government.
Dear TLDR any upcoming videos about the recent Spanish amnesty thing? That's just as much of a power grab where executive and legislative are not separated anymore just to stay in power
Those are... words. It is a negotiation to form a government after a democratic election, you are free to disagree with that (I do not love it myself), but a "power grab"? Well, it is a coalition to form a government, so I guess it kind of is, but not more than any other coalition.
Democracy dies tomorrow in Spain
Spain has always had fusion of powers between the executive and the legislative. That's the point of parliamentary systems and it's not a real problem imo. In regards to the amnesty, it's as much as an invasion of the judiciary's powers as a pardon would be. That is, an exceptional measure that isn't really that much of an issue, that does not affect the great majority of the population, that might work in making Catalonia more integrated and relax tensions, and that is being given too much importance by the right to have an excuse to protest against the government for losing the elections
What's pretty f'ed up about this entire situation is that Meloni is using a good point (i.e. the fact that Italy has proved to be unmanageable with the current government system) to attempt the institution of a horrible system. I'd argue that political instability in Italy is primarily caused by an electoral system that satisfies no one. The first issue is that it promotes coalitions over single parties: this causes governments to be formed by zombie alliances made up of parties that are ideologically opposed to each other, ironically giving the smaller parties in the coalition enormous power as they can threaten to leave the coalition and cause it to lose majority (e.g. UDEUR in 2008). The second issue is that it's a hybrid system with elements of first past the post and proportional representation, leaning into neither well enough to either create stable and/or representative governments. Italy has a major issue with strategic voting, with parties consistently elected not because they represent their voter base, but because they oppose the "other". It might be worth trying some form of ranked choice (like single transferable vote) to address both issues: by having a better representation of the Italian voter base in power, and removing the need for strategically voted opposition parties, there is also a better chance that party coalitions will be strategically and ideologically aligned. The end result would be more representative and stable governments.
The pathos and acting mastery are particularly prominent in this video. Unbiased, no doubt.
8:34 that seems really idiotic. If a cow had to die to make the leather, it is by principle bad for the enviroment. Artificially made leather that doesn't require the killing of animals is far less resource intensive to make.
May as well make Italy a Presidential system...
The electoral reform, we know, gives to the party that has a relative majority an overall majority. A similar law was already enforced in italian history. It is called "Legge Acerbo", of 1923, the same law that allowed Mussolini to gain total control of Parliament. I hope italians wake up in time...
The so called instability of Italian politics doesn't take count of the fact that our system was lead by the same single party for almost 50 years from 1948 to 1993, that was the Christian Democratic party and its alleys. Yes, prime ministers did come and go, but the power dynamic didn't change at all. So here goes your "Italian instability" myth.
RUclips rule says that the question in a title should always be ridiculous and always answered by “No, duh. Of course not”
Job well done?
I just don't get it, we learn NOTHING from history, absolutely nothing... how is it possible that people keep making the EXACT SAME mistakes? what exactly do we need to do to make ourselves learn from past failures? what are we missing? How is it still possible that someone comes along, sells you the idea that in order for things to get better you just need to give them more power and people simply ignore every single past situation in human life that this happen and ended up badly?
Are you an Italian? can you explain to me why THIS TIME is the time it will work?
If you just think of this form a Mathematical standpoint, yeah it is definitely a power grab!
5:56 methinks a spelling mistake was missed
Honestly, the thing that baffles me the most about this proposed constitutional reform is its hybrid nature between a presidential and parliamentary system. I mean, it would essentially change Italy into a presidential republic (which is not something I inherently dislike), but without the check and balances that an independent parliament provides to this system (see, for example, the US or France). I don’t know, I’d rather have a purely parliamentary or presidential system
Why? The parliament can always revoke the PM with a no confidence vote. Moreover any new law or decree before being implemented needs signature by the president of the republic, which has many times sent it back for alleged unconstitutionality. And even after the constitutional court can deem it unconstitutional. So the powers of the government remain in check as much as now.
@alessandrof.6546 they already have 55% of the seats. The bonus for the winning coalition is already there and wasn’t made by Meloni. So what does it change?
The automatic majority is just plain power grab!
The entire point of a Parliamentary system (monarchy or republic) is that the House can reject the Government - implying that the will of the people can reject the government if they deem it hostile. The 55% extra seats will actually ruin this whole concept upon which representative democracy in a parliamentary system is based on.
From whatever I’ve seen of Italian politics it seems their issues can be solved if they
a) decide on a standard parliamentary system of government with elections every 5 years.
b) reducing the power of the Senate. Probably can also make the senate as a body elected by the regional assemblies (question who has more authority comes up when both houses are popularly elected).
c) MMP system with both geographic and list seats.
d) Technocrats. More of them. Maybe just allow technocrats to become ministers, not random politicians.
Meloni trying (desperately) to change things for her self lol
Meloni desperately trying to become the new Mussolini haha
Mark my word she will stay in the govt for next 4 years
This is a great plan! Italy should be proud of its great PM
We can't be proud of something we don't have
They should concentrate on the justice reform. If they really want a stronger executive branch, we need then a deeper reform and transform the government into a semi-presidential one, like the French one.
it´s getting worse. Now one fifth of the video is an ad. Just imagine having to watch the youtube ads on top of that.
By the time the ad rolls you can simply turn off the video.
Luckily I rarely see ADs on YT & sponsors
use sponsorblock like normal people.
@@rizkyadiyanto7922 Is there a specific one you can recommend?
Scarica ADBlocker Ultimate