Week 139

 

The electoral reform which received its first sanctioning this evening at the Chamber – went the usual summary (Una conquista del Paese - “A conquest of the Country”, in Popolo d'Italia, July 31^st 1919) on political matters from Rome, compiled by G.(aetano) P.(olverelli), and delivered by phone to Milan in the early night, taking up the right end quarter of the front page, to the side of a list of the “notable and substantial modifications” introduced to the original project – is a conquest of the people.

Socialists and catholics, chiefly for their own partisan interests, had brought it forward. And this initial patrocination had already determined enough of a public interest. At which point the unanimous will of the combatants imposed the undelayable solution of the problem, by which the Government and the Chamber became persuaded of the need to follow the will of the people.

The combatants didn't have, and could not have, partisan concerns, and their determination derived exclusively from a desire of political elevation. The new Italy, rising from victory, could not go back to the narrow squabbles of local cliques, driving the people away from the great national problems and wasting its energies in sterile competitions of petty clienteles.

The Italy of the combatants could no longer find its representation in a legislative assembly made up of petty district barons, indifferent to the problems of the nation and only concerned with their particular local ones. The will of the veterans was a decisive element for the reform. Orlando had rejected it by postponing [the reform]; Nitti, instead, chose to defend it, persuaded that it would have been pointless to resist the resolve of the combatants.

Many representatives would have had obvious motives to vote against it, since the widening of colleges is going to determine their inevitable political death. But only 38 have been willing to state publicly their opposition: others, even if privately against it, have stoically chosen to face their destiny. […]

Hon. Nitti won over the Chamber by sketching out for them the consequences of a rejection. The new Assembly, if the elections were at all possible, would not have been able to resist the hostility of the public for long, and the reform, denied today, would have been imposed, perhaps with violence, tomorrow.

It's pointless to object […] that the majority of the people doesn't support the reform because they are uninterested in it. The course of political life is always determined by active minorities dragging along […] the masses.

The combatants have therefore already entered national politics as an element of strength, upturning the old clienteles and bringing a breath of renovation into the national life.

On the basis of this consideration, the present date acquires a special significance since it marks a first step towards new fates. We marked a victory of the new ideal conceits of renovation over the petty old electoral Italy of before the war. […]

The general lines of the reform have already been outlined by our newspaper: expansion of electoral colleges, and proportional representation. We can reasonably say that the electors will be allowed a certain liberty to choose their candidates from different lists, which is likely going to lead to coalitions of political groups.

The interest in the strict mandatory character of party lists is limited to the official socialists and to the clericals, who may have something to lose and nothing to gain from coalitions. But it seems very clear that a block of the non-Pus extreme is going to form against the former, and a constitutional block against the latter.

We can therefore already imagine the outline of the new Chamber: socialist group, clerical group, liberal coalition and extremist coalition. […]

Hon. Nitti reaffirmed the right of women to vote, and the whole Chamber applauded, but it would be impossible to grant [it] before the new elections due to the impossibility of concluding the technical analysis in time. […] Nitti's speech, quite optimistic and clear as usual, leaves little to add.

It had, without a doubt, a great and immediate impact, persuading the Chamber to an almost unanimous deliberation.

The Chamber, which spent its life ingloriously and amidst more than a few indignities, has accomplished one good deed, in the twilight of its legislature, preparing itself for a peaceful death.

 

Nitti's quite fortunate speech had been delivered at the end of an extensive preparatory period. Already on July 4^th – immediately after his arrival to Paris – Foreign Minister Tittoni had energetically advised Nitti to take an explicit commitment to the reform in his inaugural speech (of July 9^th 1919)

I prey you again that your declaration concerning the electoral reform is quite explicit, and such as not to leave any room for doubts.

Two weeks later – July 18^th – Nitti (telegram to Tittoni) remarked on the widespread reluctance of the Chamber to embrace the new reform.

Debate over project of electoral law continues quite uneventfully with almost all speakers opposed to it. I have no intention of accepting Peano's amendment. [a proposal for the introduction of a full panachage] It's going to take a lot of effort for the reform to be accepted. […]

And, again, on the 19^th of July

Debate over the electoral reform continues today as well, with less contrarian tendency among speakers. Only noteworthy fact, a speech against made by Nasi, who made a reappearance. I'll have to spend a lot of effort for the reform to pass, but I'll do everything I can. […]

Before we move on to Nitti wrapping up the debate and demanding a vote be passed, we need to conclude our examination of the intervention of socialist representative G.E. Modigliani (the most substantial part of which we examined in last week) with a brief, and probably quite confusing, discussion on the introduction of panachage, “an infelicitous word for a completely pointless practice”.

The word – explained Modigliani – as usual, comes to indicate the most different things. We call the amendment of our colleague Peano, panachage. We call, just the same, panachage, the proposal of the committee which, perhaps unaware, accepted Peano's concept […] making it just a bit worse.

Panachage is that negligible amount of respect one wishes to pay, in a Country where, they say, parties aren't clearly outlined enough, to the elector's freedom; panachage is the modest opportunity reserved for the unorganized elector to interfere […] with the electoral results.

Hence […] Peano, in a coherent display of logic, said: you shall panacher as much as you like, searching through the lists for the most revolting ingredients; you will place Modigliani, si licet parva componere magnis, with Salandra... or – continued Modigliani above laughter – you may combine Sonnino, parva, with Turati, magnis.

But this – whether we call it panachage or not – doesn't help.

An elector has the right to be respected in his quality of elector; but if someone, on pretext that they are going to vote, wishes to write contumelies against the Chamber on their ballot, you toss it away.

If an elector wishes to make a profession of thought so contradictory and absurd, there is no reason why the legislator should show such respect for the absurd and for fruitless incoherence.

Quite different in its results is the proposal of a limited panachage. Which is inspired to the intent to mitigate the resistances against the electoral transformation; as proven by the proposal of the Committee of limiting this faculty to […] one fifth. […]

The elector has the right to introduce modifications to the list, up to one fifth […] But, given that lists will never be complete, since no party can expect to have one hundred percent of the votes, and therefore a list will be submitted with 80, 70, 50 per cent of the elected representatives; in this incomplete list the elector is always going to be able to add names.

Now. How is the elector going to proceed? In the adversary list, let's assume a socialist one, they are going to pick the less socialist one and get them elected over the more socialist; if in the Radical list you have, together with a pure, sincere, radical, one of Gentiloni's bunch, they'll pick the latter.

In other words, the elector will vote their list, first and at their leisure, and then make use of this panachage right in order to diminish […] the results of the opposite party. […] This is not panachage; it's a fraud!