popular vote of no confidence
Right now I am in Japan and that is why I would take its cue from a recent incident here happened to make some considerations.
Last September, the Japanese Democratic Party won the elections with overwhelming majority of the lower house thanks to four basic reasons. It was proposed as an alternative to traditional sons of art, the illegal financing of political parties, the power of bureaucracy and excessive servility towards the U.S.. After fifty-two years of failure, finally PDJ is a majority in parliament with great popular enthusiasm, largely due to its leader and future Prime Minister Hatoyama (who is the son of art par excellence, grandson of the founder of Bridgestone prime minister after four generations in which his ancestors have succeeded in that office, the son of a woman belonging to one of the most influential families in Japan)
This enthusiasm has also started to sell when the PDJ was hit by scandal to have received illicit funds.
addition to not giving the signals in the fight against bureaucracy, Hatoyama has received the coup de grace that you can not keep a campaign promise that involved the closure of U.S. military base in Okinawa.
The resignation was immediate and the prime minister is now occupied by Kan, neoleader the PDJ.
The question, rhetorical arises: would never have been possible in our country?
Before coming to the motivation of the title of my speech I need to remember the moral issue, a term probably heard ad nauseam but it is obviously a minimal effect in our Parliament, which continues to brazenly infischiarsene and make the best impression of scum that should not even wander around the buildings of our supposed representatives.
According to the Constitution, the Parliament can censure, a vote with the government, a minister or an individual Member. Given the overwhelming understanding that they are able to show off the rooms when it comes to voting laws that benefit their members, it would be pretty amazing to see a disheartened.
While MPs therefore have their own blind faith, I believe that many do not enjoy the other hand of our confidence. The confidence of the people.
That is why I put forward a proposal, which is more a provocation than anything else. Especially for its difficult implementation.
Why should it not be possible for the people disheartened his representative? If, documents and voting card in hand, 51% of voters declared the inadequacy of a Member to fill his role, he should resign.
Such a possibility we could have, in fact, every five years with the change of term. But, in addition to the current inability to express preferences, remains the problem of candidates who are, on balance, the real problem.
So, perhaps flying lower to a popular distrust of parliamentary (which probably would result in a catastrophic decimation of the room), we could be satisfied with confidence to a member of the party.
The reality is that the primaries are only a facade of democracy if the successful leader is always accompanied by the usual troop of offenses against the dignity of Parliament.
It 'obvious that I am referring especially to the representatives of the left (left as it were), since they are still their voters.
I would like to conclude this with my proposal of no confidence and therefore very personal. It is in my opinion a lack of confidence that if it were accepted would solve most problems of the Second Republic. The distrust of a figure whose fall would create a huge domino effect. D'Alema.
D'Alema, yes. And why not Mr Berlusconi, who is the biggest loss for Italy? Because while Berlusconi if \u200b\u200bhe was leaving, he would leave with the parliamentarians of the right only related to him, the departure of D'Alema, as well as dishonest in his circle, it would lead behind Berlusconi, who in turn would you kindly accompany his.
Given the poor results of the election left the question arises as D'Alema could take this whole matter. In this sense, perhaps it is good to briefly run through some steps in the history of the Second Republic, which he partakes.
On 7 December 1994, just days before the fall of the Berlusconi government, the Constitutional Court issues a ruling (420/1994) declaring unconstitutional and Mammi law requiring the sale of Berlusconi at least one of its three television networks.
After the fall of the Government of December 22, The caretaker government headed by Dini enjoys a parliamentary majority represented by the left and the League, which had come into open conflict with Berlusconi. The new majority should then translate into law the Constitutional Court. It is unavoidable. Instead, the leaders of the then PDS, ensure that Berlusconi will trample this ruling and will not touch his TV. This "secret deal" was announced in parliament by Violante, 2002.
Even then the media power of the Knight would be very small. But not all.
Law 361/1957 art.10 provides for the disqualification of owners or representatives in parliament companies of significant economic entity. This law, despite the many legislatures with the center-left has never been applied. Or rather it has always been interpreted by the parliament in a special way, declaring ineligible Confalonieri, manager of Fininvest, Berlusconi and his owner.
Without even having to make the effort to write from scratch a law on conflict of interest, the parliamentary majority in 1995 would have eliminated Berlusconi from politics permanently. Clearly have preferred otherwise.
In 1996 the left won the elections with a program that is part of the thesis 51, where Prodi proposes to reduced to one Mediaset networks and in any case to declare the incompatibility between ownership of television and electability. Prodi will remain in the government a year and a half and the legislature (96-2001) does not respect that point of the program. Indeed. In 1999 Europe Seven wins the race for the new TV licenses, beating, among others, Rete Quattro. The D'Alema government, which had called the race, instead of closing the channel of Mediaset and entrust the frequencies employed by it to Europa 7, which grants temporary clearance to Rete Quattro.
A cast further doubt on the figure of D'Alema also contributes to the experience of the two chambers. In addition to serious error of thinking we can rewrite the Constitution in the company of an item as Berlusconi, in my opinion should be considered very seriously the idea of \u200b\u200breforming the justice system that seemed to emerge. The agreements reached it seemed the prelude to the separation of the careers of judges and the division of CSM in two separate bodies. Probably unrealistic in my way of thinking, a leftist should find their models in great historical figures of the Left, and not as a reactionary Gelli who precisely in his plan of "democratic renaissance" was about the separation of careers.
to finally go to events closer to the present day, to give honor to the leader Massimo is the question of the Unipol case. In summary, at that time have attempted three scales: that of the Corriere della Sera by Ricucci, that dell'Antonveneta by Fiorani and the Unipol by Consort. According to the wiretaps, entrepreneurs, now on trial for insider trading, have been joined by parliamentarians to facilitate the success of these illegal operations. In particular with regard to the escalation of the Unipol DS Latorre and D'Alema in the front row, they would find agreement with the UDC Bonsignore MEP for concorresse with its shares reached a 51% owned by Unipol, creating and making a deal with Consort so that they could go beyond 30% of the shares without launching the takeover bid, tearing out the rules of the market.
To be fair it must be said that these former members of the DS is not entered in the lists of suspects. But why? Why parliaments (European and Italian) have not granted permission to use such interception against the parliamentarians themselves. They used their position to escape justice, then. Just like Berlusconi.
knew the various D'Alema, Latorre, Fassino, that insider trading is a crime? They knew then that they were supporting a criminal? They knew also since the three scales were closely linked, that Ricucci was probably climbing the Corriere della Sera as nominee of Berlusconi handed over the newspaper he manages to shift more acclaim in Italy?
do not need a ruling of the Supreme Court to denounce the political and moral defect underlying these behaviors. It does not serve a sentence in order to demand the resignation of politicians in that respect. Pulpit from which Mr D'Alema is allowed to talk about the moral question?
conclude with the fall of Prodi II. Veltroni, the new secretary of the Democratic Party declares its intent in favor of a bipartisan agreement on changing the electoral law. The direction is toward bipartisanship, which would mean elimination from the parliament of all the small parties. Berlusconi seems available for reform, but in the meantime he promises Mastella, leader of the smaller Union and hence the most threatened by such an electoral law, twenty deputies and ten senators in the next legislature if the government did fall. Mastella and running the government, in its most delicate phase, it falls. Berlusconi did not keep its commitments nor Veltroni (the electoral law will remain unchanged) or with Mastella.
I question arises. But people like D'Alema, who was able to impose a politically dead man as Rutelli's candidacy for the City of Rome (lost), which almost forced his mouth for the Puglia Region (as they would have probably gone to meet a defeat), which has refused to shackle in a totally undemocratic the opportunity to participate in the latest primaries the Secretary of the PD, where he had placed his dictatorship of thought when he made the unfortunate choice Veltroni on the electoral law? Because in the most delicate phase of the Prodi government, has done yet another imposition by preventing Veltroni to make certain proposals suicide? Perhaps they are able to impose only the choices that damage the left?
If the government had still a bit right 'probably would split the right, which probably contributed to the premature death of Berlusconi's political. But again, it was not.
D'Alema is certainly not responsible for the immorality parliament, but would seal its end probably that of many MPs who have to clean only clothes.
released e-book version of the new book THE CENTRAL RISK Francesca Maria Severi. The file formats epub, and requires site www.basileatre.eu and allows full use of the text, complete with index, search for the application of Apple iPhone, iPad and Itunes. And 'Just order the' e-book through your mail and recorded on I-tunes the response file will automatically be loaded into "iBooks" of Apple. 
