by Alessandra Cardone
ROME, Dec. 2 (Xinhua) -- Italian analysts appeared divided, quite as much as common citizens, before an upcoming and controversial constitutional referendum scheduled for Dec. 4 in Italy.
All news outlets overflow with editorials, analyses, and forecasts, in a last effort to make the crucial points of the reform at stake as much clear as possible.
At the end of a hot campaign, both sides -- those in favor of the reform, and those opposing it -- have called in their experts to try and win the highest number possible of floating voters, still estimated at between 15 and 25 percent of the electorate.
At least two factors can explain such climate. Firstly, the reform represents the most substantial change to Italy's constitution since its inception in 1948, and would deeply reshape the country's profile and legislature. Secondly, the future of Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, and of his cabinet, much hangs on its approval.
The parliament has already approved the constitutional reform law, yet the citizens' final response will be definitive. They will have two options: to confirm it, or repel it, as a whole.
The major change would be the demotion of the senate into a smaller assembly in charge of regional affairs. Currently, Italy's two houses have equal powers, and bills have to shift between them, and be approved in an identical text, in order to become laws.
If the reform is confirmed, the so-called "perfect bicameralism system" will end. Senate's seats will be cut from 315 to 100, and senators would lose the power to bring down the government, and vote on major national issues.
According to Christian Blasberg, PhD, Lecturer for European Integration History at LUISS University in Rome, this reform aims most of all at stabilizing the government.
"One of Italy's main problems has always been the instability of its governments. The country has seen some 68 cabinets in approximately 70 years, since after World War II," he said. "This has to be changed in order to give the government at least an increased chance to last for an entire legislation, which means for the five years from the election of one parliament to the next one."
Asked instead about the potential weaknesses of such a change, fellow analyst Vera Capperucci, LUISS professor of History of political parties, detected at least three main flaws.
"First of all, despite the (government's) will to simplify the law-making process, the senate's new domains would risk to complicate the legislative procedure," she explained.
Secondly, senate's seats would indeed be cut to 100 from 315, but that would not be significant enough in terms of costs.
"The reduction would amount to about one-fifth of current costs, which is insufficient compared to what citizens have long called for," Capperucci said.
Moreover, it was not yet clear how new senators -- selected among mayors and members of the regional assemblies -- would in fact be chosen, according to the expert.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the Italian system would loose its original mechanism of checks and counter-powers, which was established after the end of the fascist regime in order to strengthen democracy.
"There would surely be a decrease in the balance between the various powers (of the state), resulting from the fact that the cabinet will depend from the confidence of one chamber only," Capperucci added.
With respect to costs reduction, the campaign has indeed much focused on the fact that Italy has one of the largest parliaments in Europe, and in the world: 945 elected MPs. Considering this, the suggested decrease should not be disregarded, according to Blasberg.
"The demotion of the senate was very much caused by the cost-of-politics argument, which has always been seen as very high: the cut from 315 to 100 seats means the costs actually reduce," the analyst stressed.
Both outcomes in the referendum would bring about certain risks, according to the analyst. "I see a different scenario depending on the percentage," Blasberg said. "If the No wins with a close majority, PM Renzi will probably not resign, but his government would be deeply compromised... And he would go to very early election in spring 2017."
"If the No vote wins with a large majority -- which is what I actually expect to happen -- I think Renzi will have no other choice but to resign," he said.
His colleague Capperucci saw instead two major risks in the Yes' possible victory. "In that case, the country will be rooted in a constitution that lacks a broad approval... which is a problem, since it shows the institutional system rests on a small base of consensus."
"The second risk of a Yes victory would result from the fracture the referendum campaign has left in the Italian society," she added.
On one point, however, she was adamant: a possible No victory, and the consequent rejection of the constitutional reform, would not affect Italy's membership to the eurozone. "Definitely not: I do not see any risk of Italy leaving the euro currency, in case the No prevails."
"It is true an anti-euro front has lately grown in Italy, as well as in other countries, as a result of the economic crisis and of the economic policies (of austerity) of the European Union," she said. "Yet, I see no true relationship between the referendum, and the issue of the euro membership."
