Constitutional dynamism

I didn't vote in the referendum on the constitutional reform. I was abroad, and I was honestly glad to have a good excuse for skipping yet another buck-passing circus put on by our disastrous poli-tricksters. This riffraff, held back by their own limits and by the partisanship of their camps, can't agree on fundamental issues. They reduce everything to the usual polarized brawl and condemn the country to institutional collapse. These mediocre incompetents can't handle the hot potatoes, so they toss them to the citizens. I'm not burning my hands on them.

If I had voted, I might have gone with no. Not for the bogus reasons put forward by the opposition, which is as guilty on this issue as the majority. I'd have voted no because I know I'm not qualified to answer a question meant for experts.
What I really didn't like was the reasoning (and I use the word loosely) of those who urged a no vote because our constitution is a perfect, infallible, eternal creation that therefore must not be touched. Ever. No matter what. Where do these people live, in a bubble?

First of all, the framers, aware that their work was only the beginning, wisely built in a mechanism for amendment. So anyone who is opposed to constitutional reform on principle should at least have the balls to take it up with those whose praises he only pretends to sing.
Second, the original text belongs to a specific moment in history. The world changes constantly, and over the last century it has done so at a dizzying pace. Believing that a constitution drafted at the end of the war could withstand, unchanged and monolithic, the geopolitical, technological and social upheavals of recent decades is delusional.

Take the opening line: Italy is a republic founded on work. First off, it was never clear to me why work of all things. Why not dignity, or self-fulfillment, or the social and cultural development of individuals? But fine, say that back then, straddling monarchy and republic, with a country to rebuild, a bit of motivational propaganda was understandable. Still, does an article like that seem to make sense today, when anyone's job could be taken by new technologies? I mean, should Italy be a republic founded on work done by Gemini or C1-P8?

And that's just one example. Many of the articles could prove inadequate in the face of constant change. The constitution isn't a besieged fortress to be defended. It's a tool that has to stay in line with the current state of national and international affairs. If those change and the text no longer fits, amendments become necessary. But some people parrot slogans that mean nothing, and shout them too, without even asking themselves whether what they're saying is even legitimate.
Truly disarming, disappointing, and deeply depressing.

Drafted from Italian with Blog Translator, then revised by me.